Why no female characters? - Outpost 37 (2015) Discussion

Because it's an action movie, not a cooking show.

You're adopted!

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to understand your point. Are you trying to suggest that strong female characters can't exist in action movies? You're suggesting that women can only be strong in cooking shows. Yeah, that's not sexist at all.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] athomas1 9 years ago

Maybe the aliens have a kitchen scene.

reply

[–] libertariansoldier5 9 years ago

While women are allowed in the military, in the US Military, none of them have Combat Arms MOS meaning none of them are infantry. These guys at this outpost were all infantry grunts. Had this movie been about some big military base that had a DFAC, I'm sure we'd seen some women. This was, however, a remote outpost.

And they didn't have kitchens in this outpost!

reply

[–] Iloveet-1 9 years ago

One of the funniest comments I have read on here ever. Haha!

reply

[–] joolztoolz 9 years ago

Women are in action movies all the time. It's not like it's a new concept.

Also lucky for us that we're in the 21st century and moving forward. Many women contributed to major advancements in science, technology and ground breaking innovation with regard to military inventions.

Heddy Lamarr, a 1930's screen goddess, developed spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology to overcome Allied radio communications jamming in World War II.

Lucky for us that billions of people regard female accomplishment with the respect it deserves, otherwise there wouldn't be female cops, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, judges, scientists, soldiers, athletes, professors etc.

Making a cheap joke about women's capabilities only shows the world that you are backward thinking, outdated, ignorant and most of all, fearful of women. Stupid comments make you look stupid.

I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.

reply

[–] ffnogoodnik 9 years ago

also in the trailer there is a line that says "we are all soldiers now" so I would think that would include the women

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Yes, in which case it makes even more sense that there should be female soldiers present, and yet there isn't so much as a single one.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] fourthwall1-2 9 years ago

So do women serve on the frontlines of combat?
I hear there are only 2% of women death in the military and none of those deaths are on the frontlines.

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Last time I checked, while the army was still a male-dominate profession women are now legally permitted to go through combat training and serve on front-line duties in most parts of the world. The precise regulations may vary from country to country but at the very least they are allowed to go a lot further than just serving as nurses and secretaries.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] libertariansoldier5 9 years ago

Legally permitted through combat training?

Most of basic training is combat training. Women soldiers are trained to shoot a gun but that's not their main jobs. The US Military does not have jobs that allow women on the front lines or at remote outposts.

I've seen a few taken on soft missions where the possibility of checking women in Afghanistan required a female soldier to conduct the search. And if a convoy of POGs get hit, obviously even the women have to shoot back but Women will never be send intentionally on an infantry mission. There's female helicopter pilots and crew chiefs on Blackhawks.

But on the ground grunts, door kickers and trigger pullers are men and will be men for a very long time.

reply

[–] ffnogoodnik 9 years ago

In the scenario presented in the trailer the aliens invaded in 2021, the story takes place in 2031. Looking at how much destruction there was (for example at 11 seconds into the trailer) I do not think by the time 2031 came around that 2% would not be an accurate number.

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

So do women serve on the frontlines of combat?
I hear there are only 2% of women death in the military and none of those deaths are on the frontlines.

I'm guessing in an alien invasion scenario, everyone able to fight would be fighting, no? Especially if the initial casualties were high.
Regardless, I'm not sure about those numbers but the lines have definitely been blurred since 2001. Iraq's "force" is still classified as peacekeeping so there is no front line, which is why there are many women involved in actual combat.
That and the fact they are so in need of fresh blood (no pun intended) that they even finally suppressed DADT so that they could get gays enrolled too.

My point is they would need every soldier they can, not just a bunch of buff gym-ready looking guys who play GI Joe in that movie.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] SmiffBeans0 9 years ago

Dude not only that but I'm pissed off that the main character isn't a chick who is tougher than all the guys. Really who gives a sh*t?

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

I do. My point is that this was a movie made by people living in a world where they should know better and yet they made a conscious decision not to include a single woman in the cast when there was no reason it had to be all men.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] libertariansoldier5 9 years ago

In the real world, very little women will be able to pickup a man who weights 220 lbs, with 30 lbs of body armor and ammo, 7 lbs weapon and be able to carry that man over mountainous terrain. Maybe a women built like Brienne of Tarth (Game of Throne reference) but I find it hilarious that you'd think 120lbs Michelle Rodriguez all 5'5 of her, also carrying 30lbs body armor and ammo can carry a man twice her size while taking contact. Hopefully she isn't having cramps when the SHTF or they're all screwed!

