Captain America: Civil War, reviewed

Yes, I'm the last person on the face of the Earth to see the ruddy film, so sue me.

So, the premise of Civil War begins with a mission in Nigeria that goes sideways and wipes out some civilians. The UN sees this as a good excuse to shackle the Avengers to their whims. US Secretary of State General (ret) Thunderbolt Ross is in charge of the arm twisting.

Meanwhile, a little grey man named Zemo is manipulating things from behind the scenes. First, Zemo attacks the UN conference for the Avengers agreement, framing Bucky "Winter Soldier" Barnes for the attack, making the world a suddenly much smaller place for him to hide.

And then, we're off to the races.

Now let's look at this for a moment, shall we?

This isn't even everybody.  There were twelve characters on screen. And, much to my surprise, each and every one of them had a character moment. They had screen time that made their appearance worthwhile. Some of these people were only on screen for about 5-15 minutes (sorry I'm vague about the time, but I didn't look at my watch once during the entire 2:30 running time).

And keep in mind, they introduced two new heroes. We'll get into both of them in a moment, but think about how much work had to be done here. This wasn't a Captain America film, this was an Avenger movie. And the best part is, there was no SHIELD, no Infinity Gems. And the bad guy was more of a MacGuffin than an antagonist.

The Russo brothers proved that they can take over for Joss Whedon's seat as the directors of Phase 3 of the Marvel universe.

About the villain: I am surprised that they changed the character of Zemo from the comics. He was not at all affiliated with Hydra. I was thrown by it. I was also thrown by the fact that, after a bombing, he did very little in this movie. It was all about thinking, and chess, and playing people. And people were played very well. It almost makes me wonder if he planned the opening scene as well, just to set the events in motion. He was a spymaster. Just a grey little man with nothing special except a plan. It was like George Smiley versus the Avengers, and he almost won.

Team Cap

And the bit players. Yeah. They were fun. Hawkeye didn't steal large parts of the show again, but he came close for a few scenes. Vision and the Scarlet Witch had surprisingly good chemistry on screen, even if, well, he's a robot dressed in a sweater (yes, really). Sharon Carter contributed nice little moments, but didn't feel shoe-horned in. I expected her to have a larger part of the film, but maybe later.

Also, notice, this had Ant-Man. I even liked Ant-Man. There was some good bits of business with him which boil down to spoilers. So moving on.

By the way, remember in Winter Soldier when Peggy Carter brought all the feels? She kinda does that again.

Black Panther And .... 

Meet prince T'Challa of Wakanda. He made his introduction into the MCU with this movie, and he was done surprisingly well. When he is brought into the situation, he is driven by vengeance, and he's also obviously royalty. He carries himself like a king, and you will respect him like one, or he will rip your throat out.

Interestingly enough, at the end of the day, he was the sanest one on the battlefield. I look forward to him having his own movie.

Of course, the other one people talk about is ....

Yup. Back to Spider-Man. Sony and Marvel studios came to an accord after they badly mishandled Amazing Spider Man 2.

However, I can say with all honesty, I like this one. Especially scenes where he's bantering with Tony Stark.

Marissa Tomei as Aunt May is probably more realistic (consider the ages for a moment, you'll see what I mean. Aunt May should be 46, watching after a 16 year old. Not much older. Rosemary Harris, while accurate to the comic, was probably older than she should have been).

Also, this exchange.

Parker: You know that really old movie, The Empire Strikes Back?
War Machine: How old is this kid Tony?
Stark: I don't know. I didn't carbon date him!

I'll take it.

At the end of the day, this was a totally character-driven film. There's plot, but this one relies heavily on the characters. It is the end result of multiple movies coming to fruition. And it never slowed down. And I never looked at my watch once.

Best Marvel film to date. Hands down.

And props for making certain that this image was in the film.

SPOILERS

Now, a few things: Last time I had this conversation, after Age of Ultron, I called a few things. Some things weren't that hard to guess. That they brought up Bucky killing Stark's father is not a surprise. I didn't even believe that they made it a "twist" in the film. Was anybody surprised by that?

Blowback happened from the Hulk's rampage in Age of Ultron. Also not surprising.

And of course, the Disassembling of the Avengers. Called it. But then again, not surprising either.

Tell me that last note to Stark wasn't a note from Chris Evans to Marvel fans. "If you need me, call"? Pretty much what Evans said about retiring ... except for Marvel films.

Strong Female Character Problems

You have probably already seen this Rogue One: A Star Wars Story trailer, but in case you missed it, here it is.

This inspired the question among some friends of mine: what the hell is it with these really freaking tiny women adopting the "strong female character" trope?

Now, if you've read my novels, you know that I have no problem with strong, kick ass women. I've defended against that stupidity from feminazis often enough. Look at my defense of women in military science fiction. Or my article on SFCs. Or when I beat up on the idiocy of Tor writer Liz Bourke.

On the other hand, there is a major problem with the Strong Female Character that's being used lately. Because, sorry, when I create a woman character who is ALSO a bad ass, I also make certain that these women are either a) not a size zero, or b) fighting in creative, indirect ways.

Why? A few reasons. To start with, even among well-skilled (and equally skilled) male fighters, the bigger fighter is probably going to win -- the odds are nearly certain. There's a good reason that Loki rarely, if ever, directly engages with Thor -- Thor has got at least fifty pounds of muscle on him. Depending on the comic, the Joker is not squaring off against Batman and exchanging punches most of the time, because Batman is twice Joker's weight.

Hell, if you have two pro-wrestlers, how many of them fight exactly the same? When you get out of different weight classes, the changes are extreme. But you're not going to have a 5'6" wrestler like Rey Mysterio take on the 6'11" Undertaker in a direct fight -- the smaller wrestler will be bouncing around the ring like a ping pong ball, and trying to catch him is a pain in the ass. Small people fight different than bigger people. Simple as that. If you're small, you go in, strike something critical, then get away from them as soon as possible. If you're big, you close with the opponent, and crush them.

So, why are women being treated so much differently than men in this area? Seriously, there are weight differences between men, but somehow, all women are allowed to fight exactly the same way as men in media, even though women are naturally 50-100 pounds lighter.

Granted, in some cases, this works -- when these well-trained kick ass females are going up against untrained hoodlums, there is no contest. That's superior skill versus brute strength. I'd take a dozen marines with handguns versus three dozen MS-13 members armed with SMGs any day of the week.

But, somehow, as I go through my collection of media, which grows larger with each passing day, the kick ass woman are getting smaller, and their opponents (many of whom are supposed to be of equal talent and ability) are getting bigger.

