Fanbase Divided: The Complicated World of Gender Representation in Warhammer 40k

 

In 2024, a short story based on the lore of Warhammer 40,000 was published that made a big reveal. For the first time, it confirmed that a division of the Imperium of Man, known as Adeptus Custodes had women in their ranks. The results were... greatly varied. Many were willing to embrace the sudden inclusion, but there were many who found this to be a disgusting addition to the lore. When Game Workshop later tweeted confirmation that there have always been female custodes, it led to accusations of gaslighting. Some fans were acting like this was some slap in the face to the franchise, literally throwing tantrums because a supposedly all-male faction is now co-ed.

The thing is there is no actual basis for these tantrums. Nothing in existing 40k lore established there could not be female custodes. Fans just assumed that, because only male custodes had been named so far, that the faction was therefore all-male. This is textbook argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence. 

All it indicates is that existing lore never mentioned female custodes one way or the other before this particular story. They had only identified male custodes up to this point, but there was no source that explicitly stated "there are no women in the custodes." Official artwork makes it clear that male and female custodes would be indistinguishable from each other while fully armored, so even then the idea that there have always been female custodes who simply blended in with their male counterparts is entirely believable. And yet, many fans will insist that it goes against the lore.

This is the murky ground of gender representation in 40k, a topic that leaves even its most hardcore fans divided against each other. It is a topic that has led to many heated debates and controversies over the years. Some want to see change, some deny there is an issue entirely. In this article, I will attempt to break down the different sides of gender representation and explore just what the issue is and how it can be addressed.

Space Marines

The simplest place to start with a discussion on gender representation is perhaps the biggest sticking point, the one that seems to really spark controversy among fans. Space Marines, also known by the formal title Adeptus Astartes are genetically modified supersoldiers who serve the Imperium of Man as an elite force. They are around eight feet tall, dwarfing most humans, and come in many different "chapters" which have their own unique characteristics and dedicated fans. The most iconic are the ultramarines, but other popular chapters include the blood angels, salamanders, black templars, and space wolves. 

Regardless of which faction a given player chooses, space marines are easily one of the most easily recognizable and popular parts of Warhammer 40k lore. However, they are all men. Unlike the custodes, this is made explicit in the lore. The process of creating space marines only works on men. And this is where the dispute comes into play. Should there be female space marines? 

It would seem logical that the answer should be a resounding "yes," but it is a bit more complicated than that.

The Sisters of Battle

One of the simplest arguments against female space marines is to point to the fact that they actually do have a female counterpart. The Sisters of Battle are an all-female military force who display a level of faith and dedication to the Imperium that even Space marines could only dream of. These are women who literally operate missile-shooting pipe organs while singing hymns to their emperor. Basically they, and the larger Adeptus Sororitas, could be most easily described as a gender-swapped version of the Catholic Church.

The Sisters of Battle and Space Marines are often compared with each other, and it makes sense why. Both are structured around religious devotion to the Emperor (who, as far as they are concerned, is a literal god) and rely on very similar weapons and tactics. A common way to describe them, especially with the religious aspect, is that Space Marines are like monks while Sisters of Battle are more like nuns. "Nuns with guns" as some fans like to call them. The argument here would be that this theme neccessitates the gender restrictions.

Another potential argument would be to point out a double-standard. If women were to join the Space Marines, than is it not fair that men should be allowed into the Sisters of Battle?

Other Factions

It is important to note that, within the context of Warhammer 40,000 lore, the Space Marines and Sisters of Battle are exceptions rather than the rule. Just about every other division in the Imperium of Man is co-ed. The Cadian shock troops, Death Korps of Krieg, and Tallarn desert raiders have both men and women in their ranks. As mentioned above, it was eventually confirmed that there were even women in the Adeptus Custodes, supersoldiers twice the size of space marines. So women can't be space marines but they can get into the one unit that's even bigger and tougher.

Among the Cadians, both men and women know how to assemble a weapon before they know how to read.