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

In the real world, very little women will be able to pickup a man who weights 220 lbs, with 30 lbs of body armor and ammo, 7 lbs weapon and be able to carry that man over mountainous terrain.

Oh I just love this argument. As if male soldiers spent their time lugging other soldiers around on their shoulders  but do say more, you're hilarious.

Hopefully she isn't having cramps when the SHTF or they're all screwed!

Well the good thing about cramps is that unlike the tiny dick's size of men who live their big hero life vicariously through movies, they are temporary.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] LibertarianSoldier 9 years ago

We did. When a man gets hurt, not only do you carry your load you have to carry his. Not sure if this is news to you, but in combat people get shot. Blown up. Mauled. You routinely have to carry or drag some out of the line of fire. Im sorry but I'll take the guy who i know can carry my ass not a 120lbs chick who cant.

reply

[–] robbieboy-90 9 years ago

No they don't have to do that all the time, but as a rule the lightest/weakest member of a squad should be able to carry the heaviest member of a squad. Because when the *beep* hits the fan it would come in handy if a soldier could ''lug around'' his squad members.
Take Ronda Rousey, she is an absolute beast and would surely kick the ass of most men, but even for a woman as strong as her it would be difficult too carry 250 lbs of dead weight at speed. Men's upper body muscles grow and train quicker and bigger. You can call that sexist all day long, but thats sexual dimorphism for you, it's fact of life and personal opinions don't really come in to it.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

Oh I just love this argument. As if male soldiers spent their time lugging other soldiers around on their shoulders but do say more, you're hilarious.

If you are unable to carry out a hurt teammate out of a battlefield, you failed to become a soldier right there. same thing with firemen and people beign carried out of the building. in LA last 30 women group attempted to become firemen, 28 of them would have died themselves in real life situation, therefore they failed. but they made a big stick about sexism for not being allowed in even though they were themselves making the fire department worse if accepted.

Well the good thing about cramps is that unlike the tiny dick's size of men who live their big hero life vicariously through movies, they are temporary.

If by temporary you mean longer than it takes for the enemy bullet to reach you, they are not short enough.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] moviewarriorpex 9 years ago

Ok, politics aside ...

In a End-of-the-World scenario ... children and women would be sheltered and protected for the survival of the human race. One male can safely have offspring with 5-10 women, their offspring having a much lower chance of genetic abnormalities. Also, the rate of reproduction is much higher. While I am certain women would prove invaluable in various capacities during something such as this Invasion; can assume that most of the battle-ready fighters would be male, and by most I mean 99.99% of them ...

Really, people need to get over themselves and get their politically correct BS out of things. This is the ultimate form of shaming censorship that is crushing artistic impression because film/show creators and producers are always making compromises of their vision to suit various demographics, even if doing so risks damaging the IP.

Also, people like you just like to find things to complain about.

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

While I am certain women would prove invaluable in various capacities during something such as this Invasion; can assume that most of the battle-ready fighters would be male, and by most I mean 99.99% of them ...

If it was supposed to be in the present-day than perhaps I would buy that explanation, but the narration explicitly said "Ten years ago everyone became a soldier, whether they wanted to or not". It doesn't say "all men became soldiers" or anything about women. It just says "everyone", which should mean that women have had to start fighting as well and the number of women fighters should have increased over the past ten years.

Really, people need to get over themselves and get their politically correct BS out of things. This is the ultimate form of shaming censorship that is crushing artistic impression because film/show creators and producers are always making compromises of their vision to suit various demographics, even if doing so risks damaging the IP.

Ah yes, how dare I make comments about the representation of women in the hopes that maybe I can help improve society. And really, what's so bad about political correctness anyway? Unless we're dealing with specific points in history, at least it means a fair representation of everyone. Equality is the way of the future, anyone who says otherwise is a hindrance to social progress.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] robbieboy-90 9 years ago

Yes, but the invasion was halted and most of the aliens retreated with them. After that earth was ''rebuilt'' and it is bussines as usual again, people could go on with their lives and they didn't have to fight anymore except for the soldiers in the outposts where the aliens still lingered. Earth went back to normal and people got back to their normal existence.

If this where more of a resistance scenario in which earth was conquered, i would agree with you. But the aliens lost, so what you see in this movie is pretty much regular army and not a resistance group.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

Ah yes, how dare I make comments about the representation of women in the hopes that maybe I can help improve society. And really, what's so bad about political correctness anyway? Unless we're dealing with specific points in history, at least it means a fair representation of everyone. Equality is the way of the future, anyone who says otherwise is a hindrance to social progress.

The problem here is YOU. You are fighting for equality of outcome when you should be fighting for equality of opportunity. This thread shows your misconception quite clearly. You are not improving society, in fact you are making it worse with your sexist attitude. Oh and dont get me started on the political corectness, considering that it only is directly opposed to human rights.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

In a End-of-the-World scenario ... children and women would be sheltered and protected for the survival of the human race.

What would be the point of "sheltering" all the weaklings if you don't have enough soldiers to fight and win?

Really, people need to get over themselves and get their politically correct BS out of things.

The OP was merely asking if there as a reason for no female soldier. It didn't seem it had anything to do with political correctness. I've seen women who could probably break most of the guys posting that women should be in the kitchen in this thread, with one hand. Women can be trained. They might not have the brute strength of men but they make up for it in agility and I'm not 100% sure they would need either to shoot enemies with heavy artillery from a tank. Or are you saying that women also have bad eyesight and low aim? Is it PC to assume that our differences doesn't make them useless if the fate of humanity is in the balance?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Women can be trained. They might not have the brute strength of men but they make up for it in agility and I'm not 100% sure they would need either to shoot enemies with heavy artillery from a tank. Or are you saying that women also have bad eyesight and low aim? Is it PC to assume that our differences doesn't make them useless if the fate of humanity is in the balance?

I've actually had to deal with this argument a lot, and it's really annoying.

People look at statistics saying that women generally have lower upper body strength from men, assume that therefore applies to every single women who has ever existed, and that therefore they are weaker. While there may be some truth to the statistics (even if it's been distorted) all it proves is that women have other physical advantages over men. I've known people who made have actually used the same (absurd) reasoning to argue against letting women be firefighters. I even once stumbled across a video that used that same reasoning not only to argue against women firefighters, but then to justify excluding women from the army and police force and then endorse the glass ceiling. It was absurd, and when I called it out on the blatant misogyny I got a wave of people actually coming to its defense despite the fact that they clearly had no idea what they were talking about and their reasoning can easily be debunked just by talking to a real firefighter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERwzqvs7vvU

There was someone on here who made a similar argument in which they claimed that a woman could not drag a man wearing combat armor. If you ask any female firefighter who has had to go through training exercises that involved dragging a dummy in bunker gear, most if not all of them would argue to quite the contrary. I actually got to drag one of those dummies, and they're friggin' heavy (they should be, since they're meant to resemble the weight of an actual person), and imagine doing it with all the extra weight from their gear.

Women even have a few unique strengths of their own in firefighting, such as generally being smaller (and thus able to access places that men can't, something that can be very useful in dealing with car accidents), yet some people will completely ignore this or claim that there are men of that size and we should go to them instead. I guess some people really are just sexist idiots.

I have a blog now! http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

No, it applies only to 99% of women instead. oh, btw, as long as we are throwing examples in the pich, did you knew that word guiness holder for strongest arm-wrestle woman in the world can barely hold even with random guys in gym that never tried arm-wretling before? the strongest woman in the world is around the strenght of average trained guy. so yes, women ARE weaker in physical strenght. this is a fact you cannot avoid.

Also ironic that you brought women firefighter dragging dummies, considering that this has caused over 99% of women applying to be firefighters to not be accepted due to them not passing the test.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] uniweb 9 years ago

Holy cow, people are trying to shove political correctness even into a low budget B-movie.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5819949) 9 years ago

So you wrote a blog about lack of female characters?? Are you having trouble getting laid or something?

Who gives a f--k? Can't there be one movie in this world without a woman in it? I bet if this was all male you wouldn't be out there writing about lack of male characters. No, you'd be writing "It's about time! Gender Equality!"

It's pretty arrogant to write a block about a movie without even seeing it. How do you know the first line of the movie won't be: "In 2031 the Aliens killed all females in the world!"?????

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

So you wrote a blog about lack of female characters?? Are you having trouble getting laid or something?

In what way is my sex life relevant? Are you saying that if I was a womanizer I'd have no problem with this issue at all.

Who gives a f--k? Can't there be one movie in this world without a woman in it?

I do, and yes, there can be, if there is a valid reason for it. If you're making a combat film set in World War I than it would make sense that there aren't going to be any female characters since women were not allowed in the army in those days. Now in a film that claims to be set roughly fifteen years in the future and made in a time where women are allowed in the army, there is no logical reason why it needs to be an all-male cast.

And yes, I did write a blog article about the lack of female characters. I've done that several times. Why? Because I feel it's necessary to raise awareness of gender inequalities in the media so that we can begin to rectify them.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5819949) 9 years ago

Yeah, but not EVERY SINGLE MOVIE has to have a woman in it! Go write one about Lord of the Flies then! You have no idea what this movie is going to be about, so you have no right to bi t ch about it until you've seen it! Like I said, there could be a reason there are no women in it laid out in the script!

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Oh no of course not. Several of my favorite movies have all-male casts, though now that you mention it there's no real reason why The Lord of the Flies couldn't be adapted to feature a co-ed school. I think the all-male cast of the original might have been in part to do with the time period in which it was written.

Also the trailer made it pretty clear that this was a mockumentary about an alien invasion.

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5819949) 9 years ago

Also the trailer made it pretty clear that this was a mockumentary about an alien invasion.

Yeah, we know that...but since the movie isn't out yet, you have NO IDEA if there is dialog in the movie that explains "where the women are". To me, if there are a bunch a men in a last outpost, they are going to talk about women at some point while the cameras are rolling. I'm willing to bet there is some scene in which a soldier says "all the women are gone/dead/in hiding"...and here you are jumping the gun on it with a blog..LMAO!

There is always some a$$-hole out there trying to b-it-ch about why a movie doesn't have something in it; blacks, Hispanics, women...its always a minority too! Not every movie has to be PC!

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Yeah, but not EVERY SINGLE MOVIE has to have a woman in it! Go write one about Lord of the Flies then! You have no idea what this movie is going to be about, so you have no right to bi t ch about it until you've seen it! Like I said, there could be a reason there are no women in it laid out in the script!

And now that the movie is out and there is absolutely no good reason in the movie, what's your argument?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

there is a valid reason for it.

Writer not wanting any IS a valid reason.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] loburns 9 years ago

Because PC only works when forced upon people, and no one forces people to buy tickets to movies, just as no one is forcing you to buy a ticket to this one, Why not start a petition at the Whie House site to force people to buy tickets to movies they have to see because you think they are PC? I'm sure they will take this as seriously as it deserves!

reply

[–] udn-496-308812 9 years ago

There are countless films with women only casts. Do you moan about those ones as well?

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Countless? It's more like two that were made 66 years apart: The Women (1939) and The Descent (2005), of which one is still about men (okay, three if you count the 2008 version of The Women), out of which one is still about men even if they're never shown on screen.

I have a blog now! http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] udn-496-308812 9 years ago

What about all the romantic comedies and other films more focused towards women. There is also countless action films where the main lead is a women. Resident evil, underworld, tomb raider and so on. I don't think you even have an argument, just stupid feminist.

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

Last time I checked, 99.9% of romantic comedies generally had at least one significant male character. There would have to be, otherwise it's kinda hard to have a romance... unless of course you want to go the route of a romantic comedy centered on a lesbian couple but I don't know of very many willing to do that.

Even most of the films I can think of that are focused more on female characters generally have some men in the cast. Alien focuses on Ripley but there were definitely several men in that film. The Terminator franchise may have had a female protagonist but again, lots of men. Even Xena: Warrior Princess usually had male guest stars and several male recurring characters. Gravity may have spent the majority of its running time on Sandra Bullock but George Clooney still had an important role.

Again, the only two movies I have found that actually have an all-female cast are The Women (which is still about men) and The Descent (where they are actually strong characters).

I have a blog now! http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] udn-496-308812 9 years ago

So you are saying there has only ever been two films with only women in them as the main characters? That is obviously incorrect, I can think of several just off the top of my head released in the last few years. Men don't even have films for men anymore. Women have entire films that only they would want to watch. Where the are the films that only men would want to watch? There are none. All films are designed for either women only or men and women. So not only are there no "men" film genre, when we do have a film with only men in it then the first thing we see is a women moaning about there not being women. Why does women have to be in every film? Although i do admit it is a bit strange, maybe they lack good actresses or the script was written not to include a stupid love story?

reply

[–] john-hitchcock 9 years ago

I'm sorry, I'm failing to understand why there needs to be a designation between "men's films" and "women's films". Why is it that any films have to be targeted specifically towards either gender? Why can't we just have "romantic comedies" and "action films" and then let people go to see either according to their tastes. I see no reason why a good romantic comedy can't be enjoyed by a man or an action film can't be enjoyed by a woman.

I've actually taken the time to write an entire article on my blog in which I describe in detail precisely why I find it offensive to label certain films as "chick flicks" or "guy films" and why we shouldn't be doing that.

http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/2015/01/on-desk-set-and-implication s-of.html

I think we need to ask ourselves, what exactly is a "man's film" or a "chick flick". Most people generally seem to associate the "chick flick" with the romantic comedy genre, but I'm a guy and I've seen a few good ones here and there. Applying a term like "chick flick" makes it sound wrong because it implies that women will only be drawn into movies that feature a romance and that it is somehow inappropriate for a man to enjoy it. Likewise trying to refer to "man's films" implies that there is something wrong with a woman who likes a solid action film.

My point is that film genres shouldn't be specifically designed assumed to be for men or women alone. People are different, and have different tastes. I've known a few women who like romantic comedies, I've also known several who love action or horror films. I happen to love both Breakfast at Tiffany's and Con Air and I'm not ashamed to admit that I like them. I might not be a huge fan of romantic comedies, but if it's well-written I'll enjoy it. I'm seeing no reason why it is necessary to assign labels saying that some films are for women and some films are for men, as a guy can enjoy a well-written romance just as much as a girl can enjoy some exciting action.

I have a blog now! http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] MaximRecoil 9 years ago

but I'm a guy

A poor excuse for one. You're clearly a sissy.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

What about all the romantic comedies and other films more focused towards women.

You talked about "all female cast". There are always male actors in romantic comedies, or the rare movies with female leads so the OP is asking why wondering the reason why the reverse is not true makes it "PC"?

There is also countless action films where the main lead is a women. Resident evil, underworld, tomb raider and so on.

 "and so on". No, no, please keep going. "Countless" isn't a handful among hundreds of men only casts.

Men don't even have films for men anymore.

 what does that even mean? Are you saying men only want to see sweaty muscular guys in movies? Are you implying all men are gay?

Women have entire films that only they would want to watch. Where the are the films that only men would want to watch? There are none.

I guess gay porn would work for you. Only men. Big muscles. Lots of action. Movies for men.

All films are designed for either women only or men and women.

Wrong. Movies are designed with a male audience in mind. The difference is that women can appreciate a movie with male lead whereas most guys are afraid of watching movies with a female perspective. I guess they're afraid of... being able to understand how the other half lives?

Why does women have to be in every film?

Grammar aside, nobody said every movie had to have women. But believe it or not, women represent 50% of the world population. Statistically, if you're going to have a movie with not one female character, you need for it to make sense, and the movie doesn't provide a good reason for it.

Although i do admit it is a bit strange, maybe they lack good actresses or the script was written not to include a stupid love story?

Yeah. You'll definitely be happy with gay porn. Big closet case. I never really got how all those women haters like you don't even realize it.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] udn-496-308812 9 years ago

What are you even moaning about get a life. This film is fine without women in it. There is no need to add women to this film.

reply

[–] ChiaroscuroJean 9 years ago

"They are plenty of movies where I'm represented. Why would I care about the other half of the human race."
-You.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

unless you are a 3 year old that somehow feels represented by seeing a person with your sex, this argument is completely nonsensical. Its a movie, but a brain transplant.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] ChiaroscuroJean 8 years ago

You're a class act.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

Ah, here comes the classism.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply