MovieChat Forums > V (2009) Discussion > Why are the leaders of both sides women?

Why are the leaders of both sides women?


Is it the whole female superiority thing, that men are always led by women, even though this isn't true in real life?

Come to think of it, how come whenever they show a male and female in any kind of competition on TV, whether it be sports or board games, they ALWAYS have to show the female winning?

What's up with that?

Men usually beat women in sports and board games, in real life, so why can't TV just follow real life? Why do they have to always show the opposite?

Is it cause of the BS political correctness that says that women are superior? Why do they have to follow that? Based on what logic?


http://www.happierabroad.com - The Greatest Hope for Single Men

reply

You think it's bad on TV shows pal. Try looking at Horror movies. THEY have it ten times worse than any TV show ever will. It's sick and tiresome to watch all the damn time. Men can NEVER punch women but women can punch and shoot men all they want these days. And don't get me started on sitcoms where women abuse men verbally and physically and men just take it. Women get to have it their way and when anyone says anything against it. They are branded misogynistic, sexist, or whatever else their tiny minds can think of calling those who tell it like it is. It is partly the PC bullpoop that surrounds us to blame as well for how things are. The original V did it better. It had Donovan as the leader of the resistance and Diana as the invasion force leader of the Vs. Diana wasn't the V queen or leader like some think. She was only the head of the invasion forces. She had people above her in the command chain.

"You can't kill me Stefan. Nothing can." - Radu Vladislas

reply


You think it's bad on TV shows pal. Try looking at Horror movies. THEY have it ten times worse than any TV show ever will. It's sick and tiresome to watch all the damn time. Men can NEVER punch women but women can punch and shoot men all they want these days. And don't get me started on sitcoms where women abuse men verbally and physically and men just take it. Women get to have it their way and when anyone says anything against it. They are branded misogynistic, sexist, or whatever else their tiny minds can think of calling those who tell it like it is. It is partly the PC bullpoop that surrounds us to blame as well for how things are. The original V did it better. It had Donovan as the leader of the resistance and Diana as the invasion force leader of the Vs. Diana wasn't the V queen or leader like some think. She was only the head of the invasion forces. She had people above her in the command chain.


So true. And have you noticed how comedians, when talking about both sexes, MUST ALWAYS portray women in a positive light and make fun of men? They can't make fun of women, but they can make fun of men. They can say "Women are smarter than men" but they can't say "Men are smarter than women". It's so sexist. Where are all the feminists who want equality?

Also, how come feminists never complain about how on the Titanic, they let the women and children off first? On what basis are the lives of women and children more important than men? Where are the feminists in those situations? They're never there.

They can't justify any of that.



http://www.happierabroad.com - The Greatest Hope for Single Men

reply

So... Women today have to justify men's actions on the Titanic? Really? Is that event, and a handful of television shows with strong female leads (I can't imagine how horrific it must be for you to have to see Erica Evans kick ass, knowing that if she was your wife, you would be the one beating her, or your colleague, you'd be ranked higher than her, etc.), really so offensive to you? You're simply using evidence that suits you - for every show depicting a strong female, there are at least two others with strong male leads or supporting characters. Why are you so opposed to women being portrayed positively? Sorry, but clearly, you're a misogynist; telling you so won't change anything, because obviously it's deep-seated enough for you to believe you have some righteous cause if V being about an Erica and Anna rather than Eric and Adam is that uncomfortable for you. With respect to your comedy statement, I have two things to say. A) You're manipulating fact - yes, female comedians do make those sorts of jokes, but men do, as well, and often women insult or parody themselves! You can't tell me there aren't male comedians working that make sexist, demeaning jokes about women or about their own gender? B) Women have for centuries held a socially and politically minority status (they still do in most countries, but you probably don't even believe women had it all that bad, do you? I mean, it was worth it, since some guys let women on life rafts first, right?*), so jokes of that nature have a different impact coming from men. It's all about context. Try to embrace some strong, unoffensive female leads (like, really, Erica and Anna couldn't have been that bad???) - female athetes may not commonly be stronger/faster than male ones, but intellectually, we're on par with you, and everyone with knowledge, a gun, computer, super alien powers, whatever, is capable of doing equal damage.