For example, look at Jaimie Alexander, who is basically playing Jason Bourne on Blindspot -- who can kick the ass of almost everyone she comes across. She is possibly better known as the Lady Sif in the Thor films.

Okay, yes, she's very pretty. But I didn't pick this photo for the underwear value. Look at her arms. Now look at her legs. Where's the muscle? She's 5'9", but she's also a toothpick. I am never happier than when she's using weaponry, because her shooting someone feels more believable than her bringing down a 6'3" thug with her bare hands.

Enter the other 5'9" female bad ass who has spent her days swinging a sword.

Yeah, I know Xena is a stereotype, but please look at these two actresses, and riddle me this, Batman, which one looks more believable in terms of being able to hold her own in general?

She's not a toothpick, she's not "a guy with breasts," and she had this bright light in her eyes right before she wiped the floor with everyone in a berserker rage, and she looked like she was having fun. (Yes, I'm ignoring some of the later seasons. I think I ditched the show somewhere around the time she met Lucifer ... or when she was crucified by Julius Cesar, after having only met King David ... yeah, that show hurt my brain after a while).

And even after all you do the compare and contrast in build, why are the "strong women fighters" straight-up brawlers? When you consider that not even all men fight like this, why are all women fighting like this? Are the stunt coordinators that stupid? (Unlikely). Or are the directors and writers? (That's where my money is).

Hell, the closest we have to a Lucy Lawless type these days is Adrianne Palicki. She, sadly, was wasted on a Wonder Woman pilot from David E. Kelly (seriously, who allowed the lawyer show guy to make Wonder Woman?), and is currently being wasted on Agents of SHIELD.  People who have better things to do with their lives might recognize her as Perkins from John Wick.

Note, from this photo, three things.

1) Her body type is not "Toothpick."

2) She is 5'11" in body armor.

3) She is holding an improvised weapon, because people who fight have weaponry.

Thank you. Was that so hard?

Frankly, I think I would have preferred her to being Wonder Woman in the films than Gal Gadot. Why? Because Wonder Woman was many things, but never a toothpick. Heck, I would have even taken Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter), who is 5'7", and not a size zero.

Does anyone remember Antje Traue from Man of Steel? I mean, look at this woman.

Oh wow, look! Muscles!

Height? 5'6"

Can we have her in some of these films? I know everyone in Star Wars is British, but still, can we make an effort here, people?

Seriously, Hollywood, what are you doing to get these toothpicks as actresses? It's very offputting. There's "thin" and then there's "good God, please eat a hamburger, I'm expecting you to break."

This is why, at the end of the day, the most believable kick ass woman in current  media is, well, Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow. Why? Because despite her being 5'3" (yes, she's that tiny), she's 1) not a toothpick and 2) she fights in so many varied and sundry methods and styles, she never takes someone on directly and / or bare handed. She's jumping on people and breaking necks, or dropping them with a gadget, or just shooting them.

Hell, remember Black Widow in Avengers, where she just stood square against Hawkeye and exchanged blows with him? Of course you don't, because it never happened. She jumped all over the place like a freaking rubber ball, and catch her if you can.

Don't get me wrong, there are places and points where not only should these smaller women be used, the can, and have, been used WELL.  Black Widow is brilliantly and intelligently executed. Remember Rey in The Force Awakens? She was tiny, short, and the managed to be victorious in her light saber duel because she fought smart -- she spent most of the fight strategically maneuvering to better positions, using her environment, and was fighting a partially trained Sith who had already been shot with the SciFi equivalent of a howitzer.

Frankly, the best points where getting these tiny, tiny women to perform great feats of strength is, really, science fiction or fantasy. Whether it's the Bionic Woman or Summer Glau as a Terminator, or Buffy the Vampire slayer, it's impressive because they're so small. Supergirl is fine, because, well, she's a freaking alien. But this isn't how normal people operate.  Hell, Buffy was supposed to be stronger than your average bear, and she still jumped around all over the place.

Why is Buffy the Vampire Slayer better executed than some of these more "serious" thrillers, like Blindspot?

(Hell, I'm actually surprised that Jaime Alexander isn't better built, considering she has to carry what looks like at least twenty pounds of plastic armor in the Thor films. I didn't expect her to be that tiny.)

For a moment, let's look at my books ... with normal characters, because I'm not counting the vampire as "normal." That's covered under my "science fiction and fantasy" exception.

(Though I should note, Amanda Colt is not the toothpick Jaimie Alexander. I think I would rather have Scarlet Johansson, if she were a little taller. Anyway...)

If you haven't read / don't recall The Pius Trilogy, I have three women who have gotten into fights.

Exhibit A) Wilhelmina Goldberg: Five-feet tall (really 4'11") Goldberg is a computer nerd. She used to work for the NSA, but went over to the Secret Service to audit security, since she's not tall enough to jump in front of Presidents. Her fights included: punching someone in the balls, and dropping low and cutting their Achilles tendons.

Exhibit B) Maureen McGrail: somewhere around 5'9 (because I don't recall), imagine Jaimie Alexander with about thirty pounds of muscle on her, and a broader frame. She's ridiculously over skilled. Even though she has more black belt levels than Chuck Norris, her fighting style boiled down to: attack joints, attack eyes, and deflecting, rather than blocking attacks.

Exhibit C) Manana Shushurin: 5'7" or so. Also insanely well-trained. Her primary form of fighting?Shooting people in the head. Yes, really. She may have gotten into three actual physical altercations in the entire trilogy, but most of the time, she just shot her enemies. Because bullets are your friend.

Seriously, at the end of the day, can we have a collection of characters and actresses who look, well, healthy? I'm tired of the cliche. It's getting problematic, and the execution is getting more and more lazy as things go on. At least in the Thor films, Alexander's Lady Sif is covered in body armor to bulk her up. But in general, the actresses seem to be getting smaller and shorter, and becoming more like empty-handed, bare-knuckle brawlers. And it really needs to stop.

Flashback blog: Strong Female Character Syndrome

Yes, today is the last day of voting for Sad Puppies 4 nominations. Yes, I know that this is a thing that can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities. And yes, I'm recycling a blog. Why? Because time. And radio shows. And because I fisked this latest one in October. And I'm having heart palpitations just thinking about SP4, okay? Just vote or read, please.



I believe it was Stuart West who told me in private correspondence that he appreciated how many strong female characters I have. I was a little thrown there because it took me a moment to figure out what he was talking about.

In my novels, I have Manana Shushurin, who's a spy that's more James Bond than George Smiley.  She reads, likes music, has a degree from Wittenberg university .... has no social life, and technically, lives with her mother (technically, I say, because she really lives in her office). She also has a secret that's eating a hole in her life.

I also have Maureen McGrail.  She's an Interpol detective, local Dublin cop, relentless, tenacious, and she knows about three martial arts.  She's also pining for a guy who came into her life, swept her off of her feet (just by being himself, really) and disappeared, without showing even a hint of romantic interest in her.

Then there's Wilhelmina Goldberg, who is 4'11", computer nerd, daughter of two esoteric languages nerds. She likes science fiction and fantasy, programs her computer to talk like characters out of Lord of the Rings, and has a subscription to Security magazine.

In context, I should point out that Stuart was using the strong female character comment as a segue into a completely different point, an issue he found in my writing. (Apparently, I shouldn't be putting in bust size as far as describing a female character.  I neglected to tell Stuart that if I knew anything about clothing, I would probably include men's jacket sizes to paint a clearer, more accurate picture of them, too. But I don't know any men who are the sizes I need. Me? OCD?  Nah....)

In any case, the SFC term struck me, and stuck with me.

And then there was this article, entitled I hate Strong Female Characters.  If you read through it, you might find a few points to agree with, and a few problems.

Now, I agree with the author on the initial point.  I also have problems with the SFC label. I really do, because it tends to detract from, oh, the point. In the example they used of Buffy-- she was smart, witty, with outside the box solutions to non-vampire problems (shall we start with the fertilizer bomb in the high school, or the rocket launcher?).  But "Strong" is the only descriptor one can come up with?

In my own work, I spent so much time on developing characters like Manana and Wilhelmina, their quirks and habits and hobbies, that I feel a little awkward if the best description anyone can come up with about them is just "strong."

Though you want my problem with this author?

May the stupid be with you -- Tor on Star Wars, Supergirl and Marvel

Tor, will you people stop being morons for five seconds? Please? That way I don't feel compelled to school your ass?

First, I saw the article on how "Supergirl is a metaphor for Being a Modern Woman," but you know what? I decided to not fisk it from orbit because it was just so stupid.

There's spin, and then there's using the stupid as an alternate energy source.

Especially when I got to the part of "In almost every scene, the Supergirl pilot is about a woman falling short of expectations, usually set by men." ... Except that the most belitting she gets is from her female boss.  Sorry, you have failed this review, this article, and, well, life. Thanks.

But hey, Supergirl is fighting men. And nothing can be good because men exist. And ... tell me how Tor isn't misandrist?

Second, I saw an article literally entitled "Is Marvel Shying Away From A Black Widow Movie Because They Know They’ll Never Get It Right?"  Which is funny because I just saw that Marvel announced a Black Widow movie within the last three months. So congratulations, Tor, you done f**ked it up.  A lot. Again, yet still, already.

Uh huh ... yeah, the entire thing boiled down to the Black Widow "controversy" a few months ago. In short: They're just fretting that Black Widow won't be a feminist movie, because they think their own narratives are the only ones that should be told.

And then, I read through their article asking if Star Wars fans should forgive The Phantom Menace, and if we should.

You know what? That's the point where I realized that Tor is a worthless piece of crap.

Follow this logic, if you can.  The article on Phantom Menace states that at least an hour should be cut from the movie. An hour. After cutting that, you get a tv episode. Maybe less.

And, after going through everything wrong with The Phantom Menace, the article cites a few things that were good about the movie .... and that's it. The article then uses those few breadcrumbs as proof that Star Wars fans should get over ourselves, and seems a little offended that we haven't all ready.

In fact, there is as least one section of the article that states that, well, The Phantom Menace is canon now, and if you don't like it, you can't really be a fan of Star Wars, now can you?

Welcome to hipster-fascism, ladies and gentlemen.

Fisking Tor's Strong Female Character

Oh, Tor.com, how I have missed your endless douche-baggery. You have once against decided to talk about Strong Female Characters.  Considering how you nimrods totally botched women in military sci-fi, I suspect this will not end well.

Every now and then, I come across a blog post or an article about Strong Female Characters. (Sometimes several come along at once.) 

Of course you do. You're Tor.com. Don't you guys write half of them?

Often with the capital letters, usually decrying a simplistic reading of strength. True strength, these articles argue, goes beyond mere skill at arms and a sharp tongue. True strength encompasses so much more than shallow kickassery and badass posturing.

Um ... you know that those at least help, right? Emma Peel pulled that off with style.

And "shallow kickassery" ... so, what? Because Krav Maga is simple and straight-forward, it's shallow? How about something overly complicated and flowery like Tae Kwon Do.  Are you being anti-Semitic, since Krav is an Israeli self defense system. Are you against Israel now?

I joke, of course ... we all know that Tor.com thinks that all kickass bits of business is shallow, because true strength comes from understanding the rapist and the ax-murderer, right, fellas?

Well, you know, I’m not likely to argue with that case. 

Of course you're not. After all, you schmucks went after Joss Whedon, trying to call him a sexist.  We know that Tor is shallow.

Strength, and courage, and virtue—notwithstanding its very manly Latin etymology—encompass more than surface-level traits. 

Um, one, you had to have a disclaimer on virtue? Really? Why not issue a disclaimer on the Cardinal Virtues too, while you're at it.

And how nice, you think that virtues exist.  Wait, you mean they're not subjective, cultural, completely anthropological?  Or are we just going to go into Lefty virtues?  Any bets? Place your bets, folks, place your bets.

But I do find it interesting how this argument is almost always applied to female characters. How many posts and articles decry the shallow sorts of strength of the thriller hero—seldom sketched in more than two dimensions—a strength that can generally only be demonstrated by his competence with violence, his willingness to defy authority, and his occasional ability to make entertaining banter? 

Funny, I'm reasonably certain that the Tor article that slandered Baen authors pretty much did exactly that. Also, that stupid article on SFCs from a few years back -- for example, dismissing James Bond as a pure psychopath (which I'm not arguing, I like Bond less and less as time goes on). Come to think of it, half of the NY Times articles are highly, highly dismissive of thrillers, thriller authors and thriller characters.

Agents of SHIELD, a roundup

This is every blog done on Agents of SHIELD thus far. Yes, I know I did a roundup in the article the other day, but this is backup, someplace one person can go and say "Okay, let me run the checklist."

In the beginning, I really thought that there was room for improvement. Plenty of room, lots of improvement.

By mid-season, I was starting to wonder what the bloody blue Hell is going on on this frigging show!

When Forbes chimed on on the situation, they dismissed "those nitpicking nerds crying over wanting a tie-in show." That's when I took Forbes out to the woodshed and I beat them over the head with their idiocy.

Then I discussed how the show got better after Winter Soldier came out. Because they were allowed to actually have a plot.

Then it ended with Samuel L. Jackson as the deus ex muthaf*&ka himself, Nick Fury.  In short, the last sex episodes were kinda fun.

And I declared that Agents of SHIELD no longer sucked.  Yay! We're doing spy crap on a spy show!. And having comic book characters on a comic book show!  Wow, who would have thought?

Meanwhile, over at The American Journal, I had a conversation about the ten reasons why Arrow beat the ever-loving crap out of AoS.

Later, I tried to tie Agents of SHIELD in with the rest of the MCU, or at least see where it was going.

And I gave it an offhand positive review middle of last season.

And then there was my overall look at season 2 with some thoughts on what I know of season 3.  In short.... it may not suck.  Eventually.

Agents of SHIELD, Agents of Suck or Agents of Meh?

The TV season is almost back on, so I figured it was time to start my review of, well, last season.  And I decided to start with my usual punching bag, Marvel's TV show Agents of SHIELD

Until I went looking, I didn't know how much space Agents of SHIELD had sucked up on the blog.  I really didn't.  It pissed me off so badly, I've blown about eight blog posts, and God only knows how many words on this.

In the beginning, I really thought that there was room for improvement. Plenty of room, lots of improvement.

By mid-season, I was starting to wonder what the bloody blue Hell is going on on this frigging show! Sexual relationships with actors who are 22 years apart?  Ick. Just ... no.

Meanwhile, over at The American Journal, I had a conversation about the ten reasons why Arrow beat the ever-loving crap out of AoS. And I had to cheat to expand the reasons why AoS had anything at all to offer.

When Forbes chimed on on the situation, they dismissed "those nitpicking nerds crying over wanting a tie-in show." That's when I took Forbes out to the woodshed and I beat them over the head with their idiocy.

Then I discussed how the show got better after Winter Soldier came out. Because they were allowed to actually have a plot.

Then it ended with Samuel L. Jackson as the deus ex muthaf*&ka himself, Nick Fury.  In short, the last six episodes were kinda fun.

And I declared that Agents of SHIELD no longer sucked by season two.  Yay! We're doing spy crap on a spy show!. And having comic book characters on a comic book show!  Wow, who would have thought?

Later, I tried to tie Agents of SHIELD in with the rest of the MCU, or at least see where it was going.

And I gave it an offhand positive review middle of last season.

In short, it's been a fairly long while since I mentioned Agents of SHIELD.  I had more to say about it when it was a just plain crappy show that I wanted to become interesting.

So, what happened in Season 2?  Spoilers, if you care.

Agent Coulson starts rebuilding SHIELD after the events of The Winter Soldier, using tech and facilities of the old SHIELD, but rebuilding the personnel.  How we can have anything left over from the old SHIELD if Winter Soldier spilled those secrets all over the internet?  No idea.  Presume that Nick Fury had secrets he never put in computer files, and that only he knew about -- secrets that include Coulson's continued, postmortem existence.

Granted, for this to work, it must include every old, Peggy Carter-era facility, as well as several helicarriers that Coulson has in store for Avengers: Age of Ultron. But that came later.

So, those are the plot holes for EPISODE 1.

Guest post: Joss Whedon, Sex, and Monsters: A Fan's response.

Marina Fontaine is a friend of mine. We ran into each other on Facebook, and I think she might be one of my bigger fans.  When the stupid hit the fan with Joss Whedon last week, Tor joined in on the stupid, because, well, Tor. 

As Tor is one of my favorite punching bags, I considered bouncing up and down on them like a trampoline.  

When Marina said "I'm so tempted to fisk this article," I said "Want me to host it on my blog?"  

And so, a guest post, fisking yet another stupid Tor Article.

****

First, a word from the dark side...


Avengers: Age of Ultron is about a lot of things. The film is a conversation about monsters, gods, what is right, what is wrong. Ultron is a monster, by our standards, but he thinks of himself as a god. Is Tony a monster for creating him? Will Steve ever be able to leave the war behind? Will Hawkeye ever finish the dining room?

So far so good. We want our stories, especially those told in the form of blockbuster movies, to be about a lot of things. We want big ideas, something to think over and discuss long after the end credits roll and the bucket of popcorn is emptied. And if some of those big ideas are intercut with personal quirks of the characters, so much the better. Best characters, those that stay with us, are portrayed as complete human beings, whether or not they happen to have specialized skills or super powers.

The biggest question that my friends and I have been discussing, however, is what we’ve all already started calling “The Black Widow Monster Scene.” There are several ways to interpret the exchange between Natasha and Bruce, all of which seem valid, in my opinion. But I specifically want to examine how this scene functions in the context of Joss Whedon’s overall work, and the popular perception of Whedon as a feminist writer. Simply put: let’s look at how often Whedon has relied on this trope of a woman’s power or uniqueness or, yes, monstrosity, being inseparable from her gender and sexuality—why, in Whedon’s stories of women’s power, does their strength and talent always need to be bound to their bodies and biology?

Well, now. Thank you ever so much for allowing us to interpret a scene in several ways, but you in your infinite wisdom will now tell us what we SHOULD think anyway. Personally, I think anyone claiming to divine an artist’s intent, especially in context of work from decades ago, is stretching literary analysis well beyond its limits, but hey, it’s a free country (for now). Examine away.

To begin at the beginning, in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie, Buffy’s role as the Slayer is immediately sexualized, as Merrick explains that her terrible menstrual cramps are an early warning system that vampires are nearby. (And this is why Slayers have to be female.) Whedon’s film script was heavily rewritten, so it’s entirely possible that this was not one of his original plans for the character, but since it flows so well with the rest of the Buffyverse wrestling with sex and death, I’ve always felt it was probably one of his ideas. This concept was mostly dropped in the show, but the connection was reflected and echoed in other moments: it’s Buffy’s loss of virginity that triggers the return of Angelus; Willow explicitly compares her PMS to Oz’s monthly lycanthropy in “Phases”; and Faith tends to celebrate a successful slaying session with random, somewhat violent hookups—which later causes some emotional fallout with Xander.

I have to admit that the original Buffy movie is not fresh in my mind. Menstrual cramps reference never made it into the show, and one would think that if Whedon really loved the idea, he would have worked it in somehow. After all, he had seven seasons to play with ideas, new and old. Be that as it may, my first reaction as a fantasy fan is, “Hey, this is pretty clever. Take something that is biologically already there and is normally somewhat of a handicap and use it as an additional power to give the Slayer.” Also, I don’t know about you, but when I think about menstrual cramps, sexualization is pretty much the last thing on my mind. But, whatever floats your boat.

Moving on to the other points, and now I will get a little nit-picky, which I think is fair, considering the source.

