Screenwriting : The fad of "strong female characters" by C. D-Broughton

Strong female characters are not a fad. Its a way of defining the "Hero" in the film. Few examples are Spy movie, The Blind Side, Erin brockovich, Emma Thompson's Wit. In this life, people influence others and that category has two sections male & female. Sometimes its the woman's prerogative other times its the Man's world.

so strong female characters are cliche, but strong male characters are not? having we be doing strong male characters for longer? shouldn't that already be a cliche then?

Yeesh

I "dare" you to touch this one, CJ.LOL

Hm. I think it is all a question of definition and a personal thing. What exactly makes a strong woman for you is the question. IMO a Karen Blixen (Out of Africa) is a really very strong woman/character. And just because I have Meryl Streep on my mind now I even see her (supporting) character in Kramer vs. Kramer very strong. That said, I think women can be strong characters in a very calm and quiet way. Just my opinion.

Triple yeesh. FYI the term 'strong' when it comes to character (female or otherwise) does not equate to muscular kick ass ninja strength and therein lies the failure of those trying to force their way into the term. When females are treated as equals in front and behind the camera the term can be successfully put to bed. Or, when someone produces a film that I, a strong female, can relate to. There was a great twitter rant a while back from one of the mystery exec accounts that went on (and on) about how screenwriters introduce females. It was essentially a thesaurus of 'sexy bitches in skin tight attire' -- when writers can get to the heart of the female onion, then we can stop talking about it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The issue in general with female characters in my opinion, is that they can be written in often as 2D props, eye candy, objects to be rescued or lusted after... and I think the term STRONG evolved by those in the industry who see the problem and think that swinging the stereotypes in another direction is the answer. But it's not, as you point out. A "strong" female character is also now becoming it's own wicked stereotype that essentially just takes male stereotypes and thrust them upon a female character in a story (and adding a sexy outfit). I read a lot of amateur scripts, and I have to say, that I generally pull my hair out with most of them when it comes to how the female characters are written. It almost feels to me as though the writers (both male and female) are relying on their perceptions of what female characters should be based on what they have seen on TV and film, instead of just looking around them at the real women they know. Having the industry even acknowledge that there is a problem with the way women are portrayed in the media is a step in the right direction, but it's just a step. We've got a long way to go. The ability to write characters (of all ages, races and genders) without stereotyping them, is the sign of an insightful and professional writer.

I don't wish to get into the female character debate, but this topic is well timed with a discussion I was having with Beth last night. There's just so many terms in this industry that have little consensus on definition; strong female character, voice, theme, monologue, act, structure - these are all subjects where I've seen the debate spiral into semantics and contrasts in opinions always stemming from interpretations of the true meaning. The ambiguity is holding us back too much. To progress these conversations we really need to start winding back and taking in the bigger picture.

Just to further relate my point to the topic, here are some of the common personal definitions we tend to see associated with the term strong female character; 1) A female character who is physically tough. Either in the punishment they take and/or the punishment they dish out, via muscles, guns, vehicles, martial arts etc... 2) A female character who is spiritually tough. Usually getting what they want via smarts and wit and showing a fragile but managed pallet of emotion that avoids direct violence and aggression. 3) A female character who is highly multidimensional by displaying a range of strengths and traits that makes them stand out as bold, either in relation to the other characters or within pop culture. The issue is these three can be quite contrasting. Unless we're all prepared to accept each definition (and possibly more) has merit and support, we cannot have a progressive debate.

I give both genders equal attention and put pieces of me in all of them. In one way or another, all your main characters should be compelling.

I've found the trove of female-lead clichés and stereotypes at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysFemale to be most helpful in understanding the traps that many writers fall into. But then Ripley in the Alien franchise is given depth way beyond any "Rambo with boobs" stereotype, precisely because director Scott, writers O'Bannon & Shusett, and Ms. Weaver pulled together to make a character that one remembers long after the dreary creature-feature elements have been forgotten. I think that women must be cast as women, and men, men. Male-feminist writers may think they're doing the cinematic world a favor by faddishly neutering the males and spaying the females, but I'll hazard to suggest that, barring a few PC ideologues, most A-list talent would not be interested in portraying bland, interchangeable-gender characters. Vive la différence! NB everyone (except some producers) hates the disposable-female sublead that must die to ennoble the main dude. That's been portrayed since Greek tragedy days; no need to write that cr@p any more.

I got news for you. We are still in a male dominated society (especially when it comes to Hollywood green light power) which is how this 'fad' got started. As long as there have been women, they have been strong -- trust me, it's not something they have evolved into.

Hi, I totally understand where you are coming from. I completely agree that the character we write, are essentially just human beings. So it makes sense that you talk about writing them based on what type of people you need for the scene or for your leads. I think that what is going is is this: Still, in the age of technology beyond our wildest dreams and so called equality of the genders and races, as evolved as we all think we are ... we are not so. Most leading roles today are male. Not to mention the roles that are female, are often a certain type of girl: the love interest, the shy girl next door who goes through a transformation and is now sexually appealing the the male lead... This isn't the case for all by any means. I think that in cinema today, woman want roles that have more meat. They want to be the superheroes. They want to be strong. They want to kick ass and take names. Its not to say that every female role from here on out is going to be dominant and severely strong, it just means that there should be a more equal playing field on the depth and difficulty of male and female roles. Hope my scattered thought made some sense. I guess I just want to look up to characters like Celine in Before Sunrise, not Jane Foster in Thor. Women don't need to only be sexually appealing, or femme fatale, or the mothers nurturing touch. Female roles shouldn't just be a side note.

@William - I understand where you are coming from. I think that it shouldn't be the case that we write roles to fit a specific gender stereotype. So the man shouldn't have to be strong and brooding and the female sexy and nurturing. I think that human being range many emotions and personality types. I don't think that gender is really applicable anymore to personality. If we lost this ideal, maybe we wouldn't be so caught up in emasculating roles for men, or overly sexualized roles for females. Instead roles could be equally interesting and playing on the reality of how human being actually are, which is that they don't fit into a gender stereotype anymore. Men don't need to bring him the bacon and be tough. Just as women aren't raising up the kids and lifting up their skirts. We as people have evolved, and so should the way the media portrays us.

AMEN!

I believe that many people mistakenly think that a "strong female" is a man within a woman's body. A strong female is not the same as a strong male character. Strength can be measured in a number of ways. Due to the popularization of what I consider prison culture, I think strength is confused with being a bully or outspoken. In reality, which I understand we do not always write, strength is more often in those that are not loud mouth bullies. In the women I know and have observed that are strong, most often they are in the background doing the real work. But that is also true of many strong men.

I've shared my opinion about this topic quite a bit over several threads... To put it bluntly, I despise "strong female characters." Personally, I'm on a mission to convince people to stop using this catch phrase. It's patronizing. So, all other female characters are what, weak? Normal women are boring, but not this woman -- she's "strong." The problem of course is the use of an ambiguous word. A word that is automatically associated with men -- they are naturally assumed to be "strong." The phrase "strong female character" is perhaps meant to convey a well-written character, although unfortunately many do not perceive the term quite that way. I find it sad that when considering the characterization of half the world's population deciding to write them well is some sort of unnecessary extra option. That a writer is somehow better or more special because that writer decided to use this "extra option" for their female characters. Good for you writer! The other sad truth of the phrase "strong female character" is that its use is a buzz term (a bad one at that) and not a meaningful goal. When you think about it, its intent is rather a simplistic low bar to vault. Why not create a female character with her own agenda, identity and story purpose? Why not make her three dimensional? Seems logical, does it not? Is the "strong female character" a fad? I say no. What we need are MORE female characters. I want to see women in as many leading roles and varied secondary and character roles as men: female mentors, comedians, rivals, villains, sidekicks. I want to see a ratio of 1:1 not 3:1. It's not a fad but rather a necessity.

@ Beth, I am curious as to why you feel there needs to be a 1:1? Is it because you feel that there are not stories being told that should be told?

