In Your Face Jam - Jan 23, 2013

[CBR News]

This week, Brett discusses Jimmy Olsen's rumored gender-switch in director Zack Snyder's upcoming "Man Of Steel," explaining why, if it's true, this is a step forward.


Full article here.

[Jonny_Anonymous]

the negative reaction has got absolutely FUCK ALL to do with not wanting more woman in films and EVERYTHING to do with not wanting stupid pointless changes to existing characters. If they wanted less men in the Man of Steel then they should have used Lana Lang or just created a new character not give an existing character a sex change

[gwangung]

the negative reaction has got absolutely FUCK ALL to do with not wanting more woman in films and EVERYTHING to do with not wanting stupid pointless changes to existing characters.

Oh, you mean like the changes they do with classic characters in the Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, etc. canon? Where they DO give existing characters a sex change?

I find these arguments naive, not very well informed and shallow. It's almost like they're arguing the characters are NOT very strong and too weak to withstand transformation like this like other classic characters.

[Rouder]

It is impossible to change the gender and at the same time "not interfere with the basic spirit of the character."
The diversity can be easily achieved by simply creating new original characters. There is no need to change the already established one.

And I feel like the column missed a point. People are not mad there is a female, instead of a male. People are mad that Jimmy Olsen has been drastically changed.

The point is NOT GENERAL, it is not about gender diversity, it is about one very concrete character being changed. No need to drag into it some sociological agenda.

[Rouder]

Oh, you mean like the changes they do with classic characters in the Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, etc. canon? Where they DO give existing characters a sex change?

I find these arguments naive, not very well informed and shallow. It's almost like they're arguing the characters are NOT very strong and too weak to withstand transformation like this like other classic characters.

Well informed? We're talking entertainment. You either have fun with it, or you don't. And some people happened to not have fun with it.

Don't make out of it a bigger deal, than it is.

[Lemurion]

It's another universe, it doesn't bother me, though I do hope that if it is true, the character dresses up as a man at some point. After all, transvestism does seem to be integral to the character regardless of gender.

[Jonny_Anonymous]

Oh, you mean like the changes they do with classic characters in the Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, etc. canon? Where they DO give existing characters a sex change?

I find these arguments naive, not very well informed and shallow. It's almost like they're arguing the characters are NOT very strong and too weak to withstand transformation like this like other classic characters.

Hardly, these guys think there doing something good by changing a character to make him female but all it looks like to me is that they think Superman doesn't have any good female supporting cast members so instead they just make one of the males one.

[Brian from Canada]

Hardly, these guys think there doing something good by changing a character to make him female but all it looks like to me is that they think Superman doesn't have any good female supporting cast members so instead they just make one of the males one.

Superman has a host of good female supporting characters: Martha Kent, Lana Lang, Cat Grant — not to mention major characters like Lois Lane and Supergirl.

A better accusation would be the lack of black or hispanic characters, which explains why Perry White is black in Man Of Steel instead of white.

The problem with this all is that it's interfering with iconic images of the character that are well known beyond the comic panels: Perry and Jimmy are intrinsic to every Superman appearance on film save the Superboy series (animated and live action) and Legion cartoon — but that's countered by their appearance in Justice League and other DCU projects. We know how they look, we know how they act — and the difference can really put an audience off.

Personally, I think this is a HUGE mistake. Forget "it's entertainment" or "we need diversity": this is sincerely interfering with the whole spirit of the original characters' creation and it makes it less and less a real Superman story as a result. If they need a black man in a key supporting role, make him a mentor of Clark during his pre-Planet days or a key neighbour; if you are so desperate to make an existing character a lesbian, why not make Lucy Lane one? It's not like Lucy is ever presented as a model of femininity the way Lois and Lana were.

[LenSessions]

How do you determine what “interferes with the basic spirit of the character”? I suspect it’s a personal thing and not necessarily something one can explain. I was fine with Michael Clarke Duncan taking the Kingpin role because I felt the spirit was there, but Famke Janssen as Jean Grey, Chris Evans as Steve Rogers? Spirit not there despite them meeting the physical criteria. I would love to see a Jenny Olsen - as a new character, NOT a spuriously gender-swapped Jimmy.

[Guest_1001]

I'd quite like to know who ate Brett White's muffins before he wrote that article. He seems really annoyed.

The trouble with that article is that it completely falls apart once you stop operating under the assumption that the anti-"Jenny Olsen" crowd don't want to see more women on screen. More women on screen, especially those not in romantic roles? Fine! Great! Changing Jimmy Olsen just for the sake of it? That's ridiculous. That is political correctness, not just "correctness", as White believes. How is portraying a male character as female "correct"? It's incorrect; the character's male.