Outside of the Imperium, the same is mostly true when it comes to the various alien races that populate the 40k world. The Aeldari and Tau lack any sort of gender discrimination in their factions. The Necrons technically lack biological sexes due to being transformed into robots, but many still identify as male or female, and female-presenting Necrons have been shown to hold positions of power. The one exception would be the orks, who as an asexually reproducing species, simply lack any concept of sex or gender. And of course it is hard to tell if the concept of gender is even applicable to tyranids.

This would be another argument against the inclusion of space marines. There are already strong women in Warhammer 40,000. Some people would argue that there is no issue at all based on this fact alone, and therefore there is nothing to address. 

Male Domination in Warhammer 40k

While the franchise has been getting better, Warhammer 40,000 does have a history of being male-dominated. Until fairly recently it held a predominantly male fanbase. It put a very heavy emphasis on the experiences of men. There are even recorded instances where Games Workshop actively blocked efforts to introduce female characters under the belief they wouldn't sell. 

And unfortunately, that history can still be felt in the fanbase. There are too many male fans throwing tantrums over the introduction of a female custode. There are several facts that make this "controversy" absurd:

1. Argument from ignorance. The only "evidence" to back up the notion that there are no female custodes is rooted the fact that none were identified before now.
2. While the existence of female custodes had not been explicitly stated, there are no prior sources explicitly stating that women could not be custodes. 
3. Official artwork of Adeptus Custodes portrays them wearing heavy plate mail-like armor that conceals their whole body. This implies that, when fully armored, a male and female custode would be indistiguishable. This makes it impossible to verify the sex of individual members in most artwork.

Looking at fully armored custodes, how would you tell if they were all male or mixed gender?

Putting together the facts available, it is clear that this wasn't even a change to the lore. This particular story simply took something that was always theoretically possible and finally confirmed it. Yet some fans simply can't handle the idea that they made an incorrect assumption and feel the need to act like this is going to ruin everything.

In terms of lore, we can see a lot of emphasis on men, especially within the Imperium. The Empire is led by a male emperor, who also happens to be a superhuman being of unknown origin and, at least as far as anyone can understand, pretty much expects to rule the empire forever, even when he's half-dead. The Emperor also 20 "primarchs"- genetically produced children with unique powers. Of them, eighteen have been identified and all of them are male. Two remain open, so the idea of a female primarch isn't out of the question, though there are many who would object to such a move.

Put simply, a lot of the most powerful people in the lore, at least among humans, are men. Even the Sisters of Battle are characterized by their unwavering devotion to serving the (male) emperor. In many ways, this is kind of the point. Knowing this certainly makes things a bit discomforting.

Among individual groups, men often tend to get represented more than women in official media. The Death Korps of Krieg are supposedly mixed gender, but portrayals of them tend to exclusively show male soldiers. And of course, the most iconic and popular part of the Imperium is the all-male space marines.

Is There an Issue?

The big question that divides the fanbase of Warhammer 40,000 is whether there is actually an issue in gender representation. Do we even need to address anything at all? Or is it just people making a mountain of a molehill? Well, yes and no. The answer is a bit more complicated than simply accusing the whole franchise of misogyny or trying to cite it as a shining beacon of feminism. After all, Warhammer 40,000 encompasses a wide range of material including minis, books, animations, and video games. And it can be hard to take into account every single detail.

We know that Warhammer 40,000 has a history of being male-dominated and made with a male audience in mind, but also making a concerted effort to change with the times and become more inclusive. It is not necesarily wrong to want female space marines, but not all who oppose the idea are misogynistic trolls. Some actually bring up valid thematic or narrative reasons, or point to the existence of strong women elsewhere in the lore, including the Sisters of Battle.

However, a lot of where the problems come in are down to that one sticking point: female space marines. While Warhammer 40,000 has a lot of interesting lore, not all of it is going to be visible to newcomers. Some of it is hidden in books, short stories, and even locked behind a subscription fee for the official Warhammer streaming service (yes, that's actually a thing). So while there may be lots for hardcore fans, for the more casual audiences they will most likely see the most iconic and easily recognizable parts of lore.

And that just happens to be the Space Marines, particularly the blue-armored Ultramarines. They are the ones who appear front and center in everything. They are the ones who have a popular series of third-person shooters centered around them. Space Marine 1 and 2 place them front and center and focus on the brotherly relationships among them. Ask anyone to name any part of Warhammer 40k and almost everyone will identify the space marines. 

And what of their counterparts, the Sisters of Battle? Considerably less so. Only the most hardcore of fans will mention them. Where's their equivalent of Space Marine 2? The closest thing they have is a critically panned VR game called Battle Sister. They appear as an option in Dawn of War, alongside the Space Marines and other Imperial Factions, but it is rare to see them get any significant focus. 

The Spacer Marines are an obvious faction that will likely be the first thing anyone sees. To get to the Sisters of Battle, you have to dive deep into the lore. You have to go into all the books and and the Warhammer+ series to see any of them in action. This shows a level of disconnect between how often the space marines are portrayed vs. how often the Sisters of Battle are portrayed. We can extend this further to there being comparatively less material around any of the other co-ed factions.

So is there an issue that needs to be addressed? Well, yes, but not in the way one might expect. The issue isn't that there aren't strong female characters in Warhammer 40,000, the issue is that we don't see enough of them. The fact is the one faction that is explicitly all-male is basically the face of Warhammer 40,000, and this gives the wrong impression. Because so much emphasis is placed on the Space Marines, there often isn't room to include female characters thereby creating the appearance of a franchise centered around super macho men with little to no gender representation. 

This distinction might be meaningless for hardcore fans, but it creates a less-than-ideal impression to everyone else. When people come into the franchise, what's the first thing they see? The Space Marines. They don't see the Sisters of Battle or female guardsmen. They see blue-clad supersized men in bulky armor. And this is where the problem comes in. More women need to take the spolight, rather than being relegated to places where fewer people can find them.

A common argument against this is focusing on the Space Marines acts as a kind of filter. If a potential fans sees the Space Marines and are put off by them being all-male, they will stop there and go enjoy something else. However, this does not work as a reliable metric since it hinges on potential fans being put off by an inaccurate first impression. Some people could end up missing out on a lot of stuff they'd love simply because the Space Marines were so in their face they couldn't see anything else.

We can also just as easily turn the filter argument around. Instead of weeding out people who want inclusivity, how about we put our best foot forward and show the variety and diversity of the Warhammer 40k universe? Potential fans who would prefer hypermasculinity can then see how diverse the franchise actually is and will go off to something less woke. Or they can stick with the space marines. If that's their preferred group, it is a valid choice, as long as it is a choice.

So, now that we have identified the real issue at play, how can we address it? Well, the way I see it, there are two logical ways to change this.

Solution 1: Female Space Marines

The most obvious solution to the issue, which has become the main point of contention, is to start having female space marines. In theory, this would address the problem of gender representation without changing the current approach. 

One argument in favor of female space marines involves pointing to the real-life circumstances that contributed to the lore around their absence. When Games Workshop first began making space marine models, before all the lore was fully established, they actually attempted to make female space marines. The only problem was this was the 80's and, despite the popularity of Aliens and Metroid, a lot of its predominantly-male audiencewasn't ready for it. This led to the female minis not selling and pressure to focus on more masculine characters that seemed more profitable at the time. Eventually that also got incorporated into the lore

This seems like a petty story of sexism in media and seems like a logical reason to make the change. It was nothing more than a business decision motivated by what the higher ups at Games Workshop decided was more profitable and a reflection of how their biases and assumptions at the time. Considering this was over thirty years ago, and we're living in an era where people tend to be much more accepting of badass women, it may be time to reverse the decision. 

Arguments against introducing female space marines tend to appeal to the in-universe explanations for why women can't join their ranks. The simple explanation in the lore is the gene seed needed to make space marines only works on men. 

Does this make it impossible to add female Space Marines? Not necessarily. The simplest way to do it would be to retcon the existing lore, though this approach would not be well-received by fans. A more creative way would be to incorporate the change into the lore. The inclusion of female space marines could be attributed to in-universe technological advancements. Maybe a scientist figures out a way to make the gene seed work in female subjects, meaning women were unable to become space marines until a specific point in the timeline.

