|
|
Post by scoobylover on May 29, 2017 7:08:40 GMT -5
One thing I noticed about the show that really bugged me was the lack of female characters or generally the roles they have. The mayor was a woman in El Bandito, a businesswoman, Clarabella, appeared in the clown one, but throught the season you can count women by hand while male is way more recurrent and occupies the highest roles in society such as scientist and owner of the Tech Corp. for example while the only woman in the episode is an assistant. Cliche. I go through new episodes always hoping it would change but it doesn't seem to happen
|
|
|
|
Post by ShaphneLegacy27 on May 30, 2017 16:16:49 GMT -5
Shows lacking female characters isn't a big deal in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcb on May 31, 2017 12:33:58 GMT -5
One thing I noticed about the show that really bugged me was the lack of female characters or generally the roles they have. The mayor was a woman in El Bandito, a businesswoman, Clarabella, appeared in the clown one, but throught the season you can count women by hand while male is way more recurrent and occupies the highest roles in society such as scientist and owner of the Tech Corp. for example while the only woman in the episode is an assistant. Cliche. I go through new episodes always hoping it would change but it doesn't seem to happen I hate to admit you are correct. There are a lack of female characters, although we were, in fact, mindful of such things. I think things got better as we went along. That said, there are many diverse female characters in the series, such as the judge in "People vs. Fred Jones," a scientist in "Trading Chases," and many others. There is in inherent bias against primary female suspects, which is subconscious because it sometimes feels like a cheat to have a woman be the monster, who appears larger and stronger - and it can feel like a cheat to make it a woman (although we've done that). Mostly, two of our main characters are female and I worked and fought hard to change them into the most dimensional Daphne and Velma ever seen. Daphne is no longer the cliche, insulting "pretty one" who gets kidnapped and Velma is no longer the brainy plain Jane. In fact nothing about their personalities or characters have anything to do with their genders. Other series have overcompensated by "empowering Daphne" by making her an "intrepid reporter" or a "Buffy slyer-type" and other easy cliches. I think our unique, multifaceted and complex Daphne and Velma are far more human that what's come before. Keep an eye out, I think you'll see more strong, aspirational female characters in upcoming episodes, as well as mean, cruel women, crazy women, old women, etc. We treat women like humans - just like the men. We were aware of and concerned with showing people of all different cultures, races, and genders to make the show as inclusive as possible. Also, certain kinds of humor simply work better with men then with women and vice-versa and this may be a bias, but men tend to have certain ego, masculine qualities that lend themselves to being hoisted by their own petards. I'm not sure if you've seen all the episodes but there are strong main and secondary female characters in eps like "Party like it's 1889" and "Be Quiet" and there are even more in season two. Either way, I think we had inclusiveness in mind from the beginning and if you really count the secondary characters, you'll find many are female characters and a more diverse population than any other series. This may not be enough for you, or you may not like what we've done with the female characters, but they are there. Whatever worked best with the comedy and story is what we chose. I thin you'll also find more women in the "higher" positions as it goes along. If you look for it, I think you'll see it's more balanced than you imagine. The "old, mean man" criminal in a mask is an age-old Scooby trope and, I admit, sometimes it's difficult to escape the bias, even for myself. My sincere apologies if we have offended. Best, JCB |
|
|
|
Post by scoobylover on May 31, 2017 13:21:30 GMT -5
One thing I noticed about the show that really bugged me was the lack of female characters or generally the roles they have. The mayor was a woman in El Bandito, a businesswoman, Clarabella, appeared in the clown one, but throught the season you can count women by hand while male is way more recurrent and occupies the highest roles in society such as scientist and owner of the Tech Corp. for example while the only woman in the episode is an assistant. Cliche. I go through new episodes always hoping it would change but it doesn't seem to happen I hate to admit you are correct. There are a lack of female characters, although we were, in fact, mindful of such things. I think things got better as we went along. That said, there are many diverse female characters in the series, such as the judge in "People vs. Fred Jones," a scientist in "Trading Chases," and many others. There is in inherent bias against primary female suspects, which is subconscious because it sometimes feels like a cheat to have a woman be the monster, who appears larger and stronger - and it can feel like a cheat to make it a woman (although we've done that). Mostly, two of our main characters are female and I worked and fought