Imagine if they switched the sexes of Aunt May and Uncle Ben. The female character killed off to provide drama for the male and we have three films of another male character. Not only would that receive flack from the Women In Refrigerators audience but it'd just be a huge betrayal of the source material. As for this:

"When I try to think of female characters in superhero films that are not involved in a romantic subplot, the list is ridiculously short. Black Widow, Maria Hill, Storm, Aunt May…is that it? Lois Lane, Jean Grey, Catwoman, Rogue, Elektra, Kitty Pryde…all of these characters have dozens of stories in the comics that feature them as the lead, but on screen they all have to be attached to a male."

... Aaaaand that differs from the male characters in those films ... how?

People have to get over the idea that female characters being connected to male ones is somehow wrong or anti-feminist. That women can't be strong while also being attached to male characters. It's insulting towards both men and women; women because it portrays them as "less" than their single sisters, simply by being associated with men (which we know is bollocks; Marie Curie ring any bells?) and men, obviously, because they're apparently the reason why women are less. Yeah guys, you suck, stop bringing women down ...

[Alton]

This week, Brett discusses Jimmy Olsen's rumored gender-switch in director Zack Snyder's upcoming "Man Of Steel," explaining why, if it's true, this is a step forward.


Full article here.

This only works if "Jenny" is played by a black male. Maybe Will Smith or Jaime Foxx in a dress.Will Smith's kid has a high enough voice; wonder if he can carry a dress?

[shamus]

Honestly from my perspective I don't have any problem with this so long as the story is well told. Sure I grew up with Jimmy Olsen so I'd prefer to see him but that raises the issue of which Jimmy Olsen? The 70s dude with sideburns, the 60s guy with super-powers, the 1950s TV version and so on. Even Superman has changed since his introduction. I doubt we will be seeing the "Superdickery" version in this film. In short tell a good story and all is well.

[BamaRainbow]

I'd quite like to know who ate Brett White's muffins before he wrote that article. He seems really annoyed.

The trouble with that article is that it completely falls apart once you stop operating under the assumption that the anti-"Jenny Olsen" crowd don't want to see more women on screen. More women on screen, especially those not in romantic roles? Fine! Great! Changing Jimmy Olsen just for the sake of it? That's ridiculous. That is political correctness, not just "correctness", as White believes. How is portraying a male character as female "correct"? It's incorrect; the character's male.

Imagine if they switched the sexes of Aunt May and Uncle Ben. The female character killed off to provide drama for the male and we have three films of another male character. Not only would that receive flack from the Women In Refrigerators audience but it'd just be a huge betrayal of the source material. As for this:

"When I try to think of female characters in superhero films that are not involved in a romantic subplot, the list is ridiculously short. Black Widow, Maria Hill, Storm, Aunt May…is that it? Lois Lane, Jean Grey, Catwoman, Rogue, Elektra, Kitty Pryde…all of these characters have dozens of stories in the comics that feature them as the lead, but on screen they all have to be attached to a male."

... Aaaaand that differs from the male characters in those films ... how?

People have to get over the idea that female characters being connected to male ones is somehow wrong or anti-feminist. That women can't be strong while also being attached to male characters. It's insulting towards both men and women; women because it portrays them as "less" than their single sisters, simply by being associated with men (which we know is bollocks; Marie Curie ring any bells?) and men, obviously, because they're apparently the reason why women are less. Yeah guys, you suck, stop bringing women down ...

Let's see. In the "Elektra" MOVIE (not the "Daredevil" film, but the one where Elektra was *the star*), which man was Elektra's "main squeeze?" Which male character was "attached" to her? Or the Halle Berry "Catwoman" movie. Again, which male charactere was "attached" to her? Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was a tough broad (in the old-fashioned sense), yet when she was with Batman, there was a lot of "attachment" involved. Additionally, in the "male hero" movies, I really don't see much "romantic" subplotting between, for instance, Captain America and Hawkeye or between Batman and James Gordon or even Alfred. The guys in the movies tend to act outside the *need* for a romantic subplot UNLESS there's a female involved (see "Daredevil" or either "Hulk" movie or even the "Superman" films).