Is that rhetorical, John? Why not see a ratio of 1:1? Women make up half the population, do we not? I can't tell you how many characters I see in film/TV and I ask, "Why is that character not a woman?" Look at posters... There she is standing behind her fellow male characters. In action films the ratio is more like 5:1. I don't think it's a point of stories that are not being told that should, but rather the perspective from which those stores are told -- a point of view is missing. :)

I'm not sure there is such thing as Strong Female Character, unless she's a K-1 pro fighter. Sorry about that but Beth is right. When you write a script and if the dialogue is good and let's assume who ever directs this movie gives this role to a woman who fits the description, who is capable of saying all the lines the way you as a writer imagined, and at the same time she gets the audience's attention, then she can be called a strong female character. I know what some of you think or are about to say. "It's not your job to direct, you write the story, THEY know who to give the role to" Do they always give the role to the right person? I'm sure some of you can think of the movie where SHE was the wrong person for the role, and because of it, the entire movie structure collapsed or it came out the wrong way. And there are also cases where a male role was given to the wrong actor but female character did a great job. it doesn't matter what and how strong any of us creates if the wrong person plays the role.

In late November of 2012, I answered an Inktip ad from a producer looking for an Angela Davis biopic screenplay. At the time, I calculated that the chance of someone having a spec script about Miss Davis lying around was at best, slim. I deliberated for a few days and then spent half a day writing a logline and an outline for an AD script. The producer actually received 6 responses but contacted me and we began a dialogue. When I took the initiative of contacting Stanford University about reviewing the AD trial transcripts, the producer hired me for the project. During the process of researching and writing the first draft, I learned many things. For starters, that Davis wasn’t the Iconic Black Panther action hero I had originally perceived her to be. She was in fact, a shy, very private academic, who was a devoted Marxist and committed prison reformer. And though there is plenty of information about her public life, most particularly her murder trial, there is precious little information about her personal life. Initially, I attempted to make contact with “her people” about getting AD interested in the project. And I was told that a documentary would soon be released about her during the spring of 2013. In spite of the challenges this project presented, I still wanted to write the script. Utilizing my reading and research, I chose to craft a highly fictionalized account of her life up until just after she was acquitted. I came at it from the angle of showing Angela’s struggle to achieve both her academic and political goals, as well as her evolution as a young woman. And at its core, my script is a coming of age story; one where the protagonist eventually faces the possibility of going to prison for life. Though we became close friends, the original producer attached to this script walked away from it. I soon entered it into the Richmond Film Festival, which chose the script as an “Official Selection”. This past December, I had another producer approach me and ask to review the script. She read it, loved it and said “I’m surprised nobody’s wanted to make this yet.” I told her in all honesty, I thought it would be an uphill battle. The producer actually contacted Angela’s representative, who politely informed her that Angela was not interested in a biopic project and is content with her privacy. And though somewhat disappointed, I was very gratified that my work resonated with the producer, who was African American and a woman.

William, who said anything about sacrificing story? We're talking in generalizations; broad strokes. Just making the point that we need to see female characters as varied and as often as male characters. Your question to me makes me suspect that you perhaps don't regard female characters in the same way as male characters --- whereas I do. That's not "feminism" that's just a realistic point of view. Women are varied, complex and interesting. Why not see that better represented and more often in characterization? Perhaps a character or story would be improved upon IF that male character was changed to a female. Just saying. :)

You can't change the gender William, the entire script will collapse and I don't think any producer or the director will advice you to do that. It can't be done. This has nothing to do with under or over-represented. Look, in the beginning of any script, there's always a short description of characters in the story. JANE DO, mid 40s, long hair, a body to kill for.... Take any written script you wont and change the male character to female, read it and let us all know what came out.

William, I did say "PERHAPS you don't..." And, I'm not talking politics. Nor am I telling you what you or anyone SHOULD do or what to write or what to think. I'm talking in generalizations. Inciting thought. That's it. You seem to be missing the bigger picture here. I have no interest in engaging in a possible argument. Best to you and have a great weekend. :)

• The U.S. film industry is slow to embrace change at any level. Traditionally, it's been an industry run and managed by men, and most of its product has been films about men. That's no big surprise. Gangsters, cowboys, robbers, con artists, super heros, cops, lawyers, judges, fire fighters, business titans....yadda yadda yadda....have traditionally been men. + In many other countries and societies, women are still very subservient to men. That's the truth. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the vast majority of female roles in foreign movies are supporting characters to the male roles who are the main characters. French and Italian films seem to be the best at having female characters in leading roles, and who can forget Rena Owen's powerful role as the matriarch in the New Zealand film "Once Were Warriors?" + Since art reflects life, and since the film industry is slow to embrace change, there shouldn't be any surprises at this point in time. Even Angelina Jolie has to battle on a daily basis to get a movie made that features a strong female lead. Even Ridley Scott had to battle to make "Thelma and Louise". + Even today, most films fail the Bechdel test. I know some people don't like the Bechdel test, but it's still the best barometer for female roles. At least in the music industry, female artists are pretty much on an even keel with male artists. In conclusion, a movie script about a female lead character is a hard sell. I have two of them, and they've been hard sells. Two of my other scripts with male lead characters have brought me quite a few option offers. It's too sad that we're even having this discussion - "What a Female Character Should Bring to Your Script" - but it's still the political reality in most places. America included.

William. I did start a lot of scripts, I really did, check my profile and see the loglines. I did complete 2 GIANTS Sci--Fi, (about 130 pages each), dozens of others in development, 50-70 pages completed, and I have never once started a script without having a clear picture who the male or female role goes to. I've never changed my mind or even thought about switching gender but IF, IF someone one day approaches me and asks me exactly that, to switch gender, you do understand that comes with the price attached to such claim (if they can afford it or if it's even possible to change gender or the age of the character in the script) On the other hand, again IF some production company ask me to switch MARKET, county and city where the events take place, instead of New York or L.A., let's switch everything to London or Paris, that can happen and it probably would. Keep in mind, once you complete the script and you switch male to female, it's not just changing the names, it affects the entire script, everything will have to be rewritten, to the detail.

If there is a unique viewpoint or story not being told, I get it. To say we should just make if "fair" I am not on board. If I am making an independent film or simply writing a spec, then I am going to tell the story I have. Currently the one I have just started does have a female that is independent and somewhat isolated as it pertains to the story. She is the central character. But that is because of the story I have. If I am writing for money, I am going to write what I am paid to write about. But I started to think about the women I know in life. I see a LOT of women in my day job as it is predominantly female institution. But outside of work, when I am going to do things or I am hanging out how many women do I see? It is about 3:1 men to women. And most of these women are with their significant other. So I wonder why that is. I had an interesting answer from a female friend. I don't have kids. She pointed out that in the region that I live in, most women between 18 and 40 are raising kids. This is NOT all women, but it is a great number of them here in Ohio. So in my life I see something like 10:1 women in the work place, but only 1 woman for every 3 men in my personal life. Because of my hobbies, I actually interact a lot more with men. I no longer live in an urban metropolis like I once did in Boston. But even there my hobbies tend to be male dominated. However, I did tend to run into more women outside of work in the larger cities. That is all anecdotal. I own that. But it is from my view, and I write to the story. Most of what I have written are shorts. A number of them have quite a few females in them, but the central character is often male. I don't have a problem with more females in film. But the story has to catch my attention. I watched FreeZone the other day. Female dominated film. Great performances. Absolutely terrible film. It was a meandering film that I still am not sure what the plot really was. Of course, the first 5 minutes, yes I went back and checked, were of Natalie Portman crying. I only mention this, because if we really want to see more women in movies, this type of movie doesn't help promote the idea.