*By the way, I haven't seen Titanic for many, many years, but I don't know if James Cameron, ironically, a man, depicted what happened in an accurate way. I do know in reality, some men held guns and *forced* other men to let children and women (probably to be with their children) on first - is that the way Cameron presented it on film?

reply

Yeah I find this whole "female lead" thing also annoying. I am not a sexist, but come on.. nearly every newer slasher movie has strong females and just some wimp men along with one brave guy, who eventually sacrifices himself.
It's just a stupid thing to have such extreme ideas. If the reason for giving women the lead or the command over something like on V, then they should make it REALLY equal whereas e.g. Marcus AND Anna are the king & queen of the V's and Erica and I dunno, Jack or anyone else would be the leading couple of the resisting humans. THAT would be equal. Even in horror flicks it would be ten times better to see a couple work together against some freakish cannibals, than just a wimmering wimp bitch, crawling away from everything just to get lucky "ohmygodistabbedthebadguybyaccident"-deaths whereas every other character dies by just looking at him.

reply

Yes indeed. Only the feminist crowds will shout "sexist beast" when they see comments like these. But then again I don't care for what the feminist minded crowds think. I call it as I see it. I am only an ass hole or sexist pig to those who don't like hearing the truth of the matter. I've been watching horror movies for decades and it's extremely sexist towards men, not women, towards men!. This makes the horror genre dull tired and very very predictable. You end up knowing what will happen before you watch the *beep* movie in question. Look at a DVD cover of a horror movie and you see women plastered on it, back or front of the cover, and you know that one of them is the main character who will survive. If you think that then you might be wrong in that assumption in say... one in every 50 movies. But most of the time you will be correct. Women are liberated in horror movies and men are repressed and then some. Being a horror movie fan this angers me and leads to frustration through seeing this never ending run of the mill content from Hollywood. Watch "Stake Land" and also "The Dead" (an African zombie movie) both go against this low end mentality that Hollywood is so keen on keeping.

"Try the Antarctic why don't you. Someone that lights fire will be popular up there!."

reply

Well, there is some definite sexism towards men on tv, I don't think having the two leaders be women is part of it.

Anna is a leader because the writer's chose to go for the she's a queen thing, not just for being elected, but it's a physical thing, like queen ants or queen bees. They could have had someone else in charge, while she just bred, but that's not what they chose to do. It also looks kind of bad if they have a man in charge while a gal is there just to make babies.

The human resistance leader is female...well, the plotline they had, it was kind of needed...even if the plot was stupid. They wanted a mother who was raising a child on her own because the father left because the child's DNA doesn't match his. That doesn't really work the opposite way because if a woman gave birth a kid, she's not likely to believe a DNA test that says she's not the mother. It certainly makes no sense to think her husband was unfaithful due to this test, as was the case for the father here.

Also, you have some important male leaders. John May, though dead, is an inspiration to the Fifth Column. Joshua is clearly an important figure for the Fifth Column on the ships. Until his death, Eli was in charge of another human resistance group, that, quite frankly was more organized and did more work than Erica's group. Lars Tremont seemed to be introduced as being in charge of Project Ares, though we don't know how that would have turned out.


-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

The so-called important men in the show are weak characters compared to the female characters on the show. Hell, even Lisa is more of a strong character than most of the men. Just don't mention that *beep* bitch Evans as THAT THING irritates me to no end due to it's antics and attitude.

"You can't kill me Stefan. Nothing can." - Radu Vladislas

reply

I guess we just disagree then. :) I felt some of the men were equally strong.
-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

I think you missed the whole point of the show being focused on motherhood, which has for a very long time been mythologised/used in fantasy. Maybe they should've introduced Charlie Sheen to the cast as a strong male lead that can screw the women/joke about it afterwards, and save them all a la Rick Grimes, the way television should be!!!

Also, Erica Evans, trying to save the world... What a bitch.

reply

You're right, the leaders of both sides should be gay men (for a change) instead.

reply

Well, he wasn't an official leader, but I believe Joshua was supposed to be gay. Sometime down the line, someone on the show (either the writers or higher ups or something) chickened out. Might have had a relationship with the guy he skinned. Information was in the ABC commentary, "It's Only the Beginning." Haven't seen it myself. The commentary seems to be gone. Seen it mentioned in a few places though.
-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

You know, I was definitely getting a gay vibe from Joshua and the guy he skinned. I just wasn't sure if it was my imagination or what. Then I kind of forgot about it. I don't think there has ever been anyone gay in the V franchise, that would be interesting if there was. What is an ABC commentary?

reply

Yeah, it was, but it seems to be gone now. I hope they put it (and whatever else they had up and took down) in their DVDs.

