Bloomberg has published a story about how Netflix is planning a Wednesday spin-off, and with it comes the news that Disney is working on a “new version” of X-Files, one that will be produced by Ryan Coogler, the director behind hit films that include Black Panther and Creed.
There’s no word on whether David Duchovny and/or Gillian Anderson will be back in their iconic roles of Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but here’s the short blurb that Bloomberg shared, noting the involvement of one of Marvel Studios’ more notable collaborators:
Disney, which birthed the idea of “cinematic universes,” is developing a new version of X-Files that would be produced by Ryan Coogler, the director of Black Panther and Creed.
The new X-Files, which is presumably a reboot, was brought up by Bloomberg to illustrate how streamers are doubling down on sequels and prequels, including HBO and Showtime, which is planning similar content for its respective services:
HBO, long a bastion of original storytelling, is now making spinoffs of Game of Thrones, a sequel to Sex and the City, TV prequels to the movies Dune and It, along with multiple shows based on DC comics. (Some of these fall under the umbrella of the Max streaming service.) Showtime, the home of Weeds and Dexter, is making spinoffs of Billions and Ray Donovan – and even more Dexter.
X-Files: Season 11, the show’s last season, premiered in January 2018 and ended with “My Struggle IV,” a tenth and final episode that concluded the series’ long-running Mythology story.
“Mulder and Scully continue to search for their long lost son, William, while Cigarette Smoking Man pushes to find the secret of the boy and his powers,” reads a synopsis for the episode, which aired in March 2018.
A third X-Files movie was planned, but it was speculated to have been canceled due to the disappointing performance of The X-Files: I Want to Believe.
Join the discussion in The FPS Review Forums...
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →The idea of a fresh X-Files with Ryan Coogler at the helm adds a touch of mystique and technical skill to the film. I am eager to witness how the director of Black Panther will bring his own style to the paranormal investigations!
I question anything under Disney these days. /shrug
Let me guess, it's being "reimagined for modern audiences."
A black attractive assertive skully andan Asian Mulder who has hints of genius but bumbles through everything. That's my guess.
"Dan_D, post: 81879, member: 6" wrote:Let me guess, it's being "reimagined for modern audiences."
Have to update things. BSG nailed the update
"Endgame, post: 81882, member: 1041" wrote:Have to update things. BSG nailed the update
Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of shit was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single fucking character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically shit. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting shit to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of shit.
"Dan_D, post: 81883, member: 6" wrote:Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of **** was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single ****ing character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically ****. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting **** to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of ****.
So you didn't like it?
Yeah Disney will f this up. Why they even try, instead they should just sell
"Dan_D, post: 81883, member: 6" wrote:Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of **** was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single ****ing character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically ****. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting **** to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of ****.
That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story. Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck fucking comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
Tough women characters? Who gives a fuck. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
Not to give Disney a pass for the clusterfuck that was episode 8... but the Marvel franchise was really good up thru endgame and spiderman. Haven't yet seen the second Captain Marvel movie. What fucked Star Wars wasn't the fact that the new young jedi was female, it was that they turned Luke into a huge pussy (completely out of character) and threw away all of the previous 6 movies... It was shitty writing, not to be conflated with 'woke' whatever the fuck.
If they are making another X-Files, it should really be a new set of characters. Guess we will see. I have to agree that most reboots are shit.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
You seem to be under the impression that I disliked the new series out of some nostalgia for the original series, or by comparison. Well let me set the record straight on that. If I have seen the original Battlestar Galactica show at all, it was so long ago that I have almost zero memory of it. I was very young in the 1980's when it was on and we had one TV in the house. My parents didn't watch it, so I didn't watch it.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story.
Irrelevant. This was not my complaint.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck ****ing comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
I do not care if the story connects to the original or not, nor do I give a shit about some mental gymnastics justifying gender changes in television. There are cases where gender changes actually work well in remakes of shows, but this wasn't one of them. That would have worked if they actually wrote the character to act like a woman and not a man. Nu-BSG takes from the modern school of writing strong female characters. Essentially, those come in two flavors.
1.) Don't write a female character at all. Simply write a male character and cast a female actor in the lead. Name changes are optional.