Lets take a look at the male respondents to this thread (sans one) compared to the female. Hmmmm. We may not be at 'crap hands' level -- yet but it could easily go there. Before I step away I will simply say, to toss in the term feminism is just as ridiculous as over use of the term strong female character. We are ALL in this world together, male, female, black, white, LGBT and whether anyone likes it or not, our individual stories would not be the same without the classification of the others. While those classifiers may fit nicely on a census, they do not tell the story of who we are and there isn't a damn thing wrong with wanting to see equal representation in the media -- it shouldn't even be a question, nor should someone have to defend the ideal of seeing an equal ratio of gender, race, and status just because someone formed a good old boys club that caught on like wildfire. Personally, I've never considered myself a feminist. I love men, I can hold my own with the best of them, but the difference is I've never consciously tried to fit in a man's world, I've always thought of myself as equal and just showed up, and as such I've earned the status and respect (of most). Just because I am an amazing hockey goalie, softball pitcher, pool player and have a keen sense of business and bullshit, doesn't make me any less attractive to any gender. THOSE are the roles women want to see, play and live. The sooner everyone stops harping on it and just moves beyond it the sooner it will be no longer be an issue.

Well said, Laurie. I couldn't agree with you more. :)

What's so bad about being an activist?

William, here's the thing. You asked "How often do screenwriters change a character's race when there is absolutely no reason to?" Why would you change race or gender without any reason at all? If it is done, you or I will never know or read about it. It stays within the Castle Walls. To change character's race, age, gender takes a lot of time not to mention the money. I never did it for money or just for the fun of it and I think it would be much cheaper for studio to buy FULL IP from you or me and rewrite it in way they want. I have all races in most of my scripts, Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Chinese,. As for equal number of male and female characters, it depends which script you look at. Whoever told you to add a character into a script based solely on their gender, race, etc. knows less about all this than I do, and I consider myself as the beginner. As for socio-political maneuvering activists who by the way don't belong in this business. Write your story and never worry about characters, they will appear on their own, male or female. If this trend continues, pretty soon someone will demand more children in the movies then let's say a Catholic Church will demand to be mentioned in the movie, or not to, depends what the movie is about and it will never end. by allowing anyone to dictate what to write or not to write about will end the movie industry. All this might not happen this month or this year but with the current progress, 5 years from now it'll be over. Let's say you were approached by some producer, manager or agent and they would like to talk to you about something you've written. First, it means you are good or have something good. Then thy ask you to switch male to female, African-American to Hispanic... etc . Then say NO. If they start telling you things like "Good luck finding someone to produce this script" then turn the tables around, attack their credibility, you know they would never approach you unless you have something good or potentially good. You're not holding a gun to their heads and ask them to buy your script. I'm not offended by your question, but I can't speak for everyone here. Thank you for reading all this.

CJ, there's nothing wrong with being an activist. What are you trying to change is what matters.

Laurie, I am not against equal representation. But I don't want to watch movies like Free Zone. If you have a good story and it captures me, I don't care who is represented. Why did Tomb Raider do well and Salt never get a sequel? Yes in part Tomb Raider had a video game following. But it was more than that. There have been a number of movies that wanted to show strong women and I thought they failed. The ones that got me were the ones telling a story that was about the woman or naturally had a woman play a major roll. I think Beth touched on it when she said she despised the term strong female character. To be clear, there are strong women and women of strong character. I think trying to sell me on a 12 year old girl kicking the snot out of grown men in hand to hand combat, even with a knife and martial arts training (KickAss) takes a real serious suspension of disbelief (yes that movie is a comic book, I know.) Where as selling me on a woman FBI agent solving the case for a man that wants a woman skin dress is not so difficult. I have been sitting here thinking of all the movies that didn't work for me like Deathproof segment of Grindhouse. But then you have a movie like Precious. I loved that. You have Kill Bill that I enjoyed, albeit more like a cartoon or anime. You had My Fair Lady and it's various incarnations such as Pretty Woman. ( Although I was disappointed that My Fair Lady was Americanized and she did not leave him in the end.) Then there is Fatal Attractions, Dangerous Liaisons, Alien series and Thelma and Louise. Sin City and Sin City 2, Maleficint, Most Wanted Man, Hunger Games, X-men series, Guardians of the Galaxy, V for Vendetta, all have a number of women in them that are crucial to the story and strong characters. The list goes on. I am sure it isn't 1:1. As a consumer I just want a movie that I can enjoy. If it can be done with more women, I am not opposed to it.

I think everyone (not the lovely people in this discussion) confuse strong with physical or pushy. I believe a strong female character has her own goals, ambitions and the power to achieve these. She is a decision maker and her decisions impact more than just herself. The most important thing is she must never be a male character with a female name. Men are completely different in tone and voice. My wife was a Federal Agent and she worked for years investigating and raiding brothels involved with sex slaves. She's small five foot three, slightly built and could possible kick my six foot 110kg butt. See still cries at sad things, she still expects me to open doors for her, she still likes pretty things, she gets me to open jars etc. She is still the 17 year old I met, even now at 43. She is strong, she is empowered and has agency. I think we are seeing the same thing too often. A kickass female character was a surprise, but the surprise has been done. Kickass males are expected because because big brutish males are like leaf litter in the real world. People are saying they write strong female characters because they are saying what they think people want to hear. We all want to be liked, just as Maslow.

Peter Fleming. Fair enough, part about remakes makes sense and no one will say otherwise. It's a remake and anything is possible and the studio can do it whatever they want. But, if you have a sequels, you can't change gender, if certain actors need to be certain age which they would have to be for example, The President of the United States can't be played by 28 or 33 years old actor. An Army Major without fast-track promotions, who works in Pentagon needs to be between 43 and 50, the list goes on and on. If the script is completed and let's say some studio executive asks of demands from me to add 1, 2 or 3 more characters, that's impossible to do, in this example of Major there are 8 lead characters, 3 of which are female + 4 years old girl and in sequel, there are 10 more soldiers, 3 of which are female. It's hard as it is to combine over 20 lead roles and to add more simply can't be done, it doesn't matter who tries to re-write it, me or Stephen King, the structure of the story will change and collapse. I usually don't use this many characters in the script between 5-10 in entire script, never more than 3 at the same time in a single scene but if you have a COP and the SWAT team working together, there has to be between 7-10 in scenes where the do things together. There's no way to reduce the number of characters or change gender. I'm not sure how many movies are there with 2 female members in the SWAT team an I will NEVER reduce the number of female characters or increase it because someone thinks a large number of female characters is bad or a good thing. Again, I wrote it, if studio wants to turn everything into a pile of crap, fine. Pay up, buy the script and problem solved. And my friend, I feel strongly about every script. How do you hide from that.

Craig, your wife sounds amazing and real, you are both lucky to have each other. John, mostly all of the examples you have listed stem from IP that is geared toward a male perspective/audience, which leads to the answer to Peter's very legitimate question as to who is at fault... Fact is, females will go to an action movie with their boyfriend but boys are less likely to go to something like Bridesmaids with their girlfriends. It comes down to box office -- the sweet spot is males 18-30, because 9 times out of 10 they will bring along a date. This has been the mentality and greenlight reality for a very long time and some smarter decision makers are finally opening their eyes to things like that star Melissa McCarthy or the Pitch Perfect franchise. Not that I'm saying we should aspire to those types of stories (far from it) -- but they are at least making execs realize that there is money to be made elsewhere, the same goes for the senior-based fare, The Bucket List, Last Vegas etc. The point is female stars are paid way less because of the reasons listed above. Where does it come from? Development hell, formulaic screenwriting and studio execs frightened for their jobs or who heed the marketing department's advice over good story sense. I had a female exec/screenwriting career coach once suggest I change my pen name to initials so they couldn't tell I was a female -- needless to say, I stopped working with her. So what do we do as filmmakers? That's what you see the uproar in the media that's going on, you keep putting it out there to change the mindset and as I said - you just do it. William, I don't offend -- my skin is so thick, my masseuse needs meat tenderizer to break through so no worries. But, when statements are casually tossed out that say a period piece needs a damsel in distress -- that is the Lara Croft way out. It's simply not true. The female gender has always had smart, keen and witty women who happen to look good, just as the male gender has. The damsel is the very stereotype that has gotten us into this conversation and that's what needs to stop so we can all move on and get along and tell good stories that are not dependent on gender. But when something like that is said from a male screenwriter -- well you can see where the red flags come up because it indicates the writer is falling into the old stereotype that old Hollywood propagated.