Your analogy of switching Aunt May and Uncle Ben is really inane. For starters, just imagine the "fanboy" reaction IF (in either Raimi's original film or last year's "Amazing Spider-Man") it had been announced ahead of time that Aunt May was going to bite the dust? I doubt that the "Women in refrigerators" crowd would really be as distressed over the idea as the fanboys would be at the idea of changing such a "classic moment" of Spider-Man history. Exactly WHY does Ben have to die in the Spider-Man universe? Well, sure. Back in 1962 it made some sense. That was the time period mentality: Boys got all their "moral" imperatives from the dad or other "father figure" since women were "too emotional" to impart wisdom. Then, there was the fact that Ben was bringing in the paycheck (albeit as a pension or retirement check); May was just another woman, incapable of earning money in the "real world." And, after Ben's death, exactly how often did she look for gainful employment to pay the bills? No. That was the "man's" job. So, after Peter "realizes" his mistake at failing to live up to the responsibility lesson that Ben had imparted, HE makes every effort to get a job. He attempts at one point to quit high school but May won't hear of it (that would be an insult to Ben's memory since Ben wanted Peter to go to college, etc, etc). But what does Peter do as soon as he's able? He tries to become "the breadwinner" (aka "the man of the house"). Now. We live in a society when it's almost absurd to think that a woman wouldn't have had a job before marriage (and, it's pretty absurd to consider she wouldn't have a job AFTER marriage) and, even assuming May was in her early 70s in the first Raimi film (as actress Rosemary Harris really was), she would've still grown up when women went out and worked for a paycheck, especially women living in cities. Now, if you can give a reason that would explain why Aunt May could NOT have died instead of Ben--aside from "well, that's how it was in the comics"--then your point would have something to it, but as it is, there isn't one.

And as to your "Marie Curie ring any bells" snark, without Googling, do you know her pre-marriage name? See, her MARRIED name (ie, her "associated with men" name) is the one by which she's known and under which her achievements occurred. Additionally, her first Nobel Prize was shared with her husband, Pierre, another scientist, Henri Becquerel. (Talk about "associated with men.") That's not to diminish Mme Curie's achievements but merely to point out the flaw in your comment. (A much better choice might have been Joan of Arc whose achievements came DESPITE men.) Nowadays, a female scientist is as likely to retain her "maiden" name for her professional life--for that matter, many women in many professions will retain their "maiden" names for their professional lives--and while that simply wasn't an option in the Curies' era, we still tend to speak of and write "Mme Curie" rather than "Dr Curie," lending more importance to the idea of her being "associated with men."

As to your last paragraph in general, it's more the way that the stories are written and directed. Take a look at "Red," for instance. Remind me exactly how "strong" Sarah Ross was. Her life is put in danger because of Frank's, well, obsession with her, and he feels a responsibility for putting her in danger. Victoria, the "old buddy," was the strong one while Sarah was left to be the damsel in distress for most of the movie. Now, compare that to "Salt." Evelyn Salt is a trained CIA agent, married to a scientist who specializes in spiders. Aside from the "gender-switch," it's a pretty standard action film where the hero's "significant other" winds up becoming a hostage of the real bad guys (and then a source of the hero's rage). Now, both films were written by men and directed by men (and the latter was presumably written in the standard action hero format--male hero and a female damsel in distress--but changed before filming), yet each film treats its primary women in different ways (in "Red," even Victoria succumbs to a romantic pairing, albeit not with Frank). In "Red," the women--whether victim or "knight"--becomes a "prize" for a male character; in "Salt," the woman has to avenge her man.

[MDV]

Well of course, obviously. As we all know, adding in one person of every race always makes a film better, because diversity. Casts that are diverse are better than ones that aren't. It's just simple math and you can't argue with it for any reason. Well if you do, then we'll call you names until you go away. Same difference.

As a minority, if I don't see one person in the film that resembles myself, then I know that the movie is inferior and not worth my time. Plot, drama, special effects? No, it's diversity, that's what brings in the blockbuster crowds. I applaud Brett White for having the sheer courage to rise up and approve of political correctness.

[rhymeswithparc]

Let's see. In the "Elektra" MOVIE (not the "Daredevil" film, but the one where Elektra was *the star*), which man was Elektra's "main squeeze?" Which male character was "attached" to her? Or the Halle Berry "Catwoman" movie. Again, which male charactere was "attached" to her? Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was a tough broad (in the old-fashioned sense), yet when she was with Batman, there was a lot of "attachment" involved. Additionally, in the "male hero" movies, I really don't see much "romantic" subplotting between, for instance, Captain America and Hawkeye or between Batman and James Gordon or even Alfred. The guys in the movies tend to act outside the *need* for a romantic subplot UNLESS there's a female involved (see "Daredevil" or either "Hulk" movie or even the "Superman" films).