2.) Have your female lead by likable by every character in the show no matter how unlikable or insufferable they actually are. Then, have them berate and cuck every man around her. She's automatically going to be the best at everything all the while tearing down her male colleagues which are all bumbling retards anyway.
Nu-BSG went with option 1 as opposed to the 13th Doctor in Doctor Who which was clearly option 2.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:Tough women characters? Who gives a ****. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
You are confused. A well written, strong female character looks nothing like what we get from modern Hollywood. Rey, Michael Burnham, all the women in Ghostbusters 2016, etc. are not examples of well written characters or strong women. They are angry Mary Sue self-insert characters with the personality of a crouton. They are written by people who think, being a lesbian is a character type. It's not character at all.
Ripley was a strong female character who stood with her male counterparts as an equal but still remained feminine. She made up for her lack of military training and physical prowess with quick thinking and resourcefulness. She was likable and relatable. Modern female "characters" rarely are.
Having a strong female character isn't "woke" on its own.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:Not to give Disney a pass for the clusterfuck that was episode 8... but the Marvel franchise was really good up thru endgame and spiderman. Haven't yet seen the second Captain Marvel movie.
I never said anything about the Marvel movies. I enjoyed most of them up to Endgame. I haven't seen anything other than a couple of the TV shows after that.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:What ****ed Star Wars wasn't the fact that the new young jedi was female,
I never said it was. Again, having strong female characters in films was never a problem. Many of my favorite movies from the 1980's had them. Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, etc. I had no issues with Nikita or a number of other shows with female protagonists.
Rey is a Mary Sue. She has ZERO personality. She shows no growth because she never fails. She never has to overcome anything. She beats Kylo Ren in their first encounter thus making sure that there are no stakes for any additional confrontations with him. The character is a static, overpowered self-insert for the writers.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:it was that they turned Luke into a huge pussy (completely out of character) and threw away all of the previous 6 movies... It was ****ty writing, not to be conflated with 'woke' whatever the ****.
Oh, there is wokeness in those dogshit films. However, that's actually the least of their problems. The writing is atrocious and nonsensical. Not to mention, contradicts established lore or ignores it entirely.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:If they are making another X-Files, it should really be a new set of characters. Guess we will see. I have to agree that most reboots are ****.
Again, most reboots are shit because they make changes to suit mythical "modern audiences" that don't exist. The woke shit is the prioritizing of specific ideologies over story or even facts in the case of some pseudo documentaries like the Netflix series on Cleopatra. Reboots often fail because the writers of the reboots do not understand the source material. They miss the essence of what made those shows endure the test of time and what made them popular. They fail because they make changes for all the wrong reasons.
"Dan_D, post: 81883, member: 6" wrote:Battlestar Galactica?
I think almost all of what you bring up is true, and yet I still liked the show, except for the ending.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
Most people who like the new one hasn't seen the original. Most usually these remakes are aimed at those not familiar with the old, and not as fan service to the few lingering fans of the original show.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story. Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck ****ing comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
You can't just make something null and void by inserting a single throwaway line. I can fully understand that fans of the original were upset by completely replacing a character with a different one. It's not about strang whamen. If they changed a woman into a man that would be just as annoying as a fan. Except the wind only blows in one direction in hollywood. Away from heroic straight males.
"GoodBoy, post: 81887, member: 6483" wrote:Tough women characters? Who gives a ****. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
It's kind of ironic that you mention media feeding anyone anything while reciting the woke narrative word for word. i.e. that those who complain about gender swaps and "strong female characters" are just insecure.
You can't tell the difference between a well written female character vs. the woke ones if you think Ripley in Alien is the same as gender swapped Starbuck. Woke "strong female leads" are basically male characters played by female actresses. They use male mannerisms, act tough, and even can hold their own in one v one hand to hand combat with men twice their size.
An actual strong female character is not trying to mimic men, but for some reason woke writers think being strong = acting like men. It's almost as if they are the sexists.
A strong female character will use her feminine viles against men and manipulate them like a snake charmer. These days an actual strong female character would freak out most woke ideologs. Because women can't be beautiful and feminine, and man can't be heroic and masculine anymore for some reason. This onecharacter in a videogame who appears for 10 minutes shows more genuine feminine strength than all the "strong female" characters combined from hollywood.
And to be on topic, I don't get it. They just tried to revive X-files a few years ago and it failed. The whole paranormal and aliens thing is just not in the zeitgeist any longer. The original X-Files came out at a time when most people didn't have internet access. The intriguing conspiracy theories were the thing that made the show a success. But now everyone can find all the whack theories online.
"MadMummy76, post: 81890, member: 1298" wrote:A strong female character will use her feminine viles against men and manipulate them like a snake charmer. These days an actual strong female character would freak out most woke ideologs. Because women can't be beautiful and feminine, and man can't be heroic and masculine anymore for some reason. This onecharacter in a videogame who appears for 10 minutes shows more genuine feminine strength than all the "strong female" characters combined from hollywood.
I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone. I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
"Grimlakin, post: 81893, member: 215" wrote:I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone.
To be fair, you can be male or female in the game and you are also talking about a protagonist that in most cases will be heavily augmented with cybernetics. Far more than even most of the special forces soldiers you'll run into in the game. You also do not have to engage in melee combat at all. You can shoot your enemies or use netrunning skills to fry them.
"Grimlakin, post: 81893, member: 215" wrote:I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
This isn't entirely accurate either. Like a lot of comic book characters, some of the strong female characters in game lore are augmented. Commander Shepard in the Mass Effect series receives "the standard Alliance genetic modification package" just as any other Alliance soldier. In the second game, depending on your dialog choices its revealed that Cerberus upgraded Shepard (mostly out of necessity) in some areas though the specifics of Shepard's augmentation are left intentionally vague.
Another example of this are Spartan II and Spartan III soldiers in the Halo franchise. Even the females are many times stronger than average male soldiers. The depth of their augmentation is severe to say the least, especially regarding Spartan II's. Their armor augments them even further allowing even a female soldier to flip a tank if necessary.
Obviously, the list here isn't all encompassing. There are examples of what you are talking about but games really can't be relied on for requiring the same realism that is required for suspension of disbelief in movies or TV shows. Story in games is often secondary to gameplay. If you look at many popular franchises, their stories are utterly ridiculous. It wasn't until about a decade ago that writers beyond the level of Twilight Fan-Fiction writers were hired to change that.
In many cases, you are still talking about science fiction or comic book based properties where realism isn't required. In many of the cases where it isn't, you are still talking about female protagonists using firearms and doing very little in terms of melee combat. Guns are great equalizers.
"Grimlakin, post: 81893, member: 215" wrote:I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone. I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
You know that's for practical reasons and not for any ideological ones, right? Besides I doubt hollywood is getting their DEI cues from videogames.
Additionally every playthrough of a game is its own canon, so the characters are not really comparable, male and female V or male and female Shepard can never co-exist in the same universe. So we have plausible deniability. In most games playing the female version of the protagonist is a wholly different experience than the male one, despite them being equivalent in terms of gameplay.
Not to mention that gendered differences doesn't even apply to Cyberpunk where characters are defined by their cybernetic enhancements and modifications, and not any inherent traits. You don't train to be stronger, you simply upgrade your cyberware.
And even in other universes without cybernetics It's not that no woman can be stronger than any man. Obviously with proper training a woman can become the equivalent or even better than an average man. The problem is the mary sue effect, where the female character doesn't earn their strength. For example captain marvel or Rey in Force Awakens.
"MadMummy76, post: 81898, member: 1298" wrote:Obviously with proper training a woman can become the equivalent or even better than an average man.
I'm assuming you are talking about men versus women in a fight. Men and women have the same capabilities as far as intelligence goes so we can assume its possible to pit equally skilled men and women together in a fight. There is actually a ton of data on this and the results are pretty clear. Men win the overwhelming majority of the time even if the man is at a skill deficit. Skill in a fight is certainly valuable, but skill won't overcome physics.
The average man is going to be taller than his female counterparts. Men have much greater muscle, joint and bone density. Men have a great deal more muscle mass, especially in the upper body. It takes a great deal of physical training and steroids for a woman to equal much less surpass the average man. Even then, in a fight they still have massive disadvantages. Women are generally shorter and smaller in stature than their male counterparts meaning that men will have a reach advantage and more leverage in a fight even if they are close in relative strength.
With greater bone and joint density, a height advantage, etc. a women is going to have to work harder to injure a man and stop the fight than the man does. There is also an element of this that isn't generally spoken about and that's reaction times. Men are generally superior in that area too. Not to mention, there is raw aggression which female fighters simply can't match.
This has been done several times. In the cases where "trans women" have fought in female MMA bouts, the results were disastrous. Fallon Fox fought Tamikka Brents in 2014. This resulted in Tamikka Brents getting a concussion and an orbital bone fracture in the first round. Tamikka Brents is far from weak for a woman, but as a man Fallon Fox is lightweight.
Lucia Rjiker is widely regarded as one of if not the best female kickboxers of all time. She had four titles and lost to an amateur male champion. She had far greater technique, but if you watch the video he's faster, more aggressive and he knocks her around throughout the fight.
The bottom line is the women that are strong enough and skilled enough to fight an average man do not look like the 110lbs. 5'4" women they typically use in action movies. If you watch Gina Carrano in the Mandalorian its much easier to believe she can fight a man. Not only does she have technique and actual skills, but she's much larger than most women. She's got a big frame and a lot of muscle mass for a woman.
In a lot of the fight choreography you see in these movies, you can see the stunt men having to slow down and accommodate their female co-stars. These stunt men tend to be in good physical condition and aren't the "average" man either making the disparity even more hilarious. Of course there are shows and games that do maintain the suspension of disbelief at seeing stuff like this. This is primarily the case with comic book films.
"MadMummy76, post: 81898, member: 1298" wrote:The problem is the Mary Sue effect, where the female character doesn't earn their strength. For example Captain Marvel or Rey in Force Awakens.
This is certainly the bigger problem by a long shot. It's a combination of these characters not having to earn or learn anything and generally unlikeable and flawless. In The Rise of Skywalker Rey makes a mistake only to find out later that she was mistaken about making a mistake. That's the kind of crap we are working with.
If they were Mary Sue's that were likable it would be an improvement. But these "characters" go around bashing men and all the men in the films are made into bumbling idiots to make the unlikable characters better by comparison.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →The idea of a fresh X-Files with Ryan Coogler at the helm adds a touch of mystique and technical skill to the film. I am eager to witness how the director of Black Panther will bring his own style to the paranormal investigations!
I question anything under Disney these days. /shrug
Let me guess, it's being "reimagined for modern audiences."
A black attractive assertive skully andan Asian Mulder who has hints of genius but bumbles through everything. That's my guess.
Have to update things. BSG nailed the update
Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of shit was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single fucking character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically shit. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting shit to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of shit.
So you didn't like it?
Yeah Disney will f this up. Why they even try, instead they should just sell
That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story. Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck fucking comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
Tough women characters? Who gives a fuck. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
Not to give Disney a pass for the clusterfuck that was episode 8... but the Marvel franchise was really good up thru endgame and spiderman. Haven't yet seen the second Captain Marvel movie. What fucked Star Wars wasn't the fact that the new young jedi was female, it was that they turned Luke into a huge pussy (completely out of character) and threw away all of the previous 6 movies... It was shitty writing, not to be conflated with 'woke' whatever the fuck.
If they are making another X-Files, it should really be a new set of characters. Guess we will see. I have to agree that most reboots are shit.
You seem to be under the impression that I disliked the new series out of some nostalgia for the original series, or by comparison. Well let me set the record straight on that. If I have seen the original Battlestar Galactica show at all, it was so long ago that I have almost zero memory of it. I was very young in the 1980's when it was on and we had one TV in the house. My parents didn't watch it, so I didn't watch it.
Irrelevant. This was not my complaint.
I do not care if the story connects to the original or not, nor do I give a shit about some mental gymnastics justifying gender changes in television. There are cases where gender changes actually work well in remakes of shows, but this wasn't one of them. That would have worked if they actually wrote the character to act like a woman and not a man. Nu-BSG takes from the modern school of writing strong female characters. Essentially, those come in two flavors.
1.) Don't write a female character at all. Simply write a male character and cast a female actor in the lead. Name changes are optional.
2.) Have your female lead by likable by every character in the show no matter how unlikable or insufferable they actually are. Then, have them berate and cuck every man around her. She's automatically going to be the best at everything all the while tearing down her male colleagues which are all bumbling retards anyway.
Nu-BSG went with option 1 as opposed to the 13th Doctor in Doctor Who which was clearly option 2.
You are confused. A well written, strong female character looks nothing like what we get from modern Hollywood. Rey, Michael Burnham, all the women in Ghostbusters 2016, etc. are not examples of well written characters or strong women. They are angry Mary Sue self-insert characters with the personality of a crouton. They are written by people who think, being a lesbian is a character type. It's not character at all.
Ripley was a strong female character who stood with her male counterparts as an equal but still remained feminine. She made up for her lack of military training and physical prowess with quick thinking and resourcefulness. She was likable and relatable. Modern female "characters" rarely are.
Having a strong female character isn't "woke" on its own.
I never said anything about the Marvel movies. I enjoyed most of them up to Endgame. I haven't seen anything other than a couple of the TV shows after that.
I never said it was. Again, having strong female characters in films was never a problem. Many of my favorite movies from the 1980's had them. Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, etc. I had no issues with Nikita or a number of other shows with female protagonists.
Rey is a Mary Sue. She has ZERO personality. She shows no growth because she never fails. She never has to overcome anything. She beats Kylo Ren in their first encounter thus making sure that there are no stakes for any additional confrontations with him. The character is a static, overpowered self-insert for the writers.
Oh, there is wokeness in those dogshit films. However, that's actually the least of their problems. The writing is atrocious and nonsensical. Not to mention, contradicts established lore or ignores it entirely.
Again, most reboots are shit because they make changes to suit mythical "modern audiences" that don't exist. The woke shit is the prioritizing of specific ideologies over story or even facts in the case of some pseudo documentaries like the Netflix series on Cleopatra. Reboots often fail because the writers of the reboots do not understand the source material. They miss the essence of what made those shows endure the test of time and what made them popular. They fail because they make changes for all the wrong reasons.
I think almost all of what you bring up is true, and yet I still liked the show, except for the ending.
Most people who like the new one hasn't seen the original. Most usually these remakes are aimed at those not familiar with the old, and not as fan service to the few lingering fans of the original show.
You can't just make something null and void by inserting a single throwaway line. I can fully understand that fans of the original were upset by completely replacing a character with a different one. It's not about strang whamen. If they changed a woman into a man that would be just as annoying as a fan. Except the wind only blows in one direction in hollywood. Away from heroic straight males.
It's kind of ironic that you mention media feeding anyone anything while reciting the woke narrative word for word. i.e. that those who complain about gender swaps and "strong female characters" are just insecure.
You can't tell the difference between a well written female character vs. the woke ones if you think Ripley in Alien is the same as gender swapped Starbuck. Woke "strong female leads" are basically male characters played by female actresses. They use male mannerisms, act tough, and even can hold their own in one v one hand to hand combat with men twice their size.
An actual strong female character is not trying to mimic men, but for some reason woke writers think being strong = acting like men. It's almost as if they are the sexists.
A strong female character will use her feminine viles against men and manipulate them like a snake charmer. These days an actual strong female character would freak out most woke ideologs. Because women can't be beautiful and feminine, and man can't be heroic and masculine anymore for some reason. This onecharacter in a videogame who appears for 10 minutes shows more genuine feminine strength than all the "strong female" characters combined from hollywood.
And to be on topic, I don't get it. They just tried to revive X-files a few years ago and it failed. The whole paranormal and aliens thing is just not in the zeitgeist any longer. The original X-Files came out at a time when most people didn't have internet access. The intriguing conspiracy theories were the thing that made the show a success. But now everyone can find all the whack theories online.
I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone. I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
To be fair, you can be male or female in the game and you are also talking about a protagonist that in most cases will be heavily augmented with cybernetics. Far more than even most of the special forces soldiers you'll run into in the game. You also do not have to engage in melee combat at all. You can shoot your enemies or use netrunning skills to fry them.
This isn't entirely accurate either. Like a lot of comic book characters, some of the strong female characters in game lore are augmented. Commander Shepard in the Mass Effect series receives "the standard Alliance genetic modification package" just as any other Alliance soldier. In the second game, depending on your dialog choices its revealed that Cerberus upgraded Shepard (mostly out of necessity) in some areas though the specifics of Shepard's augmentation are left intentionally vague.
Another example of this are Spartan II and Spartan III soldiers in the Halo franchise. Even the females are many times stronger than average male soldiers. The depth of their augmentation is severe to say the least, especially regarding Spartan II's. Their armor augments them even further allowing even a female soldier to flip a tank if necessary.
Obviously, the list here isn't all encompassing. There are examples of what you are talking about but games really can't be relied on for requiring the same realism that is required for suspension of disbelief in movies or TV shows. Story in games is often secondary to gameplay. If you look at many popular franchises, their stories are utterly ridiculous. It wasn't until about a decade ago that writers beyond the level of Twilight Fan-Fiction writers were hired to change that.
In many cases, you are still talking about science fiction or comic book based properties where realism isn't required. In many of the cases where it isn't, you are still talking about female protagonists using firearms and doing very little in terms of melee combat. Guns are great equalizers.
You know that's for practical reasons and not for any ideological ones, right? Besides I doubt hollywood is getting their DEI cues from videogames.
Additionally every playthrough of a game is its own canon, so the characters are not really comparable, male and female V or male and female Shepard can never co-exist in the same universe. So we have plausible deniability. In most games playing the female version of the protagonist is a wholly different experience than the male one, despite them being equivalent in terms of gameplay.
Not to mention that gendered differences doesn't even apply to Cyberpunk where characters are defined by their cybernetic enhancements and modifications, and not any inherent traits. You don't train to be stronger, you simply upgrade your cyberware.
And even in other universes without cybernetics It's not that no woman can be stronger than any man. Obviously with proper training a woman can become the equivalent or even better than an average man. The problem is the mary sue effect, where the female character doesn't earn their strength. For example captain marvel or Rey in Force Awakens.
I'm assuming you are talking about men versus women in a fight. Men and women have the same capabilities as far as intelligence goes so we can assume its possible to pit equally skilled men and women together in a fight. There is actually a ton of data on this and the results are pretty clear. Men win the overwhelming majority of the time even if the man is at a skill deficit. Skill in a fight is certainly valuable, but skill won't overcome physics.
The average man is going to be taller than his female counterparts. Men have much greater muscle, joint and bone density. Men have a great deal more muscle mass, especially in the upper body. It takes a great deal of physical training and steroids for a woman to equal much less surpass the average man. Even then, in a fight they still have massive disadvantages. Women are generally shorter and smaller in stature than their male counterparts meaning that men will have a reach advantage and more leverage in a fight even if they are close in relative strength.
With greater bone and joint density, a height advantage, etc. a women is going to have to work harder to injure a man and stop the fight than the man does. There is also an element of this that isn't generally spoken about and that's reaction times. Men are generally superior in that area too. Not to mention, there is raw aggression which female fighters simply can't match.
This has been done several times. In the cases where "trans women" have fought in female MMA bouts, the results were disastrous. Fallon Fox fought Tamikka Brents in 2014. This resulted in Tamikka Brents getting a concussion and an orbital bone fracture in the first round. Tamikka Brents is far from weak for a woman, but as a man Fallon Fox is lightweight.
Lucia Rjiker is widely regarded as one of if not the best female kickboxers of all time. She had four titles and lost to an amateur male champion. She had far greater technique, but if you watch the video he's faster, more aggressive and he knocks her around throughout the fight.
The bottom line is the women that are strong enough and skilled enough to fight an average man do not look like the 110lbs. 5'4" women they typically use in action movies. If you watch Gina Carrano in the Mandalorian its much easier to believe she can fight a man. Not only does she have technique and actual skills, but she's much larger than most women. She's got a big frame and a lot of muscle mass for a woman.
In a lot of the fight choreography you see in these movies, you can see the stunt men having to slow down and accommodate their female co-stars. These stunt men tend to be in good physical condition and aren't the "average" man either making the disparity even more hilarious. Of course there are shows and games that do maintain the suspension of disbelief at seeing stuff like this. This is primarily the case with comic book films.
This is certainly the bigger problem by a long shot. It's a combination of these characters not having to earn or learn anything and generally unlikeable and flawless. In The Rise of Skywalker Rey makes a mistake only to find out later that she was mistaken about making a mistake. That's the kind of crap we are working with.
If they were Mary Sue's that were likable it would be an improvement. But these "characters" go around bashing men and all the men in the films are made into bumbling idiots to make the unlikable characters better by comparison.