There is no "correct" way to write or depict a female character.

FontSize72LOL said:


Not much, I'm trying to grasp where you're going with this though. The point of my original comment is that a lot of female characters are written in anime for males, not for women's sake. I'm not trying to argue that this is a good or bad thing. It is the same for a lot of male characters in shows targeted towards females like "Free!" for example, or any Shoujo.

Thats just the way the industry is. They're not trying to be accurate depictions of women, but to sell a fantasy, Just like a lot of men in certain shows aren't an accurate or realistic depiction of men. There are shows that sell the same kind of fantasy to women as well.

youseiki said:
“Many of my movies have strong female leads- brave, self-sufficient girls that don't think twice about fighting for what they believe with all their heart. They'll need a friend, or a supporter, but never a savior. Any woman is just as capable of being a hero as any man.”

― Hayao Miyazaki

Enough Said, there's a good way of writing women.

Saint_Nepunepu said:

This has nothing to do with good writing, this is just feminist politics. There is no reason why all female characters must be brave and independent women who never need no man, and not even Miyazaki followed his own advice. His male characters also had to be saved by others, and the same thing can be seen in many other anime.

topazio said:
Just look at movies like Wonder Woman and you will get what I mean. The fastest way to ruin a female character is creating her with tropes like "strong woman" in mind. And that is only an example, that a lot of people obviously don't get because if there's a woman kicking ass and doing weird faces while dominating people in a movie they automatically think of it as "empowering".

topazio said:


Her being ignorant of western society was shown by her behaving and being led around by Steve like a naive child. Outcast of society or not, she was still a princess and a representative of state in a whole new society, and her acting totally didn't suit what had been built off her until now. I'd rather believe they just did whatever they wanted with her character for kicks (like that cringy scene in the hot springs) than an actually care for character construction. Of course, this might be because of Gadot's awful acting, but still.

I can see the other points you mentioned, but honestly, the movie overall was so bad executed for me that the use of such traits didn't add anything to it. Especially the last part, since the friend was such an uncharismatic character and his death so pointless I couldn't care less about it.

topazio said:


I still doubt someone like that would walk with her arms open wide to an unknown woman in the street crying "a baaaaaabyyyyyy", even though she had never seen one. I mean, would you do something like that? She was isolated from our society, but she wasn't completely devoid of sense. Yeah, it would be unrealistic for her to be automatically be knowledgeable of the outside world, but it was as unrealistic to see a princess and a warrior acting like a susceptible child and lose all restraint because of novelty.

And yeah, of course he had a good motif, but that doesn't make his character good, since I doubt the creators of the movie intended for him to be just a walking plot device. It's like Jyn on Rogue One. The fact that everything in the movie happened because of her still didn't prevent her from being a passive and boring character.