As an aside, it would be great if some of the (largely ignored) history of powerful )(political/monarchy) women was perhaps dramatized, in a broadly similar fashion to The White Queen - I'm sure it would find a ready audience, and much of the other stuff has been done to death umpteen times - Tudors for example.
Boudica
Ælfwynn
Matilda
Eleanor
Isabella
Margaret (historically overlaps slightly on the White Queen dramatization)
Jane
Mary
Elizabeth
Mary Queen of Scots
The wonderful series on BBC 4 She-Wolves, England's Early Queens showed the history is entirely as compelling as any male led history. Some of the above have had some attention, mostly Elizabeth I.
I agree, although there have already been some incredibly good adaptations of the life stories of some of those women, Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots and Jane to a lesser extent, have had quite a lot of air time.
Historical figures do tend to get dramatised a lot, I'd be interested in seeing a prime time Saturday evening TV show which bucked the trend for boys own adventures and focussed on a female heroine. There's not really been any decent ones (I'm discounting the cartoony nature of Xena even though it wasn't a bad show) for a long time.
I am hopeful we will see some good female characters in Atlantis because of the quality of actresses they have playing the roles. Similarly with The Musketeers, when that starts up, there should be a decently written character in Constance with which to balance out the daring do boys own adventure-ness of the Musketeers and D'Artagnan.
The Percy Jackson novels would have been good for a TV series as they have plenty of strongly written female characters, but unfortunately they're now being adapted for film.
However, looking at a similar (although far more adult orientated theme), Game of Thrones has managed to create a number of incredibly well written and strong female characters behaving in a way which goes against the norm (of the times which influenced GRRM when writing, ie the War of the Roses and The Hundred Years War). So it is perfectly possible to write decent female characters into a TV show but I don't want female ones added just so the makers can say "hey look, we've got our own Lara Croft style action woman" when the story narrative doesn't justify it.
Is this not looking through the mists of time, on relatively undocumented stuff.
You might argue, with all the rivalry, intrigue and deceitfulness of the time, some basic self defence may have been de rigueur with the royal ladies of the court ? Gwen certainly could have done with one, and a little bit of skillfulness in it's use, and she would not have got into half the bother she did :rolleyes:
No it's fairly well documented about how women spent their time, even in the Arthurian mythology Morgana wouldn't have been hoiking a sword around.
No, you explained why you didn't think Atlantis would not or should not have a 'female daring do' character. What I was asking was why you specifically didn't want a female character who was "anywhere near the importance of the male roles..."
That's a whole different thing. Essentially, you're saying that none of the female roles should have as much impact as the male characters. Not just as far as the action elements go, but in terms of the entire story.
It's hardly trying to be accuate to the "real" Atlantis (oh, wait, there wasn't one.) Having good female character isn't "filling a PC quota". The very idea is pretty laughable in fact. LOL.
No, you explained why you didn't think Atlantis would not or should not have a 'female daring do' character. What I was asking was why you specifically didn't want a female character who was "anywhere near the importance of the male roles..."
That's a whole different thing. Essentially, you're saying that none of the female roles should have as much impact as the male characters. Not just as far as the action elements go, but in terms of the entire story.
Really?
No, that isn't what I said and I fully explained it in my post but do feel free to continually misread and misinterpret what I actually said. The two sentences in my comment cannot be split or separated as you appear to wish to do as I did not say I don't want any female characters to have any importance or to not be as important as the male leads.
What I said was that I don't expect the female characters to be as important as the males in a boys own adventure show and no, I wouldn't want them to be as it usually means a character has been written to fill in a slot so they can say "we've met the PC criterion for having a strong female role".
All of which can be found in my reply to your original question, which you seem to be ignoring completely.
Because this is a boys own adventure story style show, it is bromance driven, it's "here come the boys" and it's based on a culture and mythology which is patriarchal and male dominated.
I don't want them to create daring do action female characters just because. I'd prefer if there's one there because the storyline justifies it or because they're basing it on a story or mythology which has one in the first place.
Putting a female character whose a kick ass adventurer (in the same vein as the male characters) is pandering to PC quotas unless they chose to use Hippolyta or possibly Atalanta. They're about the only strong none Goddess female characters who appear in a "daring do" mould in Greek myth. Having a female character who, although she's a villain or the protagonist, is well written and appears within the show's narrative properly is great and I have absolutely no objection to that.
I think you perhaps misunderstood me as saying there shouldn't be any strong female characters at all which isn't the case, I just don't want them throwing in an all action female so they can say "look we've got an all action female character".
So, exactly as I said, I don't expect the female characters to be as important as the three male leads and no, I wouldn't want them to be (artificially created to be the female equivalent of Jason) but I expect that the female characters as appearing in the show will, especially in the case of Sarah Parish, be well written and essential to the show's story narrative. It remains to be seen what level of importance Medusa and Ariadne are going to have within the context of this interpretation of Greek myth and the Atlantis story.
And your sarcastic commentary and rolling eyes smiley clearly demonstrates a high level of intellectual debate by which you seek to argue a particular standpoint or illustrate your rationale for why there should be a female character of daring do given the same weight and importance as the three male equivalents.
Comments
So, familiar with metal-bashing and Swords then ?! and randy Soldiers, trying to gain her favours.
I agree, although there have already been some incredibly good adaptations of the life stories of some of those women, Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots and Jane to a lesser extent, have had quite a lot of air time.
Historical figures do tend to get dramatised a lot, I'd be interested in seeing a prime time Saturday evening TV show which bucked the trend for boys own adventures and focussed on a female heroine. There's not really been any decent ones (I'm discounting the cartoony nature of Xena even though it wasn't a bad show) for a long time.
I am hopeful we will see some good female characters in Atlantis because of the quality of actresses they have playing the roles. Similarly with The Musketeers, when that starts up, there should be a decently written character in Constance with which to balance out the daring do boys own adventure-ness of the Musketeers and D'Artagnan.
The Percy Jackson novels would have been good for a TV series as they have plenty of strongly written female characters, but unfortunately they're now being adapted for film.
However, looking at a similar (although far more adult orientated theme), Game of Thrones has managed to create a number of incredibly well written and strong female characters behaving in a way which goes against the norm (of the times which influenced GRRM when writing, ie the War of the Roses and The Hundred Years War). So it is perfectly possible to write decent female characters into a TV show but I don't want female ones added just so the makers can say "hey look, we've got our own Lara Croft style action woman" when the story narrative doesn't justify it.
No it's fairly well documented about how women spent their time, even in the Arthurian mythology
There is This, I doubt it's going to be particularly historically accurate though.
That's a whole different thing. Essentially, you're saying that none of the female roles should have as much impact as the male characters. Not just as far as the action elements go, but in terms of the entire story.
Really?
No, I'd say AA has completely nailed it.
:rolleyes:
No, that isn't what I said and I fully explained it in my post but do feel free to continually misread and misinterpret what I actually said. The two sentences in my comment cannot be split or separated as you appear to wish to do as I did not say I don't want any female characters to have any importance or to not be as important as the male leads.
What I said was that I don't expect the female characters to be as important as the males in a boys own adventure show and no, I wouldn't want them to be as it usually means a character has been written to fill in a slot so they can say "we've met the PC criterion for having a strong female role".
All of which can be found in my reply to your original question, which you seem to be ignoring completely.
So, exactly as I said, I don't expect the female characters to be as important as the three male leads and no, I wouldn't want them to be (artificially created to be the female equivalent of Jason) but I expect that the female characters as appearing in the show will, especially in the case of Sarah Parish, be well written and essential to the show's story narrative. It remains to be seen what level of importance Medusa and Ariadne are going to have within the context of this interpretation of Greek myth and the Atlantis story.
Then you'd be as utterly wrong as they were.
And your sarcastic commentary and rolling eyes smiley clearly demonstrates a high level of intellectual debate by which you seek to argue a particular standpoint or illustrate your rationale for why there should be a female character of daring do given the same weight and importance as the three male equivalents.
Oh no, wait, it doesn't.
Yep, it's Merlin II.
Yep, rather predictable...
It doesn't seem like my cup of tea but I'm giving it a go.
Right on schedule.