The Mary Sue

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
MysticMisty said:
Didn't stop people from demanding a literally retarded princess a few months back.
Click to expand...

You know, I think it would go without saying that someone who was mentally disabled back then would never get to rule a country. Well, except for King Charles II of Spain... but that story didn't end well.

friedshrimp said:
The whole "Elsa is whatever" thing has been going on for ages but I think Disney will always keep her character as ambiguous as possible.
Click to expand...

Why all this crap about a stupid little Disney film?
 
TyrannoNinja said:
Claire's entire arc has her transition from a prettied-up exec in high heels (and the only reason that even became a meme is because the movie explicitly addresses her high heels' impracticality) into a perspiring heroine who 1) saves Owen from a pterosaur by shooting it and 2) personally luring the T. rex over to help fight the Indominus. That's not exactly consistent with a barefoot-and-pregnant ideology.
Click to expand...

She gets a lot of undeserved hatred for the notoriously misunderstood high-heels thing, but ironically Claire Dearing might arguably be the greatest female protagonist I've seen in a movie since Aliens, in my opinion. And that's not because I'm an obvious Jurassic Park sperg.

Claire Dearing is real. That is to say, she behaves for the most part the way a real person might in the situations placed upon them. She has her strengths but most importantly she has her flaws. We as humans relate to and come to love characters with flaws because they remind us of ourselves, as flawed creatures. Often they are used as examples to show us that despite our shortcomings, we can be able to overcome our obstacles and do great things if we press ourselves to succeed.

My real point here is that flawed characters make good characters because they are relatable. And good characters prove relatable regardless of race or gender. This is non-negotiable fact, and it is important information for a writer to know if they are aiming to create compelling characters that their audience should care about.

Feminazis like those at TMS don't get this. They are too stupid to truly appreciate or understand the importance of believable character traits in storytelling and really are not qualified to make judgements on the matter. They think that any non-male character who is portrayed in a role (no matter how grand or minor) and makes a believable mistake consistent with reality must be bad or "sexist". Alternatively in their view a "good" female character can only be acceptable if she is completely in control of everything and never shows any true signs of weakness (and also talks down to/outsmarts/beats the shit out of a man who could clearly crush her in real life at least once at any point in the film), although sometimes even these rules don't apply if it is simply decided by the feminists in question that they don't. And because directors and writers listen to these idiots, whether out of fear, agreement, or just supposed popular demand, people get deprived of far too many potentially good stories and compelling characters because they are deemed "problematic" by a bunch of oversensitive cunts. Now we get shitty characters like Black Widow, Rey, and Alice Abernathy who border on arguably Mary-Sue levels of awfulness.

Claire is already a success when we first see her in Jurassic World. She has competently managed to oversee a multi-billion dollar theme park built around defying the laws of science itself for ten whole years, and once shit hits the fan and the island starts to delve into chaos, she proves herself invaluable in keeping everything from falling apart. But because she learns the valuable lesson that it's okay to compromise your persona as an emotionless business manager to save your fucking family from dying a violent death at the maw of a bloodthirsty genetic mutant, this movie is sexist, and you should not see it.

You can begin to understand why as a writer I have come to hate these people so much.

On a related note, I am choosing not to keep up with news about Jurassic World's sequel so that I might appreciate it more when it is actually released. However, based on what I have heard about it, in response to the unwarranted outrage over Claire in the most current installment, she is apparently going to "dominate" the sequel. This phrasing of her role genuinely concerns me as I would really prefer not to see another potentially great female character arc destroyed by deluded feminazis who think they aren't getting their way whenever they see a woman in a movie behaving like a real person. Especially when that character arc takes place within a franchise as important to me as this one.

MysticMisty said:
I don't think this came from TMS, but I saw someone who is likely a loyal reader bitch about how the boys didn't want to go with Claire after she saved Owen. Evidently they missed that Claire not only was practically a stranger to them, but when they saw her earlier on she completely blew them off instead of taking the day off. I'd refuse to go with her too after that, if it was me. But no, everything is sexist.
Click to expand...

Even if she had already proven herself to them throughout the years as a loving aunt and caring person eager to help them in any circumstance, it still makes sense for them to want to go with Owen simply because he was a man. Young boys and girls, I think, are naturally drawn to role models who are more relatable to them on more basic levels, such as gender. It's more believable and reasonable for them at their age to be drawn to him simply because he looks like a badass dude.

It is telling because this is exactly how feminazis like those at TMS think when they want to relate to characters in movies. They only choose to relate to characters who are women. They are literally adult children.
 
Last edited:
 
Legbeards are worse then neckbeards because neckbeards can post a entertaining meme or story now and then.
 
 
friedshrimp said:
Well I just know that if a Down princess existed people would complain that she's an "ableist" character mocking people with Down Syndrome and that she shouldn't be featured on the line.
Click to expand...
Ee'yup. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm not against introducing characters with those disabilities/conditions, far from it, but if you do decide to have characters in *any* media like that, you're only courting a California wildfire-level backdraft no matter what, because everyone is going to have an opinion.