hard to change them into the most dimensional Daphne and Velma ever seen. Daphne is no longer the cliche, insulting "pretty one" who gets kidnapped and Velma is no longer the brainy plain Jane. In fact nothing about their personalities or characters have anything to do with their genders. Other series have overcompensated by "empowering Daphne" by making her an "intrepid reporter" or a "Buffy slyer-type" and other easy cliches. I think our unique, multifaceted and complex Daphne and Velma are far more human that what's come before. Keep an eye out, I think you'll see more strong, aspirational female characters in upcoming episodes, as well as mean, cruel women, crazy women, old women, etc. We treat women like humans - just like the men. We were aware of and concerned with showing people of all different cultures, races, and genders to make the show as inclusive as possible. Also, certain kinds of humor simply work better with men then with women and vice-versa and this may be a bias, but men tend to have certain ego, masculine qualities that lend themselves to being hoisted by their own petards. I'm not sure if you've seen all the episodes but there are strong main and secondary female characters in eps like "Party like it's 1889" and "Be Quiet" and there are even more in season two. Either way, I think we had inclusiveness in mind from the beginning and if you really count the secondary characters, you'll find many are female characters and a more diverse population than any other series. This may not be enough for you, or you may not like what we've done with the female characters, but they are there. Whatever worked best with the comedy and story is what we chose. I thin you'll also find more women in the "higher" positions as it goes along. If you look for it, I think you'll see it's more balanced than you imagine. The "old, mean man" criminal in a mask is an age-old Scooby trope and, I admit, sometimes it's difficult to escape the bias, even for myself. My sincere apologies if we have offended. Best, JCB Thanks for always replying. I personally am not offended in any way, I was more worried that you would have been offended mostly. I am a man who considers himself as a femenist, true, but I am aware of the limits that make everything said turn into a controversy. There will always be people that will be complaining about having too many women in the show or the other way around. In the present era I understand that for people who lead these kind of decisions it's incredibly hard to do something without being aimed at with a shotgun by anyone. I have watched every single episode and I remember going through the titles and my memory to recall by episode all the female appearances before writing the thread and yes I did miss those you metioned because I somehow completely forgot about their presence. I don't know why but everytime I see a male character, there is something so weak in female ones and that makes them hidden in the background so much that I always roll my eyes and be like "oh what a surprise, another man". So this is probably why I forgot about those characters. I was glad to see Daphne getting mad at the king in "Renn Scare" for being given the role to clean and also her line "why couldn't a peasant village girl had invented something that got mistaken over time?" (or something like that) but yet the only other female character (and one of the 3 usual suspects) was only seen in two scenes, was a searvant and even if her lines were a clue they were all those were. No personality or characterization whatsoever and for two fleeting and forgettable scenes. Anyways it was a simple and truthful critique I felt like giving but thanks for replying as always. |
|
|
|
Post by jcb on May 31, 2017 17:51:43 GMT -5
I hate to admit you are correct. There are a lack of female characters, although we were, in fact, mindful of such things. I think things got better as we went along. That said, there are many diverse female characters in the series, such as the judge in "People vs. Fred Jones," a scientist in "Trading Chases," and many others. There is in inherent bias against primary female suspects, which is subconscious because it sometimes feels like a cheat to have a woman be the monster, who appears larger and stronger - and it can feel like a cheat to make it a woman (although we've done that). Mostly, two of our main characters are female and I worked and fought hard to change them into the most dimensional Daphne and Velma ever seen. Daphne is no longer the cliche, insulting "pretty one" who gets kidnapped and Velma is no longer the brainy plain Jane. In fact nothing about their personalities or characters have anything to do with their genders. Other series have overcompensated by "empowering Daphne" by making her an "intrepid reporter" or a "Buffy slyer-type" and other easy cliches. I think our unique, multifaceted and complex Daphne and Velma are far more human that what's come before. Keep an eye out, I think you'll see more strong, aspirational female characters in upcoming episodes, as well as mean, cruel women, crazy women, old women, etc. We treat women like humans - just like the men. We were aware of and concerned with showing people of all different cultures, races, and genders to make the show as inclusive as