[cpbell0033944]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/20/television.gender

Opinions?

[TC2]

Hmm…

Good that people want a muscular woman to take the role of Sarah Connor.

Bad that they're picking on beautiful Lena for not having big biceps.  Sometimes concessions must be made and they shouldn't pick on the poor girl for not having an athletic physique.

I don't think it's ruining the iconography of Sarah Connor, I personally barely noticed the muscles on her arms in the movies why should Lena be any different?

Anyway, at least they want a more muscular protagonist, this opens a window of opportunity to develop powerful female characters in the future.  (As long as it's a good movie or TV show.)

[Tigersan]

Hmm…

Good that people want a muscular woman to take the role of Sarah Connor.

Bad that they're picking on beautiful Lena for not having big biceps.  Sometimes concessions must be made and they shouldn't pick on the poor girl for not having an athletic physique.

I don't think it's ruining the iconography of Sarah Connor, I personally barely noticed the muscles on her arms in the movies why should Lena be any different?

Anyway, at least they want a more muscular protagonist, this opens a window of opportunity to develop powerful female characters in the future.  (As long as it's a good movie or TV show.)

WHAT?! you being muscular women admirer barely noticed her muscles ? IT was THE first think i noticed and they were pretty ripped, she had striations going on on her delts and shit hehe…
And she had a NICE V taper going on too… thats ALOT of difference. It changes the character itself ALOT, in minds of people watching it… and i agree with that article…
Whats going on in movie industry is a piece of bullcrap…

Check those out:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_6643~Linda-Hamilton-Posters.jpg
http://www.kinoweb.de/film2001/Terminator2JudgmentDay/pix/t2-014.jpg&nbsp;                     <—- Kinda skinny but look at the bulges, delts, traps, chest, triceps stands out on her arms i loved that, Slender muscle chicks is what i LOVE in real life aside of GIGANTIC chicks in my fantasy world…
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/t2-23.jpg&nbsp;                                                        <—- Nice biceps and arm development in arm almost straightened out

That kind of physique adds "Strength" to the character not only physical. You can mentally feel it … thats what they mean…

[TC2]

I don't know, for me every time I watch the movie her muscle tone doesn't grab my attention.  I know it's a bit strange but even when I try to focus on it, it's not something that strikes me as particularly memorable.  Not quite sure why, but it just doesn't stick in my brain.

As for the article, they did say that the TV series is going in a totally different direction than the movies.  So the Sarah Connor we know from the movies isn't exactly the same one that's in the TV show.  I am willing to bet that the reason Sarah Conner isn't muscular on the TV show is simply because they probably figured it wasn't important enough, to warrant a big budget to get Lena a personal trainer and Chef.

After all you need a lot of people to get the actors into buff shape and that's just not something which is do-able on a TV budget, ESPECIALLY when the effects are of such high quality that I'm sure it eats a huge chunk of their budget.  Would be interesting to see an interview where they ask why Sarah isn't as muscular as she was in the movie.  Not the actress, but rather the producer in charge of making certain decisions.

[Tigersan]

Would be interesting to see an interview where they ask why Sarah isn't as muscular as she was in the movie.  Not the actress, but rather the producer in charge of making certain decisions.

Yup that would be interesting 🙂

[Vollar-Tile]

Mostly agreed with albiet everything Collector said. Its really no big deal.

You know, I never noticed Hamilton being buffed in the 2nd movie either, though I always sorted figured she may have been when I saw her doing pullups in the asylum.

Come to think of it, Sarah Connor's probably one of my favorite characters. Female, whups ass, but with none of the Mary Sue-ism most female characters wind up getting.

[cpbell0033944]

When I posted the link, I thought it might stimulate debate, but I didn't expect an argument to result from it. :'(

For my money, having never watched the original film, I'm not missing the muscularity that the new actress lacks.  I do feel that a backside-kicking character should have a reasonably impressive physique.
What interests me is that I'd have bet money that the reaction of you guys would have been similar to those of the physical feminists, as both our groups have an interest in the character being buff.  Instead, whilst the feminists view the original Connor character as a heroine and great example of what they're fighting for, most of those who've responded so far seemed unmoved by Hamilton's muscle, and are seemingly unconcerned as to the loss of buffness represented by the casting of the current actress.  It goes against my predictions and is, to my eyes, very surprising.  Perhaps this is a case of fantasy muscle being the primary attraction, but the reality is less of an interest as it's less perfect than the fantasy?

For my money, I'm disappointed – we need all the positive role-models we can get.  My argument against the feminist group, though, is that by deriding the new actress as "emaciated", which she doesn't seem to be, they've irreparably weakened their argument.  If they'd said that she's a normal, slim woman, whereas Connor should be a buff heroine, then I'd have been cheering them from the rafters.  I just feel that they've overreacted by bringing eating disorders into the mix.  There's no obvious signs that the actress had an ED, and, IMO, she doesn't look emaciated or too thin; she's just not at all buff, which I'd have hoped she would be. 🙁 :'(

[btx]

Well, I did see T2 on original release; the audience audibly gasped when they saw Linda Hamlilton's back as she was doing pullups. She made the cover of New York Magazine as the example of the "new woman" (The article was mostly negative. Linda was compared to an ape  >:( >:( )

I'm not surprised however that the 'new' Sarah Connor is a weed. As I said in another thread, 'stunt-fu' and CGI can make women toss cars and two hundred pound stuntmen with ease. Muscles were only supposed to be a visual signifier of a woman's amazonian prowess. But that is no longer necessary. Even American Gladiators is downsized ( "Hellga" couldn't take "Zap" on her best day).

EDIT: I should make clear that if the Chronicles is a successful long running series, and the actress undergoes a modest regimen you could see some impressive results in say two or three years.

BTX

[cpbell0033944]

Well, I did see T2 on original release; the audience audibly gasped when they saw Linda Hamlilton's back as she was doing pullups. She made the cover of New York Magazine as the example of the "new woman" (The article was mostly negative. Linda was compared to an ape  >:( >:( )

I'm not surprised however that the 'new' Sarah Connor is a weed. As I said in another thread, 'stunt-fu' and CGI can make women toss cars and two hundred pound stuntmen with ease. Muscles were only supposed to be a visual signifier of a woman's amazonian prowess. But that is no longer necessary. Even American Gladiators is downsized ( "Hellga" couldn't take "Zap" on her best day).

EDIT: I should make clear that if the Chronicles is a successful long running series, and the actress undergoes a modest regimen you could see some impressive results in say two or three years.

BTX

May I respond with bullet points?

– I respectfully disagree about "Hellga" (Robin Coleman) as she was second-placed in World's Strongest Woman in 2001 to Jill Mills. 

– I'm saddened at the response of the magazine; if Hamilton looked ape-like, then what in hell did that make Arnie?!  I suspect the article was written by either an insecure woman who was jealous of Hamilton's bod or by a misogynistic bastard.

– I'm also saddened by the computer-effect era of twig girls beating big guys – possible it may be, but realistic or desireable?  Hardly.  As the feminist group said, it sends-out the message to women that the fantasy of them defending themselves from guys is OK, but you'd better not get buff enough to do it in real life, because women are supposed to be small, weak and dependant on men for their protection. 

YUCK!!! 🙁 >:( >:( >:( >:(

My version would be:  buff up ladies – it's good for you! 8)
I just wish we had better role-models to in 

[Vollar-Tile]

– I'm also saddened by the computer-effect era of twig girls beating big guys – possible it may be, but realistic or desireable?  Hardly.  As the feminist group said, it sends-out the message to women that the fantasy of them defending themselves from guys is OK, but you'd better not get buff enough to do it in real life, because women are supposed to be small, weak and dependant on men for their protection. 

YUCK!!! 🙁 >:( >:( >:( >:(

Ouch… major contradiction alert.

[Author]

Posts