The return of Angelus is triggered by the fact that Angel has sex with Buffy and achieves total bliss. Said bliss is not caused by Buffy losing her virginity, but by Angel engaging in passionate, satisfying sex with the woman he loves. Later on, Faith tries to seduce the good-again Angel to bring back Angelus. (On the spinoff Angel show, he is eventually able to have sex that is less passionate and not quite as satisfying with a woman he just kind of likes, with no adverse effects.) Personally, I think Whedon is simply using a tried and true horror trope of “sex=trouble” rather than anything much deeper. But in any case the big payoff involves Angel losing his soul, and if one wanted to make social commentary there, it might as easily have been “for men, bliss equals sex; how very primitive of them.” If anyone is defined and controlled by sex or lack thereof, it’s Angel, not Buffy.

Willow’s comment to Oz is part an awkward joke and part her trying to show empathy (hey, I know how you feel!). Willow is still in her suppressed, shy stage at that point, and this is the best she can do. In other words, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Faith, at least the version of Faith we first meet, is a gloriously amoral creature, and of course it shows in her sexual conduct. She takes anything she likes, be it shiny things or sexual pleasure, with no inhibitions, proudly and gleefully. It’s mostly a shorthand indication that we’re dealing with someone lacking inhibitions, with sex being only a consistent part of the overall character. We are back to my “complete” characters comment at the beginning. Whedon does that. It’s a good thing.

Marvel After Age of Ultron

UPDATE 2: Every time I look around, there are more characters.

UPDATED: The Cast of Civil War has been confirmed and tweaked accordingly.

So, what's next?

Yes, we've got the upcoming movie list, but what can we expect to see, given what's come out thus far?  Obviously, there will be SPOILERS from Age of Ultron, so if you're like one of three people who haven't seen it yet, this blog post is NOT FOR YOU.

THE RETURN OF DOCTOR ZOLA

Yeah, remember him from The Winter Soldier?  When last seen, the former Swiss Hydra scientist was stuck in a 1970s supercomputer.

In the comic books, Arnim Zola was in his own mechanical body, usually appearing in a giant television screen. If only there was a way to put electronic brain patterns into a robot body....

Oh, wait.

I think that some of the Marvel movie people might be able to fit that in.  Somehow.  Just a guess.

For those people who have said that Zola was blown up in The Winter Soldier ... you're new to comic books, aren't you?

CIVIL WAR IS COMING

For those of you who have read my disasters to Marvel at, you know that the Captain America: Civil War storyline and the movie will have little to nothing to do with each other. There aren't nearly enough heroes to pull that off.

In a post-SHIELD and post Age of Ultron universe, superheroes aren't going to be the most popular people in the world.  Thanks Tony, for pissing off the planet.  Hulk trashed Wakanda, so he's not too popular either.  It shouldn't be too hard for the "World Council" (who gave SHIELD orders to nuke Manhattan in Avengers, and seemingly wiped out in Winter Soldier) to convince world governments to pass something against superheroes.

HOWEVER....

It is far, far more likely that the majority of the "Civil War" elements will be between Captain America and Tony Stark.  Why?  Because it was implied in The Winter Soldier that Hydra killed Tony's father. Who, exactly, was doing all of Hydra's wetwork at that point?

Oh, yeah.  Captain America's good and dear brainwashed friend, Bucky, the Winter Soldier.

Joss Whedon, Misogynist .... Really?

UPDATE THE THIRD: Tor agrees with me about why Black Widow unnerves them. Otherwise, they're as hysterical as the rest.

UPDATE: Joss has said he wasn't chased offline by the psychos. However, the psychos are still there, they still said these things. So this still works.

UPDATE: I think Sarah Hoyt has a great post on this topic, even though she doesn't mention Joss Whedon once.


So, Joss Whedon was harassed and harangued off of Twitter for not being sufficiently feminist.

No, this is not a joke. This is not a prank. This is a real event.

Black Widow is not amused.

Apparently, Joss Whedon has made a lot of statements that has outed him as someone who wouldn't like ... well, me (a member of an organized religion, and who is generally pro-life, and a few other tidbits in there).

This is the point where everyone asks: What The Hell Goes On Here?

After “Avengers: Age of Ultron” debuted in theaters Friday, some people harassed Whedon, since Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) was portrayed as a “damsel in distress.” Naysayers labeled him a “hypocrite.”

Uh ... huh.  Yes. Really. That happened.

Also....

“The Avengers’ Black Widow Problem: How Marvel Slut-Shamed Their Most Badass Superheroine.”

What?  Somehow, Black Widow uses her charms as a weapon, and that's .... what?  Really?  Why does my brain hurt so much?

(Before someone refers to Renner's and Evans' jokes about Black Widow, that wasn't what the article was about .... also, I expected ScarJo to come out and list the male-sluts of the Marvel Comicbook Universe, which include Hawkeye, Iron Man, and Daredevil, but that's just me)

Normally at this point, I would say "spoilers," but it's not, really. Black Widow was in as much jeopardy as everyone else for most of the movie, and she was held prisoner by the bad guy for about .... five minutes?  Maybe less.  She then proceeds to kick ass throughout the rest of the entire film.

And it can't be that Black Widow doesn't have a Marvel film, Joss is one of many people (Matt and myself included) who wanted a Black Widow movie, was pissed that he couldn't get one.

Does everyone remember the first Avengers, where she was tied up .... only because she wanted to be, just to make the bad guy think he was the one doing the interrogating? She even pulled that on Loki.  She tricked the Norse god of trickery.

Seriously, people, how do you get more badass than that?

There really should be a meme somewhere for Black Widow: outsmarts spies, gods, stops interstellar armies, hacker, martial artist ... Really, we're getting to the point where Black Widow has a skill set that matches whatever the threat level is.  Normally, that would be a Mary Sue, but she pulls it off so well.

Just look at her CV for a second.

Wipe the floor with a dozen human hostiles, check (Iron Man 2).

Go toe-to-toe with an alien army?

Check.

Did anyone else notice that Black Widow saved the world in The Avengers, while everyone else was basically in a holding action? Yeah. Really.

Black Widow, legs spread ... before she garrotes someone.
Get your head out of the gutter.

But Joss Whedon is a misogynist.  Riiiiiiiiggghhhhhttttt.

As for slut-shaming ... how?

She's teased Captain America about his lack of a dating life, while not actually making any moves on him.  Even kissing him was a matter of avoiding surveillance.

There were no cues in The Avengers that she was throwing off with Hawkeye (for good reason, as we will discover).

She actively disliked Tony Stark in Iron Man 2.

From what I can tell, over the course of four films, she hasn't had any actual social life, and has genuinely used her "seduction" skills on one person for real.

Come to think of it, even on a spy level, she hasn't actively flirted with anyone as part of a mission.

There is also the theory that, well, Black Widow is beautiful.  She is stunning. She is strong and capable and ... there are some women who will happily tear down other women, just because.

However, if you want my REAL thoughts on the matter, it involves politics ... yes, again. Why? Because I think we're assuming that the people who brought out the torches and pitchforks against Joss Whedon are entirely rational. But what brings out the crazies on twitter like nothing else? Politics.

Because on the one hand, Joss Whedon's Avengers films, and even his Firefly movie, are all war films. Have you ever noticed that?

If I were a politically minded nutcase who saw everything through the lens of politics, I could even say that Buffy was conservative because the season 3 finale was about how guns save lives, even issued to high school students. The season 4 finale was not only a war story, but the entire season was about how big government was inept, while small, private institutions can get the job done!

Yes, it's a little insane insane, but so's accusing Joss of being a misogynist.

If you apply this line of thought to the Avengers film, these points are even worse -- cops and the national guard help in the all out war against Loki's Chitauri, the individuals are saving the world while the big bad world Council is trying to nuke Manhattan, and in Age of Ultron, the film opens with individuals cleaning up a massive world threat of Hydra. There's Hawkeye's little socially conservative secret.  Captain America isn't a douchebag but he's a soldier, and America, and grrrrr.

Maybe they're pissed off because the Scarlet Witch wasn't given a pep talk by Black Widow about "sisterhood is strong." Would that have satisfied some of the nutters out there? Maybe not

There's also one other subject that can make some people go bat guano insane.

There are some real SPOILERS coming up ... now.

Review of Avengers, Age of Ultron

UPDATE: The Novel Ninja has a review as well

The Marvel Universe is back, baby, and it is awesome.  Ignore all those reviews -- the one that says "oh, this character is mopey" or "WWWAAAHHH SUMMER MOVIE!!!! CORPORATE FIAT!!!!" (looking at you, NY Times).

This was just plain fun.  And we've had a dearth of fun at the theaters lately.

Let's start someplace simple: If you have been following Agents of SHIELD, you saw Coulson and Co find a mad scientist named Baron von Strucker, who is in possession of Loki's scepter from Avengers one -- but then, you knew that if you hung around at the end of The Winter Soldier, so same difference.  We open in the middle of a full-on Avengers attack on the final Hydra base standing.

Enter Wanda and Pietro Maximof, "the twins" of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. These two are oddly charming ... okay, he's oddly charming, she's a little off, but that's fine, so's everyone else here.  The attack goes off without a hitch, and the scepter is recovered, it's millah time.

Unfortunately, before Thor just takes the scepter away, the resident mad scientists get to play with it, and that's when things go crazy.  Due to mad science and Heinlein's law of technology, Tony Stark finds that the scepter, and the jewel within it, are the key to his ultimate goal, an AI to protect the entire world in a post-SHIELD universe.

Unfortunately for Tony, the scepter has its own ideas. The result is Ultron, a killer robot who runs on snark and hatred. First, he will destroy the Avengers, and next, THE WORLD. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

And the execution? Flawless.  In terms of the overall narrative of the MCU, it fits wonderfully.  At the end of Iron Man 3, Whedon said "NOW what am I going to do with Avengers 2?"  He then picked up the ball and ran with it, since Iron Man 3 also gave him his solution (not the Mandarin, the "House Party" protocol from the film.... you'll see in the opening how Tony uses it to supplant SHIELD to some extent).

Whedon also weaves in everything from the previous movies. The House Party from Iron Man 3. Thor is still on Earth after the events of The Dark World. Falcon swoops in to discuss "our missing persons project" with Captain America from The Winter Soldier. And, of course, we have a further discussion of the infinity gems, from Guardians of the Galaxy. It ties up and ties off everything from the rest of phase two, and starts leading into phase 3 nicely -- probably a direct lead to the next Thor film. Whedon is also going in for world building.  Because the world is being built, and Captain America has the nails. It's the end of the movie, and you're going to like it. You really are.

Now, some of character bits of business.  Along the way, the Scarlet Witch will be playing with the heads of our heroes, and she really causes the entire movie to happen, just by playing on the fear of "What if I can't save everyone?" and we go from there.  The mind-screwing isn't harped on too much, just enough to slow everyone down at the appropriate moments -- but, it doesn't slow down the film. In fact, messing with Bruce Banner's head leads into, well, smashing stuff.

Avengers: Age of Ultron round 3

This? This just looks cool.

MarvelEvent Talks Black Panther and Inhumans

Help, I can't keep up anymore.

Over at The American Journal, I did an entire article about the Marvel movie release schedule.

Some preliminary thoughts: One, I'm very happy that they've started releasing more than two films a year. They needed to up their game. And I think they just bitch-smacked DC into next Tuesday.

2) It's not that they thought this through enough to include the Inhumans and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) as they both tie the larger Marvel Cosmic universe to the Earthbound Marvel universe. And since Avengers 3 is going to have Thanos (see previous posts) tying them together will help.

However ... Would it have killed them to have a black Widow Movie? I know I'm not the only one who wants it.

3) It seems that, yes, despite what I said the other day, there will be a Civil War element to Captain America 3. However, the only real similarity to the premise is the title, and that there will be legislation about superheroes. It will be a global law, however, not just American. So, guess what, we're going to have Civil War without, well, a civil war. Since the "World Council" in Avengers and Cap 2 seem to be at odds with superheroes, I can't imagine that their successors will be too happy with them.

Does anyone realize that this will put Captain America at odds with the United Nations? Muahaha.

4) Black Panther has been announced. I like the character, and it should be interesting. Supposedly, he might be added to the team in Age of Ultron, but we'll see.

5) To no one's surprise, Avengers 3 is title The Infinity War. And it will be awesome.

 And I have this suspicion that it will include everyone.

6) Despite previous reports, Benedict Cumberbatch has not been confirmed as Dr. Strange.  I just want him on screen so he and Robert Downey Jr. can be on the same screen at the same time.

7) Again, according to the schedule, 2018 will have Avengers: Infinity War Part 1, THEN Captain Marvel, THEN Inhumans, and in 2019, the end of the Infinity War.  Does anyone else think the 2018 movies may all happen at the same time? Or perhaps conclude at the same time?  Just a thought.

For the schedule proper, again, check it out at American Journal.

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

We spent a lot of time on Captain America: The Winter Soldier last week. At the end of the day, how did it turn out?

Pretty darned good, really.


I'm pretty much in accord with the Novel Ninja, or Howard Taylor.  However, I disagree that while the villain is simple, I don't even think we need to have his motivations. It's a long story, but self-explanatory when you see the spoilers below.

Some things not mentioned in either review.  There is the return of Peggy Carter -- yes, the British love interested from the first Captain America. And it is possibly one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the entire film. And that was from the first twenty minutes. I seriously hadn't expected tears from a Marvel film. Really, I hadn't.

I'd like to know how much money did they pay Gary Sinese to be the narrator for a Captain America exhibit at the Smithsonian.

If you thought that Nick Fury didn't have much to do in the other films, or wasn't all that much of a badass, this is the movie where you get to see just how many people it takes to get the drop on Nick Fury. Answer: more people than the bad guys have at their disposal.

Also, they had a GREAT setup for Avengers 2, as well as Cap 3, while maintaining its own self-contained main plot. There might also be a Black Widow spinoff, and maybe one other.

And the Falcon? Totally awesome. He steals every scene he's in, and might have been able to steal the movie. I also loved how he knew what Steve Rogers was thinking solely on the basis that they'd both been in war zones.

Also, Agents of SHIELD is screwed.

SPOILERS AND CONFIRMATION OF SPECULATION.

How much did I get right last week?

Nick Fury doesn't stay dead. Color us all shocked. In fact, I think this film might be a setup for a Nick Fury movie, where Sam Jackson can say the line "Screw you, David Hasselhoff."

Black Widow kissing Captain America is about surveillance. Check.

Robert Redford as bad guy? Check. Is he the Red Skull? Nope. He is HYDRA, however. Because this is Captain America. Like Hellboy, there are always Nazis.  Yes, he is talking to the Winter Soldier in the trailers.

There was NO Red Skull in this movie. At all. But Dr. Zola does make an appearance, and that was interesting.

We have a little bit more of Black Widow's backstory in this film, but not a lot. The movie continuity still has Natasha as a member of the KGB, but ScarJo is 28. When the USSR fell, she was SIX. I felt I was stretching it when Manana Shushurin was involved with them at age ten.

Yes, Agent 13, who is only identified as "Sharon," has a part to play in this movie. Though it's not as big a reveal as I thought it would be. Seriously, I expected it to be a surprise twist, and not so much.

Dissecting the Winter Soldier trailers

Well, yesterday was a little long-winded, wasn't it?

Today should be a little shorter.... yeah, no, probably not

Here’s my rundown of stuff you can draw from the assorted promotional materials.

Some of these are SPOILERS, you HAVE BEEN WARNED.

And some of these are ... well, they are MAYBE spoilers, bit and pieces collected from what we know of the Winter Soldier plot (covered yesterday) and the Marvelverse at large, and just plain old-fashioned speculation.

So, SPOILERS and SPOILERS...maybe.

In the words of Heath Ledger, here ... we .... go! [below the break]

Who the BLEEP is the Winter Soldier?

So, this week comes writing a series on Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

First things first, here, from beginning to end, are the videos we’ve seen so far.

First is the initial trailer, from back in October:

Then the Superbowl trailer, with a cameo by the creator of The Winter Soldier, Ed Brubaker.

And TV Spot #1.

And another spot with the phrase "Fury's last words." Sam Jackson still has several contracted Marvel films... and Nick Fury has more life model decoys up his sleeve than an army of Phil Coulsons, so....

Then a clip that apparently spoils the end of the film.

Followed by a ton of Black Widow. I approve.  I heart Redheads.

Marvel UK's "Three Days of Captain America"

Then... even MORE Black Widow.  I want a movie, and I want it called "Black Widow: Budapest."

So, if you want to know what exactly all this is about, and why a lot of people kicking around the internet are interested in this film, well, let's take a look.

SFCS -- "Strong Female Character Syndrome."

I believe it was Stuart West who told me in private correspondence that he appreciated how many strong female characters I have. I was a little thrown there because it took me a moment to figure out what he was talking about.

In my novels, I have Manana Shushurin, who's a spy that's more James Bond than George Smiley.  She reads, likes music, has a degree from Wittenberg university .... has no social life, and technically, lives with her mother (technically, I say, because she really lives in her office). She also has a secret that's eating a hole in her life.

I also have Maureen McGrail.  She's an Interpol detective, local Dublin cop, relentless, tenacious, and she knows about three martial arts.  She's also pining for a guy who came into her life, swept her off of her feet (just by being himself, really) and disappeared, without showing even a hint of romantic interest in her.

Then there's Wilhelmina Goldberg, who is 4'11", computer nerd, daughter of two esoteric languages nerds. She likes science fiction and fantasy, programs her computer to talk like characters out of Lord of the Rings, and has a subscription to Security magazine.

In context, I should point out that Stuart was using the strong female character comment as a segue into a completely different point, an issue he found in my writing. (Apparently, I shouldn't be putting in bust size as far as describing a female character.  I neglected to tell Stuart that if I knew anything about clothing, I would probably include men's jacket sizes to paint a clearer, more accurate picture of them, too. But I don't know any men who are the sizes I need. Me? OCD?  Nah....)

In any case, the SFC term struck me, and stuck with me.

And then there was this article, entitled I hate Strong Female Characters.  If you read through it, you might find a few points to agree with, and a few problems.

Now, I agree with the author on the initial point.  I also have problems with the SFC label. I really do, because it tends to detract from, oh, the point. In the example they used of Buffy-- she was smart, witty, with outside the box solutions to non-vampire problems (shall we start with the fertilizer bomb in the high school, or the rocket launcher?).  But "Strong" is the only descriptor one can come up with?

In my own work, I spent so much time on developing characters like Manana and Wilhelmina, their quirks and habits and hobbies, that I feel a little awkward if the best description anyone can come up with about them is just "strong."

Though you want my problem with this author?

1)  "I want good complex characters!"

.... And then, let's focus completely on Buffy, because she's the STRONG character.... and ignore Willow, who saves the day repeatedly, but is physically as strong as your average anemic? Faith, who's as physically strong as Buffy, but a broken character? How about Cordelia, who starts out a vacuous California mean girl, and becomes more interesting within the first half of season 1? Anya, who goes through a fairly strange character arc of her own?

And, while they're talking about complex characters, they boiled Buffy down to only "SFC." How about witty? Smart? Creative? The example used in the article was the end point of a two-episode arc exposing just how vulnerable Buffy really is. Yes, she's got superpowers, but she's still a teenager, with all the problems that comes with it, in addition to waging a constant war against everything that came to kill her, swallow the Earth, etc. The author managed to ignore the entire point of a two-part story!

Who demands good complex characters! and then ignores them when s/he gets them?  If this article had said that the "SFC" label shoved a character into a box and left them there, then I could agree to some degree.  But this author seems to be guilty of doing just that.

2) I want a 1:1 ratio of complex characters, male and female! 

The author prattles on about Peggy Carter of Captain America: The First Avenger, complaining that she was unbalanced and cartoonish, making a lot of assumptions.


The author mentions that Peggy Carter shooting Captain America's shield is a temper tantrum that no guy would have gotten away with. Obviously, this person never saw the 100 generic Stupid People Tricks that are on cable, and mostly male.  The author assumed that in firing, Peggy had been too stupid to not be listening to the toymaker Stark prattle on about his cool toys for however long she'd been in his general orbit. The author also assumed that no one in the entire room knew that the shield was bulletproof-- which is kind of like people in Q's lab not knowing to duck on a regular basis.

The author then insists that this "over-the-top" reaction is because she's one of two women with a speaking part, and there be more women on screen to counter stuff like this. (Which is odd, since I counted four -- which included a grandma with a tommy gun, and a SHIELD agent at the end of the film).

My real problem?  First, the author makes these above assumptions and then kvetches that they could have shoe-horned in more women. Why? Just to shoe-horn in more women. So we could have a 1:1 ratio of women in the film. Really?

Hey, maybe we could have put in more cardboard cutouts. Besides, if you really want equality, then Captain America: The First Avenger, was perfectly equal. There were only two complex characters in the whole film.  Tommy Lee Jones was playing....Tommy Lee Jones.... Zola was Mad Scientist #2 ... The Red Skull was Psycho Villain #6 ... Eskine was "Dr. Littleoldmun" from Mel Brooks' High Anxiety. And Stark was very much "Howard Hughes Carbon Copy #1."  Outside of the sidekick Bucky (Plucky Sidekick #9), are any of Captain America's team referred to by name?

In short, Carter and Rodgers were the only two characters of any substance in the film. This isn't a complaint. I'm sure they were plenty deep in character design, but there was little enough of it on the screen. Not to mention-- it's a movie. If you're Peter Jackson, you get nine hours of films for develop all of your character. If you're a Marvel film, you have, at most two hours and thirty minutes.  If you have two well-written and developed characters, you're ahead of the game.  I feel fortunate to have one, some days.

But for the 1:1 ratio this author wants?

Maybe this author would have liked more 2D characters. As she suggest, let's gender swap.... Dr. Zola?  So we can have a weak, simpering little woman be bullied by Tommy Lee Jones? Dr. Erskine? So we can have a little grandmother figure play the martyr?  Hey, we could gender swap Tommy Lee Jones, and have him played by Kathy Bates!  Why not have the Red Skull played by Angelina Jolie?

Now, a reasonable argument I got from Karina Fabian is from the point of view that, there were certainly a heck of a lot more women in the WW2 military than were seen in the film. There were secretaries, WACs, women who transported planes, codebreakers, nurses, etc.  That way, we could have had a lot of women.... but they would have been in the background, and probably would have completely boiled away this author's argument.

3) Women are at the back of the bus...um, movie poster, like Black Widow.

"Strong women are supposed to kick ass and keep their mouth shut." Really?

How about, oh, that Black Widow WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO OUTSMARTED LOKI?  IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE! GAAAHHHH!!!

How about that BLACK WIDOW WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD CLOSE THE PLOT DEVICE DESTROYING NEW YORK?

How about the fact that there were maybe five deep moments in the entire film, and Black Widow was in two of them (The five moments were Stark and Banner in Lab, Stark and Rodgers reconcile, Coulson, interrogating Loki, and Black Widow and Barton, post-brainwashing....six scenes, if you count Black Widow and Bruce Banner in India, giving her half the deep moments in the film).

Oh, hey, how about Sam Jackson? Maybe we should say The Avengers was racist, because he was in the back of the poster?

I'm sorry, but unless you're Iron Man or Thor, you're in the back of this poster.

4) Where's Thor?

Seriously, where's the movie Thor in this discussion?  You know, the movie that was mostly Kat Denning and Natalie Portman handling Chris Hemsworth as he was enduring culture shock? With some occasional exposition from Mr. Skaarsgard? Portman's character, astrophysicist Jane Foster, isn't "strong," in this sense, is she? Because last time I checked, most of my female friends could break her like a toothpick. Foster is instrumental in Thor's change from prick to hero, but is she thrown on the bonfires of the blogger's vanity because she doesn't come with a complete bio and genealogy?

Or does this author consider her merely as a damsel in distress?  Which would be odd, because if you were in the New Mexico town in Thor, you were in distress, up to and including the three beefy supporting characters and the Valkyrie that (quite literally) drop down out of the sky.

Or does this not count, because the end of the movie involves the Warriors Three, Odin, and Loki? Making it three more male characters on screen than women?  Do we count Freya, who tried to stopped three assassins coming to get Odin? Or because she wasn't on screen that often, should we throw her aside?

While not physically strong, I thought Jane Foster was very well written. She was the love interest, sure, but that love motivated both of them to be better.  He was motivated to be a better person, and she was motivated to continue pursuing interstellar/inter-dimensional travel.

Am I wrong? Or, as I asked, does she just not count?

Conclusion: Equality!

As I said at the beginning, I don't like the SFC label.  If you can shove my characters into a nice neat little box, I'm going to be pissy -- either at you for demeaning my characters, or at myself for making them cardboard cutouts.

I would have liked this article more if it were less obvious. It's clearly pushing an agenda -- not about creating good characters, but numerical "equality!" for "equality's" sake. By the end, I felt like I was reading a review of 300 that insisted that there should have been 150 female Spartans at Thermopylae (this is not a joke, I did read one of those).

I honestly couldn't tell you the ratio of my characters if you dared me to.

In A Pius Man, I've got Maureen, Manana and Wilhelmina named above as main characters. Is the ratio 1:1 if I include Giovanni Figlia's wife, the forensic specialist?

Is the ratio no longer 1:1 if I count the three priests in the background?

Is it all right if I have Scott "Mossad" Murphy, who can't shoot, is pale, anemic-looking, and pair him up with the sexy gunslinger Manana?  Does that make him weak, even though he will take gunfire and is a pivotal part of the book?

Does Wilhelmina Goldberg not count if she doesn't shoot anybody, but is a key part to hunting down the bad guys by the end?

At the end of the day, the SFC label is too simple. But so is reducing "equality" to numbers of people on screen and counting lines.  If you're keeping score with 1:1 ratios, exactly what will satisfy you? I have no idea.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I have to go write a scene where Manana has to save Scott. Again.