I think we can all agree that in historic work depicting a culture that didn't value woman a female lead may be hard to write convincingly. But not impossible. Elizabeth I Boudicca Scarlet O'Hara Cleopatra It would impossible a male lead in these stories. But I think if we move away from the generic while male and write characters whose understandings come from differing experience we will all be better off.

I totally agree, Peter, and I never stated the contrary. I simply stated that females have been around just as long as males. They may not have always been able to serve in the military, but there certainly were females of equal bravado, intelligence and wit, alive during these periods. Just as not all men alive in years gone by were gladiators or war heroes -- not all women were sitting home waiting for her man to taste her meatloaf. :-)

I like to think people are great. They have been for ages. For the most part. And that's the point -- there are all sorts females and males that make up the human race, good, bad and indifferent. Hollywood was built on stereotype of what was/is believed to be what the people want to see. It's up to the people to tell Hollywood what they want to see BUT as screenwriters we are the seeds of film and it's up to us to break the stereotype so the people know that we are not rehash ponies of stereotype. A perfect example is Cleopatra, mentioned earlier. She was not the slutty leader of a love triangle that 1963 Hollywood etched in everyone's mind with Elizabeth Taylor. She was a book smart (or papyrus scroll smart) teenage girl who spoke 7 languages and was the only Pharaoh in hundreds of years who bothered to learn the native tongue of the Egyptian people her Ptolemy dynasty ruled. Even though Egypt was roiled by internal and external battles, Cleopatra held the country together and proved to be as powerful a leader as any of her male counterparts of Egypt and the Roman Empire -- at the age of 15. Yet the impressions engraved in our minds is one of Elizabeth Taylor being fed grapes while Caesar massages her toes and Anthony waits in the wings. That's what needs to change and trust me when I say I am doing my part.

EXACTLY Laurie... that's what we're talking about. xo

Women in the 1950s were also spies, inventors etc. Sailors curse but so do women so yes -- if we all know that then why are we so afraid to portray that? Stereotypes are a story teller's lazy way out. There are believable and factual female cowboy characters -- they've just never been portrayed in film, in fact a friend of mine has a great script with a female vet of Iraq on her ranch in Texas, and guess what? She's a cowboy who takes down a drug cartel in a completely realistic way. That's modern of course but based on truth -- it's the thinking that it can't be possible that has to change or we will be forever in a cycle of rehashed stereotype and movie theaters will crumble to disruptive distributors not afraid to portray outside of the box, such as Netflix and Amazon.

Lots of comments on here and not to oversimplify but I think all a "strong female character" comes down to be is a character of specific gender that arcs well and unique unto self staying within the parameters of the story. IDK, just the way I look at female or male characters strong, weak, boring, simple, complex or whatever their function may be and yes there are neccessities for boring characters to counterbalance at times I believe. I love to write characters within scenes that bore me to death because they just may have the greatest and most surprising arc of all. They don't always have to be complex women characters to be "strong women characters" and have strong memorable impact. There are great stories written to centralize around women characters too. One of my favorite's is THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA.

Laurie, Was Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra really a "bad" character? An intelligent woman who knew how to use her sexuality to get her way... think about it: two of the most powerful men on the planet and one's massaging her feet whilst the other's feeding her grapes. That doesn't seem like she's "weak" to me. Okay, so maybe you would have preferred her to have shown her smarts, been dismissed by these men as a little girl until she proves she's on a political and intellectual par with them, but would that have captured as many viewers' attentions? Think about when the film was made - the fad at the time was not women kicking arse, but being "sex kittens". My point was always that all of a writer's characters should be well-written, "strong" in that sense, and not what is the current trend. Men used to think that women were hard to write because a lot of men can't - or couldn't - understand women, which is more likely the reason for men writing most of their characters to be male rather than female... and most working screenwriters were male. There's also the fact that most professions which made for thrilling storylines (i.e. police, FBI) were mainly comprised of male employees. Nowadays that's not so much the case and we have TV programmes and films with women in key roles - if not the leading one. But let's go back to Cleopatra... Historically (and no-one can say for sure), was she a "sex kitten" who manipulated men to divide Rome and strengthen her own nation's status, or was she someone Mark Anthony married just so he could have access to her armies? One of these characters is definitely playing second fiddle to the man. But then, you could always reinvent the character, have her go from immature student to woman on a par with her mentors, to falling in love with the war hero until his counter-part - either out of jealousy or in fear of Mark Anthony's military might - strikes them both down. Play around with it, see what you come up with - no-one here is saying that there's a right or wrong way to write Cleopatra, but there is definitely a correct way to set up the character for the story that you want to tell.

C.D. As far as Cleopatra is concerned, you are right in that she was written as a sex kitten for a male-driven industry and a male-driven society and that's what made it successful, but sadly it is also what got her image and story so distorted. It is also that very mindset that has resulted in projects now being pitched as strong women -- to suggest this characteristic of the female gender is a new fad that will pass so we can get back to the fad of relying on sexuality to sell tickets is what is absurd. I have nothing against expressing sexuality and anyone who knows me understands that, but women have had to endure a that's all she's good for mentality for far too long and starting at a very young age, especially when their female role models in film are glittery pink princesses. The truth of Cleopatra's life is as I stated earlier, I don't need to play with it -- it's being produced as a family film. But I can say without a doubt that EVERY male exec's first response was no, she was a slut and every female exec was, wow I didn't know that, we have to make this. Take if from a female, the correct way to set up a female character is not to start with what she is wearing or who she is sleeping with and that is not a fad.

Laurie, My original post referred to the fad of people saying, "Hey, look, I write strong women." As others rightly understood, there have always been strong women, but making the claim is currently trendy (and only seems to mean girls who kick butt). As for Cleopatra: I saw a Genghis Khan film when I was young about a man who refused to take a woman by force and respected all life; he started his conquests out of peace - he wanted to unite the clans to stop the fighting and live as one big happy hippy commune. Not really like the Genghis Khan I later went on to read about at all... The reality is that films - and Hollywood ones in particular - don't tend to paint pictures that are very "historically accurate" (a phrase that has little depth attached when speaking of personal lives, or of things that only have a few scant mentions in ancient texts). And where I see where you're coming from with being sick of seeing women portrayed as sex-objects, you have to understand that I - perhaps alone - am sick of men being held in the same regard. The problem is that sex sells and whatever's fashionable today is what we end up seeing on screen. So yeah, chest-shaven men with six packs, perfect hair, glasses only as a fashion accessory to give a character more depth... I can't be bothered going on, but it's always been this way yet it's only women who have ever complained about it; that doesn't mean that there's not pressure on men to look, dress and act a certain way to feel that they stand a chance with members of the opposite sex (and yes, even these little sub-cultures conform, it's just to their own standards).

Maybe some of us promote the fact we are drawn to writing strong women in an attempt stand out to the enormous number of female actors, producers, and directors who are desperately searching for female-centric material worth optioning. Sorry that's a growing trend which bothers you so much. Perhaps the issue really lies with yourself and the millions of other dusty old scrotally inflicted laggards who can't bear the thought of not being seen as strong by default simply because of the results of a genetic lottery.

"Dusty old scrotally inflicted laggards" I love that line and will be using it at some point in the future. (Just letting you know in case you're ever watching a movie, hear it, and say to yourself "that sounds familiar.")

"dusty old scrotally inflicted laggards"... it really rolls off the tongue. I had a yeast infection once. But that was the extent of it.

Ah, C.J., -- cheers. :-)

Finally, a belly laugh from CJ... thanks sweetie... much needed. Fighting PAN AM GAMES traffic earlier in the day. Thought I was going to kill those traffic people, that are supposed to be directing traffic... before I got home.

Philip, speaking of tongue, try to say the following but you have to say it really fast. Let me know how it went. BIG BLUE BUGS BLEED BLUE BLOOD

Hi C-D, You can't satisfy everyone..... :-(

CJ, I took a look at your bio and it seems that your ego got the better of you, but it's nice that your yes-men back you up when you get personal. I've seen a few good points on here and one bloke in particular got shot down for no reason, with his pragmatic logic basically earning him the title of a "sexist". Now it's my turn. At the end of the day, those who can read between all the false assumptions can see the valid points made, and none of those mean that I, myself, do not write female characters as leading roles, or stick them in just for eye candy when I do. If someone wants to solely write stories that have strong female leads, then that's up to him; I write whatever I feel makes a good story and my characters are designed to best suit it. My advice to others would be to do the same... but none of that matters, since CJ somehow has access to my genitalia and knows of an infection that I'm unaware of. Thanks, Lina, for the support.

It got personal the second you posted assumptions about writers who care about writing women well and wear that on their sleeve. Did it damage my ego, absolutely! I found it highly insulting to myself and many others here. As does disrespecting those who support my viewpoint as yes-men. But seriously, walk away from this conversation and try to pretend it never happened. I'm going easy on you.

CJ: audience applause I agree

Extending my arms in front of me like a zombie Yes CJ... yes CJ. Lead me where you will; for I have no mind of my own.

Reading between the lines is fantastic and something to strive for in storytelling, in reality, when a question or statement is posted on an industry-centric forum -- the goal is to have the actual lines read, digested and understood. If the words typed cannot be read and understood to the writer's satisfaction, perhaps that person should take a closer look at how their writing could be clearer. On a side note, did you know that all The Minions are male because the creator (a male) thought they were too stupid to have a female in the mix?

Laurie, I have to comment... I saw the Minions movie over the weekend and found it utterly depressing. I sat there thinking, "WHY are there no female Minions?!" And, they present us with a female super villain -- and she does nothing!! Nothing! She's trite. She's not even evil!! Her only villainous goal -- since she was a little girl -- was to be a princess!!! Are you frickin' kidding me?! All she wants is a frickin' crown?! It was disappointing at best. For cryin' out loud, Gru stole the moon!! THE MOON! And all Scarlet Overkill (more like Underkill) wants to live in a castle. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap the creators. Could you be more lazy! Could you be more reductive! BANAL!!! This wasn't just me... I heard children mumbling, "WHY aren't there any girls? If Minions appeared through evolution, over thousands of years, and not in a lab... Why are there no girls?" Kids are smart.

I agree, Beth. As a story it was very thinly plotted at best. I just thought that was an interesting comment from Meledandri, no doubt in response to some of the same concerns you've raised.

@Beth, I have seen what I consider lots of lazy writing in major movies over the years. Spider-man 3 was one that disappointed me--Peter Parker turned Venom because Sandman killed his uncle instead of the original gunman? As far as the original discussion, I believe the main goal for any screenwriter should be a strong story with strong built characters that don't change at the drop of a hat. In Beyond the Lights, a mother has her daughter throw away a trophy because it was second place. A short time later in the movie, we see where her mother has the now grown daughter playing second fiddle to some rapper? Why the sudden change in what would seem like the core of a character?

Yes, Laurie, that was interesting. Thanks for sharing. Yet again, some male writers imposed their assumptions. I'm sorry, but girls can be just as hilarious and stupid as boys. Haha! LOL! :) Fiona, sorry to have given spoilers... However, almost everything I said is in the trailers... There was one female character who was great. Menacing. The Minions hitchhike and get picked up by a villainous family. The mother was great! As far as Minions doing well at the box office -- it's because they've set up an expectation, a fan base. Believe me, we left disappointed.

C.D. Just to note, in your original post, and throughout your comments, you seem to imply that men are screenwriters; that screenwriters are only male. You seem to be only considering a specific, reductive male point of view here -- even stating "your women." Of course, I understand this probably was NOT intentional, but be careful... Personally, I took offense. I found it insulting. You talk about creating and considering all characters as people, but then you (and others) belittle the notion of wishing to see more female characters -- in leading roles and supporting roles. The fact is: people wish to create and see more female characters. That's it. I understand the irritation with those who perhaps are ill-intended and are throwing around the meaningless buzz phrase "strong female character" because they think that's what people want to hear. But, the majority of us (certainly in this thread) are smarter than that and do have specific goals in creating our characters and stories. Frankly, I would love everyone to strike the word "strong" from their vocabulary. Please! Especially in reference to women and female characters. It's become some new strange "box" in which to categorize and restrict the idea of women. Just refer to women and female characters as women and female characters. Or, talk about an independent character specifically. Stop grouping and categorizing women! Would you ever say, I create strong male characters? No. How can we get past this? By stopping the rhetoric. We are writers. It is within our power. Write effective, well-written characters! Male or female. :)

Billy, I haven't seen Beyond the Lights, but my guess is that the daughter believes she never "measured up." That she isn't "good enough." Her mother feels the same and is "punishing" her for her continued failures, for letting her down. My guess is that the daughter must rise above her mother's expectations and imposed ideals. The daughter has to decide for herself what she wants in life. That only she alone can determine her "worth" -- to hell with whatever anybody else thinks. She must be true to herself. :)

Here in Seattle we have the local WNBA team The Seattle Storm . Now they are a great bunch of athletes who do just okay (tho they presently are at the bottom of the Western Conference standings), but here's the dirty secret nobody will talk about: sports viewers don't much care for or about women's basketball. Or, for that matter, for or about any sport that is traditionally played by men. Despite 43 years of Title IX, the promoters of women's pro sports might as well not bother. The movie industry likewise often fails badly and repeatedly when it simply (simplemindedly?) tries to pull a gender-swap on lead and supporting roles. The coming Ghostbusters reboot is bound to go bust if it tries to ape the 1980's original with a simple gender-swap. To succeed, it must tell an original story based on real people & situations, not ride the name-coattails of the original. I'd suggest that male script writers, instead of finding their inner feminist to guide their writing, just run an early draft by a few actual and authentic XX-chromosome women, each one of whom has led a normal woman's life in the real world. I did so with one script and got back some pretty withering and eye-rolling replies along the lines of "Yes, but a girl/woman would never say/do that!" Conversely, when a woman screenwriter and/or director tries to write/portray a male lead or supporting character, often groans, head-shaking, and derision will be felt (if not expressed) by actual live men sitting next to their dates/spouses.

Well, as a fellow Washingtonian -- I live on Bainbridge -- I couldn't disagree with you more! I say that as a former point guard. Do you even know the sport? Perhaps if the media would actually SHOW women's sports they would find the audience who craves to watch it. Did you bother to see that the US Women's Soccer Team WON the WORLD CUP -- AGAIN! Something the US men's team has yet to accomplish. It was fantastic to watch the US team and all the other women's world teams. Alex, please don't throw around the term "feminist" because it does not apply. Also, perhaps try not to be so close-minded. We are all human beings, are we not? Sorry, I guess I'm just using my limited girl brain.

Belching on horsemeat Those nag burgers are really tasty; and the parts we use go over to the glue factory.

Methinks that thou wast too close to the action to be impartial on this point. A bitter truth, but looking at the relative revenues and whoopla surrounding each gender league, the men's world of sport dominates. Fact. And with all due respect there are such things as men who style themselves as feminists. A pathetic lot who need a little deprogramming imo. Sarcasm and false self-deprecation does not become anybody. Don't put words in my mouth. Human beings we may be, but men and women too, a point that refuses to be lost amongst us living in reality-ville. But I screenwriter for how the world is, not as I wish it to be.

CJ, Thanks for "going easy" on me (you know what I now think of you). Beth, I haven't seen Minions, but perhaps the creators just figured it would be easier to stick to all "male" (I thought that they were asexual lab creations, after watching the first film) characters than it would be to start explaining the birds and the bees to 6 year olds? As for Scarlett... Well, I don't know, but it's a kids' film and if I were an evil villain in one, wouldn't I want a crown too? A criminal mastermind a step ahead of the rest of the world's population, why shouldn't I be King, Emperor or Pharoah? Also, is it Scarlett's fault that she's just as affected by media as loads of other little girls and wants to be a princess? Would it be sexist to have a Bond-esque villain in a children's comedy film who wants to kidnap the England football team so that he can live out a childhood fantasy on playing for the Three Lions? I get where you're coming from, but I just find it a little harsh. And for whoever said it, all my characters are mine, hence they are my female characters and my male ones. I missed the point there (but don't worry, I won't be coming back to argue about it).