The downside to having diversity in this department, is that pretty much every person with autism, Downs, etc. are wildly varying levels of functional.

In the realm of Downs Syndrome, you have people like Josh "Ponceman" Perry and Lauren Potter, who despite having Downs Syndrome, are very capable and functional members of society (and not to mention professional actors, too), but then you have people on the lower end of the spectrum who need help with basic activities in day to day life. Trying to hew towards either end invites the "abelist" accusations no matter what, because if you do higher functioning, you're ignoring the lower functioning people. If you do lower functioning, well... you're playing to stereotype.

Is it any wonder why people largely avoid even trying to do anything with characters of those types at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Debrotherized Luigi said:
Trying to hew towards either end invites the "abelist" accusations no matter what, because if you do higher functioning, you're ignoring the lower functioning people. If you do lower functioning, well... you're playing to stereotype.

Is it any wonder why people largely avoid even trying to do anything with characters of those types at all?
Click to expand...

That also goes for characters of different race and sexuality- portray a gay man as masculine, people complain that he's not a true gay man. Make him effeminate, then you're using an ol' stereotype. Don't make his sexuality a central core of his character, and people say that's "erasure".
 
friedshrimp said:
Well I just know that if a Down princess existed people would complain that she's an "ableist" character mocking people with Down Syndrome and that she shouldn't be featured on the line.
Click to expand...
It would please fucking nobody. It would be one thing or another to bitch about like with Princess and the Frog. Worse it would open the floodgates. Then they would have to have autistic princesses (lol just look online), amputee princesses, cancer princesses, trans princesses, genderfluid princesses, and all of the above (and more) in every possible minority.
 
@friedshrimp same thing that makes it a no-win situation when designing video game characters.

You don't have female characters, you're sexist and exclusionary.

You do, but they have feminine traits, like wearing a dress or wanting to get married? You're sexist for being stereotypical

You do, but they're strong independent and aren't out for romance? Your'e sexist because all you did was "put a man in a dress"

I think people are starting to realize that if you can't please someone, you can just do the story you want and get harped on anyway, but you'll at least be happy with yourself.
 
TowinKarz said:
@friedshrimp same thing that makes it a no-win situation when designing video game characters.

You don't have female characters, you're sexist and exclusionary.

You do, but they have feminine traits, like wearing a dress or wanting to get married? You're sexist for being stereotypical

You do, but they're strong independent and aren't out for romance? Your'e sexist because all you did was "put a man in a dress"

I think people are starting to realize that if you can't please someone, you can just do the story you want and get harped on anyway, but you'll at least be happy with yourself.
Click to expand...

And then these folks wonder why more people aren't on the "representation" bandwagon...
 
TowinKarz said:
@friedshrimp same thing that makes it a no-win situation when designing video game characters.

You don't have female characters, you're sexist and exclusionary.

You do, but they have feminine traits, like wearing a dress or wanting to get married? You're sexist for being stereotypical

You do, but they're strong independent and aren't out for romance? Your'e sexist because all you did was "put a man in a dress"

I think people are starting to realize that if you can't please someone, you can just do the story you want and get harped on anyway, but you'll at least be happy with yourself.
Click to expand...

I think we are starting to reach that point. I know a few notable creators on Tumblr put their feet down after the Zamii incident last fall and calling out those kinds of behaviors, since they felt it stifles creativity in a bad way (and they're absolutely right).

I know it's been said before, but it really does bear repeating: trying to arbitrarily check diversity quota boxes only harms a work in the long run, because when people do it, they unwittingly play to stereotype out of fear of insulting people for "erasure" this and "whitewashing" that ("whitewashing" in the sense that any 'diverse' aspect of the character is not a major factor in the character's role and, at best, a minor/informed thing that has no bearing on the plot whatsoever). The complete lack of self-awareness some of these hardcore SJW-types have in this regard is infuriating, tbh.
 
 
^The Princesses are probably the most popular Disney characters and thus, they get a lot of attention and visibility and merchandise. With the merchandise though i'm not sure if they're speaking for little girls to buy the dolls or have the woman-children collecting these dolls.

But often I don't think they mean a literal "Princess" (daughter of a king) and just mean "female character". It's really bizarre when they want princesses of countries/cultures that don't have a "princess" figure so to say (like a latina princess- that really wouldn't work well unless they set her in pre-columbian times and screw up the Aztec/Inca/Mayan rulership).
 
Android raptor said:
What I don't get with all this shit is why it has to be a Disney princess. Why not a lesbian/Downs/black/whatever character in some other kind of family movie? Why do they demand a princess specifically?
Click to expand...

All Disney films and all fairy tales feature princesses as their main characters. Never mind Pinocchio, The Jungle Book, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan...

So ergo it must be a Disney princess because then every little girl will idolize her and that will change something... Somehow.
 
Even though minorities are still discriminated and laughed at and at worst killed...

Having a princess changes really nothing.
 
friedshrimp said:
Even though minorities are still discriminated and laughed at and at worst killed...

Having a princess changes really nothing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they don't actually give a shit about real world problems. As long as their "muh representation" quota isn't being filled, we might as well be living in Nazi Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom