Supergirl pilot has leaked and it's absolutely terrible

[AgedGrunt]

So you're trying to argue against the void by mentioning entertainment with female leads which btw happens to be the vast minority?

I'm not arguing "against the void", nor do I have any delusion over the lack of strong female leads. I said it's been done successfully, and that the target audience argument is weak; it's a fact that good stories, production and casting will be popular with everyone.

The problem with your fallacy is that the movie with a female lead has to be really really good to be both convincing and successful.

It's not a fallacy to say that a movie has to be good for people to respect the characters and immerse in the story. It doesn't have to be movie of the year good, but Aeon Flux, Electra, Catwoman and Domino Harley proved quality is more important than quantity. Kill Bill, on the other hand, is iconic (though I have nothing good to say about Tarantino, personally).

This is the same awful fallacy that SJWs when it comes to comedy. They always mention Amy Poehler or Tina Fey and "forget" they're the vast minority. You're basically both using exceptions to the rule as the example to prove that the exceptions are the rule. Which is preposterous.

The problem with citing Amy and Tina isn't that they're in the minority, it's that they're not funny, along with many women in comedy. But that might sound like I'm saying that men are exceptionally funny today, yet I get the urge to set fire to a television whenever I have to listen to crime dramas, the Big Bang Theory or Bob Saget narrating.

Amy and Tina have nothing on Jane Curtin or Jenna Fischer. Heck, both of their shows (Third Rock and The Office, respectively) had stellar casts of men and women. When something is good, it's believable, and if it's not then nobody will want to see it. I didn't care for Jessica Alba in F4, but then I really didn't care for the movies because they work like temporary tattoos, only the nice thing is you don't have to live with them for longer than two hours.

That said, I've no idea what you're talking about, but it's a misunderstanding.

Is there a reason we can't have both?

The point was, to have one you need the other. If the industry is producing a lot of expensive crap, then it's not getting anything right, so whether or not the protagonist has a vagina is irrelevant.

 

[Cicada 5]

So you're trying to argue against the void by mentioning entertainment with female leads which btw happens to be the vast minority?

I'm not arguing "against the void", nor do I have any delusion over the lack of strong female leads. I said it's been done successfully, and that the target audience argument is weak; it's a fact that good stories, production and casting will be popular with everyone.

The problem with your fallacy is that the movie with a female lead has to be really really good to be both convincing and successful.

It's not a fallacy to say that a movie has to be good for people to respect the characters and immerse in the story. It doesn't have to be movie of the year good, but Aeon Flux, Electra, Catwoman and Domino Harley proved quality is more important than quantity. Kill Bill, on the other hand, is iconic (though I have nothing good to say about Tarantino, personally).

This is the same awful fallacy that SJWs when it comes to comedy. They always mention Amy Poehler or Tina Fey and "forget" they're the vast minority. You're basically both using exceptions to the rule as the example to prove that the exceptions are the rule. Which is preposterous.

The problem with citing Amy and Tina isn't that they're in the minority, it's that they're not funny, along with many women in comedy. But that might sound like I'm saying that men are exceptionally funny today, yet I get the urge to set fire to a television whenever I have to listen to crime dramas, the Big Bang Theory or Bob Saget narrating.

Amy and Tina have nothing on Jane Curtin or Jenna Fischer. Heck, both of their shows (Third Rock and The Office, respectively) had stellar casts of men and women. When something is good, it's believable, and if it's not then nobody will want to see it. I didn't care for Jessica Alba in F4, but then I really didn't care for the movies because they work like temporary tattoos, only the nice thing is you don't have to live with them for longer than two hours.

That said, I've no idea what you're talking about, but it's a misunderstanding.

Is there a reason we can't have both?

The point was, to have one you need the other. If the industry is producing a lot of expensive crap, then it's not getting anything right, so whether or not the protagonist has a vagina is irrelevant.

I'm really not sure what your point is. The people who are asking for female led shows and films aren't ignorant of the fact that these shows need effort put into them to make them good as well. Why do you think there was so much disappointment in that WW pilot.

 

[Pinkilicious]

It's to make it that gender isn't an issue eventually. That's going to involve acknowledging it as an issue in the here and now.

Of course, that's not to say whether or not this particular show did it well.

Are you saying that pointing to bad behavior in a preachy manner is really helpful in making gender a non-issue? Because it's not.

Bad preachy plots in media do two things: Supergirl is going to both get defended by blind identity politics types, along with being decried as token and stereotypical. When instead they could have made a strong character that acknowledges the issue simply by being a strong, well rounded, upstanding character who doesn't focus on their gender as some sort of handicap. Examples of good values are what add to the common good and help us get past stereotypes, highlighting the stereotypes reinforces them.

Malcolm in the Middle =D
that's a great example of it done right. I'm sure 90% of the audience groaned at seeing a disabled black kid as being pandering to a tertiary demographic. But then he wound up being one of the strongest characters in the show.
Of course, the craziest thing is he couldn't actually exist in the modern climate...The difference between old and new third-wavers is you can't even ACKNOWLEDGE the disabled exist now, or else you're 'painting them as unique, and therefore 'different,' and therefore you must be making them different to mock them. They cannot be drawn in a comic, aside from the Extra Special Problem Anvil issues that nobody likes, they may not be viewed on any TV series, they may not have an important role in games. (see: the outrage over a similarly disabled character in MLP) Alas poor Derpy, ye never got the chance to properly grow and show you were just as good as any other pony. If she'd just been left alone for a season more, she'd probably have been able to strut her stuff just as well.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I'm really not sure what your point is.

The point was, to have one you need the other. If the industry is producing a lot of expensive crap, then it's not getting anything right

Or instead of looking at what doesn't work, we could look at what works today.

Compare Laura Prepon from That 70s Show to Orange Is The New Black. One of them has all the necessary qualities of a superhero while the other (really, the entire show) is degenerate semi-masturbation material. Doesn't matter; people flocked to it, not so subtly interested to see Laura be an aggressive lesbian. I'll note OITNB was created by and stars mostly women, and they appreciate what they do.

How about 50 Shades of Gray? What did that go, 20x platinum in sales? Doesn't exactly help establish that women can believably star as the next John Wayne or Captain America when women themselves don't seem to have much interest in it, but then I also don't see why we need gender quotas for anything when women are not as interested as men at something.