possible. Also, certain kinds of humor simply work better with men then with women and vice-versa and this may be a bias, but men tend to have certain ego, masculine qualities that lend themselves to being hoisted by their own petards. I'm not sure if you've seen all the episodes but there are strong main and secondary female characters in eps like "Party like it's 1889" and "Be Quiet" and there are even more in season two. Either way, I think we had inclusiveness in mind from the beginning and if you really count the secondary characters, you'll find many are female characters and a more diverse population than any other series. This may not be enough for you, or you may not like what we've done with the female characters, but they are there. Whatever worked best with the comedy and story is what we chose. I thin you'll also find more women in the "higher" positions as it goes along. If you look for it, I think you'll see it's more balanced than you imagine. The "old, mean man" criminal in a mask is an age-old Scooby trope and, I admit, sometimes it's difficult to escape the bias, even for myself. My sincere apologies if we have offended. Best, JCB Thanks for always replying. I personally am not offended in any way, I was more worried that you would have been offended mostly. I am a man who considers himself as a femenist, true, but I am aware of the limits that make everything said turn into a controversy. There will always be people that will be complaining about having too many women in the show or the other way around. In the present era I understand that for people who lead these kind of decisions it's incredibly hard to do something without being aimed at with a shotgun by anyone. I have watched every single episode and I remember going through the titles and my memory to recall by episode all the female appearances before writing the thread and yes I did miss those you metioned because I somehow completely forgot about their presence. I don't know why but everytime I see a male character, there is something so weak in female ones and that makes them hidden in the background so much that I always roll my eyes and be like "oh what a surprise, another man". So this is probably why I forgot about those characters. I was glad to see Daphne getting mad at the king in "Renn Scare" for being given the role to clean and also her line "why couldn't a peasant village girl had invented something that got mistaken over time?" (or something like that) but yet the only other female character (and one of the 3 usual suspects) was only seen in two scenes, was a searvant and even if her lines were a clue they were all those were. No personality or characterization whatsoever and for two fleeting and forgettable scenes. Anyways it was a simple and truthful critique I felt like giving but thanks for replying as always. Understood. And a reasonable critique. The suspects and secondary characters are usually difficult to serve with 5 main characters (who actually drive the story and the for whom the stakes of solving the mystery effect, unlike many other Scooby series), plus a mystery to service and other suspects and chases, etc, makes it hard to fully dimensionalize all the minor characters. We try to give them their moments and find a point of view for them, but, occasionally, they can get lost in the shuffle of trying to get so much into 22 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by shaggyfan86 on Jun 1, 2017 11:42:13 GMT -5
Can I just say, they've actually been developing Daph's character since the 80s Scooby spin off from the damsel in distress to more action girl, like she was a news reporter in the episodes she returned and become more sarcastic in the 13 ghosts spin off. Not to mention they have her more humorous in the new films without the craziness in the films or show her smart side in the space film.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcb on Jun 1, 2017 14:34:58 GMT -5
Can I just say, they've actually been developing Daph's character since the 80s Scooby spin off from the damsel in distress to more action girl, like she was a news reporter in the episodes she returned and become more sarcastic in the 13 ghosts spin off. Not to mention they have her more humorous in the new films without the craziness in the films or show her smart side in the space film. Yes, they have. It's subjective, of course, but I found the cliche ways empowering Daphne, like making her a martial arts expert in the movies or a intrepid reporter to never quite tell us enough about WHO she is, make her multi-dimensional, with flaws and all. They, at least, took her away from her cardboard beginnings, but they fell back on tropes that are "symbols" of female empowerment, instead of ignoring the "female" part all together and just making an interesting character. Many love other iterations of Daphne and I'm glad they do. I'm glad they did SOMETHING with her. |
|
|
|
Post by Doo on Jun 1, 2017 17:52:10 GMT -5
Can I just say, they've actually been developing Daph's character since the 80s Scooby spin off from the damsel in distress to more action girl, like she was a news reporter in the episodes she returned and become more sarcastic in the 13 ghosts spin off. Not to mention they have her more humorous in the new films without the craziness in the films or show her smart side in the space film. Yes, they have. It's subjective, of course, but I found the cliche ways empowering Daphne, like making her a martial arts expert in the movies or a intrepid reporter to never quite tell us enough about WHO she is, make her multi-dimensional, with flaws and all. They, at least, took her away from her cardboard beginnings, but they fell back on tropes that are "symbols" of female empowerment, instead of ignoring the "female" part all together and just making an interesting character. Many love other iterations of Daphne and I'm glad they do. I'm glad they did SOMETHING with her. Yes, I agree that the damsel-in-distress, helpless Daphne definitely was very cliche, and it felt like not much was really ever done with her, particularly in some of the early (1970s) episodes where it just seemed like she was a pretty face. It's been really cool to see this version of Daphne and watch her evolve throughout the show. Hmm I guess I never viewed Daphne as a symbol of feminine empowerment (though that's cool if that's what they were going for), but IMO in a true multi-dimensional character, gender shouldn't have to define the character because the character defines him/herself. |
|
|
|
Post by jcb on Jun 2, 2017 4:34:09 GMT -5
Yes, they have. It's subjective, of course, but I found the cliche ways empowering Daphne, like making her a martial arts expert in the movies or a intrepid reporter to never quite tell us enough about WHO she is, make her multi-dimensional, with flaws and all. They, at least, took her away from her cardboard beginnings, but they fell back on tropes that are "symbols" of female empowerment, instead of ignoring the "female" part all together and just making an interesting character. Many love other iterations of Daphne and I'm glad they do. I'm glad they did SOMETHING with her. Yes, I agree that the damsel-in-distress, helpless Daphne definitely was very cliche, and it felt like not much was really ever done with her, particularly in some of the early (1970s) episodes where it just seemed like she was a pretty face. It's been really cool to see this version of Daphne and watch her evolve throughout the show. Hmm I guess I never viewed Daphne as a symbol of feminine empowerment (though that's cool if that's what they were going for), but IMO in a true multi-dimensional character, gender shouldn't have to define the character because the character defines him/herself. Yeah, I'm talking more about HOW they've approached Daphne since 1969. the idea that she can suddenly fight really well or is an "intrepid reporter" like lois Lane are cliches that represent the trope of the "strong, independent empowered female." It's last to me in that it's been done before. It also says nothing about who she is as a person, her personality. I hope we created a Daphne that is just uniquely herself, female or not. You get to know her as the series evolves. People jumped on this "you dumbed her down thing," which is absurd. She's brilliant and creative - just eccentric. She's also flawed. She can be overly trusting or naive, she can be silly and not take things as seriously as she should. She's a fully, well-rounded human being to me, at least. She sees the world with wonder and a positive attitude. She's compensating (sometimes OVER compensating) for a strict, harsh upbringing, finally enjoying life and all the things she was deprived of doing when she was growing up. She's the heart of the gang and I couldn't be more proud when so many people say she's their favorite character on the show and favorite Daphne of all time. I also love it when people say that about Fred. These were rarely people's favorite characters. They're probably the most dimensional in our version, so it's understandable. You can actually get to know them as you watch the series. |
|
|
|
Post by snesgamer on Jun 4, 2017 14:56:40 GMT -5
I think people just need to relax and enjoy things without keeping a mental quota of how many females per male, etc. there should be in a show. When did people even start doing that? Like 5 or 6 years ago?
As it stands, the show has pretty much always kept a 50/50 ratio of male/female human characters in the main group, and Daphne and Velma have always been awesome characters (yes even Daphne in her clumsy trap-prone phase).
|
|
|
|
Post by Doo on Jun 4, 2017 15:13:05 GMT -5
I think people just need to relax and enjoy things without keeping a mental quota of how many females per male, etc. there should be in a show. When did people even start doing that? Like 5 or 6 years ago? As it stands, the show has pretty much always kept a 50/50 ratio of male/female human characters in the main group, and Daphne and Velma have always been awesome characters (yes even Daphne in her clumsy trap-prone phase). Very good point. In my opinion, what's most important is that we view the characters for who they are and their personalities, rather than letting them be defined by gender. I mean, look at Daphne and Velma. Both of them are female, yet they both have very unique characteristics that makes them each their own character. In a truly good show, what should matter is how the characters interact with each other and develop throughout the series, rather than having an exactly perfect ratio of male to female. |
|