Your analogy of switching Aunt May and Uncle Ben is really inane. For starters, just imagine the "fanboy" reaction IF (in either Raimi's original film or last year's "Amazing Spider-Man") it had been announced ahead of time that Aunt May was going to bite the dust? I doubt that the "Women in refrigerators" crowd would really be as distressed over the idea as the fanboys would be at the idea of changing such a "classic moment" of Spider-Man history. Exactly WHY does Ben have to die in the Spider-Man universe? Well, sure. Back in 1962 it made some sense. That was the time period mentality: Boys got all their "moral" imperatives from the dad or other "father figure" since women were "too emotional" to impart wisdom. Then, there was the fact that Ben was bringing in the paycheck (albeit as a pension or retirement check); May was just another woman, incapable of earning money in the "real world." And, after Ben's death, exactly how often did she look for gainful employment to pay the bills? No. That was the "man's" job. So, after Peter "realizes" his mistake at failing to live up to the responsibility lesson that Ben had imparted, HE makes every effort to get a job. He attempts at one point to quit high school but May won't hear of it (that would be an insult to Ben's memory since Ben wanted Peter to go to college, etc, etc). But what does Peter do as soon as he's able? He tries to become "the breadwinner" (aka "the man of the house"). Now. We live in a society when it's almost absurd to think that a woman wouldn't have had a job before marriage (and, it's pretty absurd to consider she wouldn't have a job AFTER marriage) and, even assuming May was in her early 70s in the first Raimi film (as actress Rosemary Harris really was), she would've still grown up when women went out and worked for a paycheck, especially women living in cities. Now, if you can give a reason that would explain why Aunt May could NOT have died instead of Ben--aside from "well, that's how it was in the comics"--then your point would have something to it, but as it is, there isn't one.

And as to your "Marie Curie ring any bells" snark, without Googling, do you know her pre-marriage name? See, her MARRIED name (ie, her "associated with men" name) is the one by which she's known and under which her achievements occurred. Additionally, her first Nobel Prize was shared with her husband, Pierre, another scientist, Henri Becquerel. (Talk about "associated with men.") That's not to diminish Mme Curie's achievements but merely to point out the flaw in your comment. (A much better choice might have been Joan of Arc whose achievements came DESPITE men.) Nowadays, a female scientist is as likely to retain her "maiden" name for her professional life--for that matter, many women in many professions will retain their "maiden" names for their professional lives--and while that simply wasn't an option in the Curies' era, we still tend to speak of and write "Mme Curie" rather than "Dr Curie," lending more importance to the idea of her being "associated with men."

As to your last paragraph in general, it's more the way that the stories are written and directed. Take a look at "Red," for instance. Remind me exactly how "strong" Sarah Ross was. Her life is put in danger because of Frank's, well, obsession with her, and he feels a responsibility for putting her in danger. Victoria, the "old buddy," was the strong one while Sarah was left to be the damsel in distress for most of the movie. Now, compare that to "Salt." Evelyn Salt is a trained CIA agent, married to a scientist who specializes in spiders. Aside from the "gender-switch," it's a pretty standard action film where the hero's "significant other" winds up becoming a hostage of the real bad guys (and then a source of the hero's rage). Now, both films were written by men and directed by men (and the latter was presumably written in the standard action hero format--male hero and a female damsel in distress--but changed before filming), yet each film treats its primary women in different ways (in "Red," even Victoria succumbs to a romantic pairing, albeit not with Frank). In "Red," the women--whether victim or "knight"--becomes a "prize" for a male character; in "Salt," the woman has to avenge her man.

I think the point Guest was making with the Aunt May example was not that Aunt May couldn't have been killed but that if they swapped the role of Aunt May, then there would not only be outcry over changing the source material but also outcry about the swapping of a gender in order to have the female character killed. And I think the poster is insinuating that the same people who campaign for the Jimmy swap will be furious at the Aunt May swap because of it. I personally disagree with the analog as I don't think it is the same but I don't think we understood Guest the same way. With Marie Curie, you make it seem like her maiden name is some sort of negative or something and that having been awarded the prize with two other men detracts from her achievement... I just don't see the argument. Again, I don't think you got Guest's point. Joan of Arc would not have fit as an example because the point was that Marie Curie was recognized for her achievement regardless of her association with men. And of the Dr Curie point, you usually don't refer to someone as doctor unless you are only using their last name and we don't use doctor when referring to Einstein, Hawking, Bohr, Oppenheimer, and many other scientists who have contributed as much to understanding of physics.

As for the article itself, it was a good article of why women should be in movies but not one of why Jimmy should be Jenny. I think that's been said in this thread though.