Just my thought, but comparing professional sports to movies is a bit off. I say that only because the reason most people don't pay attention to female professional sports is the level of competition. If they were the best athletes, gender wouldn't matter. There are incredible female athletes, but on a professional level there are few that can compete with their male counter parts. NOTE: I couldn't compete with professional basketball players of either gender. In MMA, there is a huge disparity. Because typically a female that is professional level won't last long because she has no real female competition. There is simply no one that will fight her and that is a very intense lifestyle to maintain with no real pay off. For whatever reason she either is not allowed or would not compete with males. My day job is dominated by women. And I see all extremes. From totally helpless damsel, to totally dominant in control executive. I see all types of behavior. In my personal experience, other than possibly one woman I dated (and that could just be me), women are not alien creatures. They are people in our society. I think men get stuck in stereo types trying to write women.

People (that means males and females) are civil on Stage 32 -- especially compared to some other forum sites -- but occasionally some don't get along and refuse to understand that there are, at minimum, 2 sides to every story. And then occasionally, someone blunders in and becomes known as Crap Hands which I called early on in this thread. If we want the human race to continue, males and females will have to get along for at least 20 minutes at a time. Ideally it will be longer and be for more than the purpose of reproduction but that is some blue sky dreaming if one continually demeans and underestimates the other.

Bryan, as a Stage 32 moderator and member for over three years, I can tell you it is very civil. And, yes, I agree, John, it is way off topic to compare professional sports to film. However, and please forgive me as I shall not address sports again, but I must mention that the Women's World Cup Final blew viewership records -- reaching 22.86 million American viewers. Alex, C.D., I assure you girls wish to be far more than princesses. Perhaps broaden your perception of women. From what you have written in this thread, it does appear to be limited and presumptuous. I shall not engage any further, as it is rather beating a dead horse.

Leon, go ahead, take your granddaughter if she wishes to see Minions. :) Enjoy your time with her. You two will share some laughs together. Best to you!

Well, back on topic, (screen)writers who want to write authentic characters, male, female, or whatever, had better know up close and personal real examples of both upon whom to base action and dialog. All else is up to the director and actor/actress to pull it off, hopefully as the writer intended. Ideologically driven characterizations and dialog risk disengaging everybody, from the coverage or competition reader up through the audience.

This men and women thing drives me nuts, so does the word sexist. What do we call distinction of the sexes without malevolence? While I’m all for power women, power roles and think that women can displace men in some roles what I miss is the lack of androgynous attitudes will female characters. Men and women are not equal and I wouldn’t want them to be or perform in the same function with a few exceptions but with my attitude of men and women not being equal I in no way think that one is more dominant than the other. Equality to me means that we move closer to an attitude of androgyny and has nothing to do with individual capabilities. I saw an article the other day with the headline “Why is Hollywood so sexist?” It is my belief that Hollywood, as liberal as they may be, will always want to traditionalize the perception of the ideal man/woman relationship. “Strong women characters” shouldn’t really have as much to with their character roles as it has to do with their character being as a woman. To me there is distortion in perception and thinking when it comes to labeling a “strong female character”. I reiterate it shouldn’t be about their role as a character but about their being as a character. Women are powerful beings and if you really want to capture that “strong female character” think of them in terms of such not the role or function they perform. But hey that would cause in depth and good writing which on the other side of the coin seems to be what Hollywood lacks at times perhaps that’s why the counterbalance and not wanting to lose the good interaction of the traditional man/woman relationship comes off sexist and yes there are some bad sexist attitudes but not always is sexist or sexism a bad thing from a creative aspect; personal aspect perhaps it is never good. I hope we don’t get so damn progressive as a society or media people that we become completely androgynous. I kind of like the softness, tenderness of a woman looking to their male lead in movies at times, corny or not. I also like intelligent, witty women with a soft side, corny or not. Maybe my perceptions is just based on the fact that I will always be entertained by and find the softness of a woman being that powerful being to bring any man to his knees especially when his demeanor is slightly sexist, slightly hardened and runs through the core fibers of his own powerful being. So damned I will be for being male, a man. Peace out all.

Depending on the story. . I like a good strong male or female or both. . . We all are strong. The only weak people are those who ruin their own lives. The rest of us are over-comers! There shouldn't be a fuss. It is just the take of a story. There is to much racism in this world. I miss men being men! I am all for equality. . but sometimes people themselves get prejudice within their own hurts and become so far right they are wrong and wrecking it for those who are just making a story. . Lets just love each other! These issues are so small compared to those whom are persecuted and dying for their causes. SO SMALL!

I think it's more of a lack of diversity in chosen writers that creates the fad in all areas. I love playing with the female characters in my scripts, because it's the ones that carry themselves in a way that if we were a stock we would be hot on the market, then there are those that make us cheaper than chitterlings.

Interesting post

William, you don't need to explain yourself to me and I never believed you 'blundered' but I'm sure everyone is thankful for the admission and opportunity to see what 'people' are really about.

I have been reading this and I struck me. The reason there appears to be a trend is the lack of originality in some decision makers. But it is on both side writing and production. Let's look at writing. There are some amongst us that believe that there is a secret formula separate to story. As long as you stick to the formula you'll be successful. These are the same people that think "if I have a strong female lead I'll sell a script". But from the time you cash your cheque it could be a decade before production ends. So writing for what is on screen now is going to be tens years out of date. From production pov, there is a successful film, let say the first Twilight. Strong female lead. So production dive into the list of rights they already own. They start pumping out films. They will grab hold of the most strange things. When "Down and Out in Beverly Hills" was a hit they started rename films already in production. Shelley Long's film was renamed "Troop Beverly Hills". Trends are part of human nature, hair cuts, flared jeans, cuisines etc. Once they become common we move on. I suspect that's why Marvel published the production schedule now. The super hero thing is hot. Publish the list while it is the big trend. People will make the decision to see things. They are building audience commitment now. Also publishing may prevent people from entering the competition. In summary, once you notice a trend it is too late. Interesting thread.

Leave Bella alone or there will be toys violently thrown from my pram!

Laurie, Beth, CJ and Sylvia echo the more positive aspects of this post (and also my own thoughts regarding strong female characters in film and tv. It is interesting, but it's problematic because though some people may be caught up with the word "strong" (and I think "strong" has always been a catch all for physically tough, badass, etc. and rarely is it used to describe any one who is intelligent, resourceful, etc.), once you define what the "strong" in strong female character is (and I believe people are being caught up in the "physical" conception of strong etc.), it is still doesn't address the fact that there is a very uncomfortable undercurrent of sexism running through this thread, both intentionally and unintentionally. I'm not sure if some folk are trolling in this thread when people are trying to have a non-judgmental and intelligent discussion about this. And intelligence isn't exactly found in some of the replies where people are intentionally being condescending for no reason when others are trying to have this discussion. This is a great discussion to have, one we need to have and honestly, will continue to have UNTIL we see full bodied, multi-layered and complex characters on the big and small screen.... But, while we keep having these discussions, let's be respectful of the fact that though many of you may not think it's a serious discussion, or oddly wonder why it matters, it matters to many of us for a variety of reasons.

Nicely stated, Ryan.

I prefer to look at characters being interesting and compelling -versus focusing on gender or other traits determined by birth.

@ Beth. As part of the bigger picture that relates to the issues surrounding this topic, I think the Women's World Cup brings home a big point. There are sports such as Ice skating and gymnastics where the women get a much higher viewership than the male counterpart. Do you remember the ridiculous outcry about a soccer player taking her shirt off a few years ago? I only bring this up because it is another part of the culture of at least the USA that reflects that same idea of the difference of men and women and how they are perceived in our society. But we know that even if most men or most women fit a stereotype, there are always the exceptions. We know that the FBI can profile criminals by HOW they committed a crime. Sometimes simply because of the type of crime. And we know that sometimes they are wrong (Washington Snipers). The exceptions are typically what we write about. Not the guy that gets up and goes to work for 45 years and then dies in his easy chair while watching a ball game. Forgive me as I forgot who mentioned women were/are spies. But.... Did you know that Julia Child developed shark repellent and worked for the OSS in WW2. Audrey Hepburn would perform ballet in secret shows to support the Dutch Resistance by raising money. She was also a message runner. How many women that never reached any fame did more than that? I am sure there are many. There are no limit to good stories that would feature women. But first they have to be written and then somebody has to make them. And there in lies the rub. I believe that we will see more low and micro budget content in general. So I believe the independents will be the ones with these stories first.

Thank you, John. One more to add to your fascinating list; Hedy Lamar developed the technology that makes Wi-Fi and bluetooth possible, she did so in her ongoing efforts to aid the Allied war efforts and this 'hopping' technology enabled them to successfully defeat Axis from jamming the Allied's communication.

Fiona, the Minions are male, not asexual; Kevin, Stuart, Bob, Dave, et cetera. There's hundreds of Minions. They certainly are cute and hilarious. They even dress in drag sometimes when in disguise. They have romantic interest towards anything they perceive to be female, like yellow fire hydrants. :) The reason the 'no females thing' became even more of an issue is because in this film the creators show the Minions' origin as evolution, not made in the lab as presented in the first "Despicable Me" movie. They emerge from the ocean and have been around since the time of dinosaurs -- apparently they are immortal. ALL species on Earth have two genders. Kids learn this in basic elementary school science. Or, on the Discovery Channel. Haha! I mean, babies understand there are girls and there are boys. :) What I find disappointing and causes me great concern is that the same gender restrictive ideas are being presented to children. Again and again. Girls are ignored or limited. Films keep perpetuating gender bias to kids. It's disturbing when you can easily see gender imbalance even in the silliest of movies. C'mon, it's 2015! Have we not evolved?

The even sillier thing about the animation genre (Disney in particular) is that they go out of their way to make sure the princess movies have something to draw in the boys. IE; RAPUNZEL was changed to TANGLED and the boy and his horse were touted in the promos. But the princess brand is too big for them to even consider showing another side of girls and yes it has a trickle down effect to how these young girls grow up and now it will continue to reel them in with the live action remakes of the Princesses. I have to hand it to Pixar though having the lead girl in INSIDE OUT be a hockey player.

I only just stumbled across this thread - and have skimmed the voluminous replies (for now) - and I agree that the Sarah Connor character in the original TERMINATOR has evolved over the course of the series into the take charge, kick ass woman that she is now - as it should be plot-wise - although I much prefer Linda Hamilton to Emilia Clarke - and I am greatly amused by the minions making a cameo here - especially since there is a Mike and Bob is the star of the latest movie - and that is my son's name...but for those creatives here at Stage 32 - I would hope that you are not in the narrow minded, short attention span, my frame of reference only goes back as far as whatever grossed the most money at the US box office mentality of a studio exec - and you are a fan and lover of the movies - and know that Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn and Rosalind Russell and Maureen O'Hara and so many other actresses were playing strong women in the films of the 30s and 40s., many of them written by female scribes. In fact, Davis was strong enough to tell Jack Warner to go to hell and refuse to be ordered to appear in sub-par scripts while she was indentured to his studio. Took her fines and suspensions and eventually won her release.

I have to say, as a female audience member, my least favorite female character is the "kick ass chic." I may be alone here, and that's okay. :) The "kick ass chic" may seem "empowered" and may appear to be the action hero supposedly doing things on her own terms, but peel back the layers and she's just another sexualized object created for male enjoyment -- a sex toy. WOW! She's hot and she can fight! Of course this depends on the story and the character's purpose. There are always exceptions. :) The only female action hero that I have ever seen that I loved and felt she truly operated on her own terms was Ripley in Aliens. :) I was talking about Aliens with a movie buff friend of mine and he said, "Ripley was so awesome! I frickin' wanted to be her, or right beside her fighting!" So, that says a lot. I saw Aliens when it first released in a movie theater and the whole place erupted into cheers when she delivered that great line, "Get away from her, you bitch!" I have not experienced that kind of audience reaction since. People were on the edge of their seats. Fully invested. Some even stood up, cheering! Ripley wasn't sexualized. Anyway, to Michael's point, I'll take female characters from the 30s and 40s. Bette Davis rocked! Female characters at that time were presented as complex human beings and not the cartoon-like stereotypes we often see today.

Jim, I think that Salt was otherwise the "kick ass chick". I am with Beth in that I loved the Ripley character. Noomi Rapace in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a character I liked. But that might be because I actually know someone like that. I literally visit her each week in prison. There are a ton of female driven stories in there. Most of them are pretty horrific. There are a number of "bad choice" stories, but even more with a "fatal flaw or weakness" stories.

Yup, as I said, there are always exceptions. :) Yes, Salt was good. Evelyn Salt was not sexualized. However, I totally hated Tomb Raider. I thought Lara Croft's breasts should have had their own character mention; also starring Left Breast and Right Breast. lol! What I also liked about Salt was that they accounted for her size and how she fought as a woman -- not a man. Plus, it wasn't overly stylized. It was raw, smart fighting. More believable than most. She wasn't a super hero, she's a human being. She's about 110 pounds fighting men who are twice her size. I loved that to make up for that difference she fought dirty and would launch herself off of walls to get more momentum. She also got the crap beat out of her -- she wasn't "pretty" or perfect. Unlike Lara Croft, a video game character, which of course, is marketed to men. Notice how they have redesigned Lara Croft now, she looks more like Katniss but still is sexualized.

Oh, don't get me started on Fast and Furious! LOL! :) And, I have to kindly disagree. I see overly sexualized female characters today. Sexualized is sexualized in my opinion. There are no degrees or levels. It just is what it is. :) I only mentioned Tomb Raider because some male contributors to this thread mentioned they thought it featured a good female protagonist. Perhaps I misunderstood them... But, clearly Lara Croft isn't. Well, at least, I feel that way. She fits my "kick ass chic" to a tee. :)

I apologize for using the term "kick ass" in my post. I fell into the descriptive trap left by some who preceded me. But I stand by my comments about Sarah Connor in the original movie - and Linda Hamilton's portrayal of her. She was indeed a scared witless waitress being stalked early on (and rightly so), but by the end - she was that haunted figure - alone in her Jeep in the desert with her dog - having survived the Terminator and his relentless assaults (and managing to fall in love on the run and become the mother of mankind's savior. Pretty strong.) I, too, am a HUGE fan of Ripley in ALIEN. Sigourney Weaver essayed an iconic action hero for the ages. Tough, smart, appropriately afraid. That was a spine tingling suspense movie. For me - ALIENS was even better - that rare sequel which improved on the first (thank you James Cameron) - a war movie in outer space with non-stop action. Ripley at the forefront once again - and don't forget - her equally clever and industrious sidekick - Carrie Henn as "Newt" who was more resourceful than the grown ups and certainly far less afraid of the things that were going roar in the dark. Tremendous bit of movie making. I've never seen a Lara Croft movie - but judging by the trailers - I'd have to agree with Beth on that. And SALT is another favorite of mine. Might stretch credulity a bit with some of the stunts (falling off of overpasses onto moving semi-trucks) - but Angelina Jolie pulled it off and than some. And remember - with very minor rewriting - she took over that role from its original intended star - Tom Cruise.

And to Beth - a fellow BD fan - empowered women were written for decades - even in the comedies. One of my favorites - "Pat & Mike" - co-written by Ruth Gordon (with her husband Garson Kanin) in 1952, had Hepburn playing an athletic savant (Based on Babe Didrichson Zaharias) who was managed by Spencer Tracy. A terrific character. And it also had one of my favorite movie lines of all time - spoken by Tracy as he watches her walk the golf course, "There ain't a lotta meat on her - but what's there - is cherse".

John G. - Lisbeth Salander - "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" - was a terrific character as written in the novels upon which the movies are based. The screenwriters had a very strong blueprint to work from - and didn't screw it up. Noomi Rapace in the Swedish original and Rooney Mara in the remake both brought her to life and did an incredible job.