I would guess the decision to de-gay them came after it was filmed, since you and several others picked up gay vibes from them.
-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

That's interesting! I read that the writers wanted to explore a possible Joshua/Lisa romance because the two actors had chemistry on set, but it just never happened. I think they backtracked on Joshua's initial character because the viewers didn't take well to a Tyler/Lisa pairing, so they wanted to make Joshua/Lisa available instead.

~ V Finale Recap: http://recapeverything.blogspot.com/2011/03/v-recap-season-2-episode-1 0.html

reply

There's no reason there couldn't be romance in both relationships. From what I understand, Joshua (and all other males) are made to breed with the queen, should she call upon them, and be eaten. No emotion attached to said mating.

Now discovering emotions, discovering romantic love...there's no reason for him to attach it a particular sex.

With David, it's possible they learned about emotions together, or one found them first, then helped the second develop these emotions. In the process, they discovered new feelings for each other, something much stronger than what they feel towards anyone else. They embrace it, using it to fight the bliss. The scene where Joshua has to kill David is strong, but it's a lot stronger when you add in a loving relationship.

Now Joshua sees with Lisa, where he was once at. The chemistry between the actors was much better than Lisa and Tyler, so I don't blame the writers for wanting to take advantage of this. However, they didn't need to reset Joshua for it to happen.

It is interesting to see that the writers saw the relationship between them. I heard it before, that they were going to use it in season 2, but they seemed to shove Joshua in the background instead. I wonder if he was originally going to stay dead, but they brought him back when seeing his popularity. However, they then didn't know what to do with him.

-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

Well, according to the original writer of V, Diana (from the original series) was bisexual, so she liked both men and women.

reply

I've heard that before. Kind of funny, as she didn't strike me as loving either very much.
-
Malek: It is essentially an asexual process.
O'Neill: That why you guys take hosts?
Stargate SG-1

reply

OMG....I can't take it anymore!

You think you men are so "repressed?" Have your penis fall off and in it's place grow a vagina! I'd KILL to be considered for promotions and be paid what you men are paid, but instead, I get to earn $.75 for every $1 you men earn!

UUUGH! You talk about this crap, "Why did the women and children get to get on the Titanic lifeboats first??" HOLY *beep* That was back in the day when men RESPECTED women! Look up MANNERS and CHIVALRY!

You people don't get this show at all! It was two women who were both mothers! Their kids were being used to as soldiers and their families were pit against each other! And remember, the Vs were NOT HUMAN and Anna was the queen of the nest who hatched her eggs!

Crap like the crap in these threads are why we will never have a woman as a LEADER in this country. *beep* we have a 5-MEMBER, ALL MALE PANNEL that addressed congress on Birth Control rights. WTF????? Were women's opinions not valid for a topic that involved their bodies??? Don't even get me started on that!!!

No, we'd rather have attractive Barbie-doll bimbos like Bachmann and Palin run for president and they don't even know 8th Grade Geography! Hell, let's not put a woman in the White House who is fat and smart. Let's just make sure she looks hot in a bathing suit.

The reason women were in charge on this show was that the Vs had more advanced brains than the human male.

Thank you!

reply

Sounds to me like you are trying to condemn people for telling it like it really is. Praise the strong female roles and want more of them and nothing is said. Say anything against such things and we get people like you posting posts like you did. Yeah, well, you will just have to learn to live with it. You lot wanted the vote. You got it. Welcome to the age of equality. And it should be equality all the way NOT JUST WHEN IT SUITS YOU!.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Goodbye.

"Hate, regression, lies, exist no longer. As earth becomes the epitaph of Cain."

reply

It's just as f cking annoying here in GB, virtually every advert or tv show has a 'woman in charge' thing, almost a feminist agenda? A woman cop/doctor/kicking vampire hunter?

Violence against men is shown for fun in the various media, but what would happen if a fella smacked a woman?

reply