The Fast & Furious series is an equal opportunity crap fest - insulting to both its male and female characters. As well as the collective IQ of its audience.

I think that Sarah Conner was perfectly credible in the original; I especially liked the fact that she was a lousy waitress; it showed that she was not meant for servitude and hinted at the leadership ability she was forced to develop by way of the later crises; in many respects, a perfect "hero's journey." As for the later Sarah's -- Of course, as the story evolved, so did her character, and the films began at a new point in her development. I only saw the first two, but they seemed credible enough also. I agree, however, that in most circumstances, male and female heroes face the same challenges, apart from gender specific ones, e.g. bearing and birthing children, etc. Incidentally, I'd to cite two more female heroes that serve as good examples: Pam Grier in the "Coffee" series, and Sigourney Weaver in the "Alien" franchise, in both cases, the first films.

My all-time favorite female role still goes to Rena Owen in "Once Were Warriors". Maybe because it's such a great tragedy, or because of her warrior pride and strength, or because she's not a superhero in a movie that needs you to suspend disbelief. Maybe because of her enormous range, or because it taught me something about another culture, or because I just love her as an actress. I love a lot of great movies, strong actresses, and great roles, but that is my favorite female role of all-time. Rena Owen is one of the best of all time. There are so many....Meryl Streep, Jodi Foster, Kate Winslett, Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett, The Hepburns, Bette Davis, Barbara Streisand, Ingrid Bergman, Shirley MacLaine, Lauren Bacall, Diane Keaton, Mae West, Judy Garland, Natalie Portman, Sally Field, Sandra Bullock, Olivia de Havilland, Reese Witherspoon, Halle Berry, Jean Arthur, Liza Minelli, Natalie Wood, Angelina Jolie....the list goes on and on....

My script is the grittiest with going over the top. Plz do yourself myself and your production company. The opportunity for GOLD.Don't just take my word for it take a quick look.

Dru, I noticed you have posted the same comment within several threads -- that is considered spamming and is not tolerated on this site. Please delete your comments or be reported for spamming, which could result in your suspension from Stage 32. Thanks.

I mentioned that Tomb Raider was more successful than Salt. For reasons beyond the pre-built gaming audience. But the marketing for Tomb Raider from game conception was to males with excess hormones coursing through their veins. Salt, my only real complaint was the driving via taser and the future husband being at the prisoner exchange.

Michael, please, no need to apologize! :) I couldn't agree with you more about Fast and Furious. Have you ever seen the SNL spoof, Fast and Bi-Curious? Pretty funny! Anyway, yeah... You gotta love Bette Davis. Love the classics. Thanks for that. :)

Ah, okay. Sorry John. My bad. Well, ALL action films push the boundaries of believability. I found Salt to be better than most. I'm the first one to pick apart stunts and question everything. I much prefer realism and things based in some truth, or at least physics. Haha! However, personally, I liked the taser thing. It seemed different. Funny too. LOL!

Oh, I should mention I'm a MythBusters fan. :)

I loved the movie Salt. Agreed that taser seen was awesome. I hope they do a Salt 2

Bill - looking at your list of actresses and thinking of some of the movies that have brought them to stardom - I wonder who thinks there are no strong roles for women. Maybe not enough (lately) - but that's quite a list. And even though the part is underwritten and cliched - Sandra Bullock as Scarlett makes herself at home amongst the bevy of male minions in the smash hit movie - currently on a screen near you worldwide. Beth - I'll google the SNL bit. Always up for a laugh. Never seen it because I've never been a big SNL fan - going all the way back to the Not Ready For Prime Time Players (although I tried to tune in whenever I thought Billy Crystal was going to break out "Fernando" in a sketch). My opinion then and now was that they had very clever ideas for bits - they went on too long - and had no ending.

Beth, I am with you on action films pushing the boundaries. I felt SALT was actually better than most on that front. As I think I said earlier in this post, we don't write about (or go see movies about) the mundane or the hero that jumps off the overpass and misses the truck. We see the exception. The two things I mentioned, I simply know too much about to reach that suspension of disbelief. BTW, I bought SALT. I have watched it a number of times picking it apart. (Plot, stunts, camera angles, lighting, etc.) Overall, it stands up well. Since we have gone this far..... I think it is interesting that it really is a damsel in distress movie, with a twist. (The KGB mythos is great.) The damsel is the husband and the hero doesn't achieve her first goal. Part of why I like it is that when she is leaving the boat, I actually feel as if she wants to go on and finish the new plan but doesn't really care if she gets out alive as long as she does maximum damage. I really liked that. (This is the male/female part.) I think males in those roles, the stereotypical way they play out is the macho, "I will kill everything." What I really thought played well was that feeling that came across as SALT seemed to be an operator doing as much as possible to wreck it all without really caring if she survived. When she did survive she just went on to the next job. Yet you knew she was emotionally wrecked and had contained it to do what had to be done.

http://www.ifc.com/fix/2015/07/hollywood-its-time-to-retire-the-loveable...

Great article Laurie! Thanks for sharing. I'd like to give it its own thread post. Or, would you? :)

Have at it!

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/amanda-seyfried-says-she-was-only-paid-10-p... Here's another example but this is hardly writer's fault.

All right! Thanks again, Laurie. :)

Thank you Laurie and Beth... I haven't added that much to this thread because you've said it all... you're both the creme de la creme. Thanks for sharing. Love you.

Well said - I've got tons of soft to hard female characters to draw from from my life. Just write the best serving character for story and make all the characters work for the existence you've granted them. Oh, and remember structure, and beats, and conflict, and emotion to link scenes, and progression, and foreshadowing, and did I mention conflict?

This should warm the cockles and hearts of the contributors on this thread. I harken back a few posts to frequent mentions of the asexual and/or strictly males that populate the crazed band of minions in both Despicable Me movies and their own spinoff stand alone. I was having a conversation with my son this morning - he is working in NYC this week - and he was at a seminar or some Q&A deal with the Frenchman who created the Minions for both their look and their language and their sexual orientation - and he was asked why they were all male and there were no female minions? His answer - and I paraphrase as I got this info 2nd hand - was that the minions are collectively - not too bright. So - since females are the smarter of the species - he decided to make the minions male only. I hope I have put the previous question to bed - and hope I haven't opened a whole new can of worms.

No worms, Michael. Deep in the crevices of this thread that has been butchered until all cockles were burnt. But yes, a valid point nonetheless!

Laurie, I think I read in Gray's Anatomy - that Tiger's Balm can be used as a remedy for burnt cockles.

Yeah, sorry, that's a pretty lame answer for no female Minions. It's a blatant disservice disguised in some grand-gesture compliment. An ostensible reason for laziness. They purposely ignored an entire gender. They perpetuated the same ol' gender bias crap -- the crap idea that girls lack variety, or range, or "personality," or have any interests outside of girly "smart" or "pretty" things. Girls can be funny, silly, goofy, smart, not too bright, violent, angry, sad, mean, devious, gross, and villainous. The Frenchman dismissively patted all little girls on the head and said, "Sorry, sweetie, you can't be represented in this story because you're too good. Girls are too smart. Now just run along."

Have to agree with you Beth. It's patronising to the core.

Beth - must say that I agree with you. I didn't say it was a good answer - just an answer. I imagine he meant it to be complimentary - but he came off as merely flip and condescending. I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank - as Amazon jacks up the prices of the minion toys on its site. Why a bunch of gibberish spouting (but adorable) yellow jumping bean-looking creatures can't have some females amongst them is beyond me - maybe he couldn't figure out how to draw their hair...

And Jim J. - if you haven't already - try watching ORPHAN BLACK - you want a bevy of strong female characters? Newly Emmy-nommed Tatiana Maslany plays 7 of 'em - all by herself (and there's even a male character in the mix as well - also played by TM).

Oddly enough the same idea iirritates me in comic books, "I wanted to put forth a strong female character as none existed before I thought of it." I'm sure we can all think of at least one superheroine? Its a silly world whatcha gonna do?