That said, while incorporating the change makes sense in theory, it does run into some complications with Warhammer 40k's themes of stagnation, especially with regard to the Imperium. Humanity is basically in a new dark age, which has stifled innovation. Put simply, the technology they are currently using comes from the Emperor, and as far as they are concerned the Emperor is perfect, so his technology must be perfect as well. Therefore, as far as anyone understands, any effort to improve on the Emperor's designs would be implying he is imperfect and amount to heresy.

In the existing lore, the Space Marines were creations of the Emperor himself, and given humanity's religious worship of him as a deity, it makes sense that people would be reluctant to modify the Space Marines if it could be avoided. From a worldbuilding perspective, this reasoning could be interepreted as meaning that any attempt to modify Space Marine gene seed to accomodate women would be considered heretical and any effort to do so would be discouraged if not outright prohibited.

Another explanation comes down to the Emperor's character and why he created the Space Marines. The Emperor acts in what he believes is humanity's best interest (though whether it's actually good for humans is a matter of debate), and he values regular unaltered humans. Genetically modified humans, like the Space Marines, were only ever meant as a means to an end, a tool to further his agenda. From here, there are two reasons only men could handle the process:

1. The gene seed comes directly from the Emperor, who is a man, so it is only compatible with male subjects
2. Space marines are significantly bigger and stronger than humans, and some look down on them. Ensuring that space marines could only be one gender might be a way of preventing them from reproducing (thereby spreading their genes and making more super humans) to a level where they can dominate regular unaltered humans.

Taking this into account, the lore does seem to make an in-universe justification for introducing female space marines difficult at the very least.

Other arguments point toward the fact that there are in fact strong women in Warhammer 40k, with the Sisters of Battle being commonly cited as an example. This argument could work if equal representation was assured. However, the problem is the Space Marines have disproportionately greater representation than the Sisters of Battle. 

Space Marines are everywhere, you have to dig into deeper lore to find the Sisters of Battle. And since it's the space marines that get so much attention, it brings us again to the problem that the one explicitly all-male faction is the one most people see, creating the appearance of a male dominated world simply because people don't see the female characters. 

The simplest way to fix it would be to just stop making it an all-male faction. If there are women space marines fighting alongside the men, then they will appear alongside men in Space Marine-centered media, and there is no longer an issue. 

However, as noted, this is a contentious issue that has more nuance than might initially be apparent. Yes, some of it is is simple misogyny, but some of the arguments do make legitimate points.

So now that we have identified the most controversial solution, what other options do we have?

Solution 2: Stop Making it All About the Space Marines

If female space marines aren't an option, there is another solution. The problem ultimately comes down to Space Marines being featured front and center in everything, giving the wrong impression because so many people only see the hypermasculinity of one faction. The one way to keep that part of the lore intact while improving gender representation is therefore for the space marines to stop hogging the spotlight all the time. 

If female Space Marines aren't an option (which many fans argue it isn't), then the logical solution is to give more attention to other areas where strong women can be present. Maybe do more with the Sisters of Battle or one of the other co-ed groups. Or even move away from humanity all together and do something with one of the aliens, like maybe something about the Aeldari. If the Sisters of Battle got anywhere near the attention Space Marines do, it would be a lot easier for fans to actually see that the Space Marines are unique in this one aspect.

This means ensuring that these factions are easily available. They shouldn't be hidden in novels or locked behind the paywall of an exclusive streaming service. They need to be seen with the same level of vigor as the Space Marines. There have been a few efforts. The Sisters of Battle got a VR shooter called Battle Sister, and Adeptus Mechanicus starred in a strategy game called Mechanicus, which recently got a sequel.

We need more efforts like these. There would be a lot less disputing about female space marines if the Sisters of Battle had equal screentime. Or perhaps we could take advantage of some of the factions that are actually co-ed. After all, just in the Imperium there are so many different factions with their own unique personalities. 

Now this doesn't mean ignoring the Space Marines all together. They can still be the focus of stories, just that they should have equal representation to others rather than dominating them. That said, just because the space marines are the main focus doesn't mean it always has to be an all-male cast. There are workarounds that can still make female representation possible even in space marine-centric media.

Take the Space Marine games, for example. Both center around Space Marine Demetrius Titus and heavily emphasize his brotherly relationships with other Space Marines. However, the first game also gave a major role to Lieutenant Miranda Nero, a Cadian commanding officer who oversees a lot of the game's operations. Space Marine 2 introduced Major Sarkaana, another tough Cadian leader. It could be argued that Sarkaana deserved more screentime, and it might have been nice if she wasn't the only female character to have any significance to the game's campaign, but it does show a legitimate effort to portray strong women while respecting the game's existing lore.

The upcoming Warhammer 40k TV series on Amazon Prime ran into a major controversy when star Henry Cavill refused to participate in the show unless they respected the lore. This was in response to the show's writers wanting to introduce female space marines, while Cavill insisted on sticking with what has already been firmly established. 

Cavill was not neccessarily wrong to demand this, but the writers seemingly failed to consider potential workarounds. like finding female representation in non-Space Marine characters. Could they not have found room to include the Sisters of Battle? It seems as if some media just fails to realize there are other things to 40k besides Space Marines.

If female space marines are not an option, and they wouldn't be if many fans have their way, than the logical solution is to stop putting so much emphasis on the one faction that can't have female members. If more attention were to be given to the Sisters of Battle, or even one of the co-ed factions like the Cadians, Death Korps, Tallarn Desert Raiders, or Adeptus Mechanicus, it would open  up a lot more room for women to take center stage and for strong female characters to actually be seen.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the issue of gender representation in Warhammer 40k is a complicated issue with multiple layers. While no fandom is completely united, there are few quite as divisive as that of Warhammer 40k, especially with regards to such a specific issue. We can't simply label the whole franchise as sexist. There is sexism within its history and certainly among its fans, and this has defintely had an impact on how the lore is constructed. 

Still, we can also see examples of strong female characters and positive gender representation. Even the big sticking point of space marines is more nuanced than it initially appears. We see people throwing literal tantrums because a faction that was always theoretically capable of having female members had a female member, but we also see some intelligent and well-constructed arguments for why it makes sense for one particular group to be gender-locked. 

In the end, the big issue is less about whether there is representation, but about how clear that representation is. There are strong female characters, yes, but how many people actually see them? Ultimately it comes back to the issue of the space marines once again. When the all-male faction is the one everyone sees, it obscures a lot of the deeper and more diverse lore from all but the most hardcore of fans. And this is the part that needs to change. 

How can that change happen? We have outlined two possible ways. Ultimately, it is impossible to please everyone. No matter what choice Games Workshop goes with, there will be pushback. If female space marines are unveiled, there will be fans who embrace the change and fans who will rage. There will be those who rage if space marines aren't the center of everything, but perhaps bringing other more varied factions into the foreground will attract new audiences. 

Jaws in the Age of Covid-19

In 1975 a director by the name of Steven Spielberg, a man at that point with only two feature films and a few shorts to his name, premiered his latest film- an adaptation of a novel by Peter Benchley. After a notoriously difficult production, audiences were shocked to see a frightening tale of a killer shark. Its title made it clear what to expect: Jaws, obviously in reference to the deadly jaws of the great white shark who serves as its main antagonist. The film was an astounding success, and made a massive impact commercially and critically. The John Williams score alone has developed a long-standing association with any depictions of deep sea threats. Audiences were so shocked by the frightening creature that the film provoked a wave of anti-shark sentiments that even made the author of the original book regret its existence.

Many film scholars have identified the astounding success of Jaws as marking the end of the so-called "New Hollywood" period that began in the late 1960's with the end of the American Studio System. Jaws is sometimes known as the first real "blockbuster" as it unwittingly inspired major film studios to adopt a business model that is still in use today.

And we can certainly see the influence of its financial success in various subsequent films- which included three sequels as well as numerous b-films revolving around humans fighting aquatic monsters. The idea of a disaster film revolving around sharks isn't that unusual either. Certainly the popularity of films like Sharknado (2013) owe something to the success of Jaws.

The idea of humans faced with danger posed by an abnormal underwater predator was hardly new even in 1975. Over a century earlier Herman Melville had written the novel Moby Dick. In the novel, Moby Dick was a sperm whale notorious for his proficiency at killing whalers who tried to hunt him. He is pursued by Captain Ahab, a whaling captain who becomes increasingly obsessed with hunting down the "white whale," ultimately dooming himself and all but one of his crew. In fact the influence of Moby Dick is clearly visible in the second half of Jaws, with the character of Quint (Robert Shaw) acting as a sort of modern day Ahab whose growing obsession with catching the shark ultimately leads to his demise.

But my main interest in this discussion is less so the film itself, or the impact it has made on film in general, but rather its relation to our current social circumstances, and how a film made 45 years ago is weirdly relevant under new circumstances. Like the citizens of Amity, we have our own shark to deal with- at least figuratively speaking. Our shark is a pandemic. The Carona Virus, also known as Covid-19, is currently posing a major global threat. Social Distancing is a necessary measure, but instead of acting responsibly, the issue has become politicised in the United States. President Donald Trump has displayed an uncanny inability to respond to the virus, putting his political goals first.

While many people remember the second half of Jaws, which actually sees Brody, Hooper, and Quint pursuing the shark, the first half is particularly disturbing in light of current events. The central conflict concerns Brody and Hooper trying to respond to the presence of an unusually large shark that has been known to target humans in the water, which is complicated by the presence of the town's mayor Larry Vaughn, a politician who uses his media connections and authority to overrule the two men. Within minutes of finding out that a swimmer was killed by a shark bite, Brody is trying to close the beach, only to be immediately blocked by Vaughn, who insists that the beaches need to stay open because the town is an attractive spot for tourists.

A lot of people remember the roles of Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfus, and Robert Shaw (who doesn't even become a prominent figure until the second half), but Vaughn is just as important. In many ways he behaves as a very Trump-like figure of authority. He may have even taken inspiration from Donald Trump, a man already notorious when Jaws entered production. Vaughn can be most easily described as a charismatic politician who acts like he knows what he is doing but in reality is putting his own interests above those of the people he is meant to be leading.

The opening scene of Jaws famously shows a young woman swimming out in the dark only to be attacked and killed by the shark whose presence will drive the rest of the film. But while it's presence is constantly felt, the shark isn't even seen during the first half, its presence only signalled by the occasional POV shot and the iconic score by John Williams. It's not until the second half that we actually get to see the shark, and even then we only see it when it is visible to the characters (its presence at other moments being signalled by an increasing number of floating barrels). Much of the plot instead concerns its human characters and how they react to the shark's presence, rather than the shark itself.

This has the peculiar effect of making the shark a much more enigmatic entity compared to its more obvious human characters. The shark itself actually does not do all that much in the film. The people it kills are mostly background characters- we never really get to know Chrissy or Alex Kitner before their demise, and even less so the unnamed man in the rowboat who is eaten by the shark later on. The only central character to actually be killed by the shark is Quint, and that only happens at the very end. If anything, the key players are never really in danger during the first half as they are never actually in the water.

Instead, while the shark is legitimate cause for concern, there is a much more dangerous threat in the form of Mayor Vaughn, who proves far more dangerous than the shark itself. Much of the film could have been averted if it were not for his presence. Had the beaches been closed as Brody repeatedly tried to do, the shark would have eventually left on its own due to a lack of food. The Mayor is the key obstacle.

After receiving the coroner's report that swimmer Chrissy Watkins (Susan Blaklinie) was killed in a shark attack, Brody immediately begins taking action. When he learns that there are not any "beach closed" signs he actually goes to the local hardware story, picks up materials, and has his staff begin making signs. No sooner has he done this than he is approached by Mayor Larry Vaughn, who quickly tries to overrule him. Suddenly the coroner (presumably through bribery, coercion, or a combination thereof) is saying it was a boating accident and not a shark, an alternate story the Mayor eagerly jumps onto to justify keeping the beaches open.

In fact the Mayor tries to outright discredit Brody, claiming he just made a mistake caused by not being familiar with the town. His reasoning is simply that they are a popular destination for tourists because of their beaches and tourists bring in money. This is disturbingly reminiscent of Donald Trump's resistance to social distancing. Like Vaughn, Trump continually insists on opposing potential safety measures. Why? Because opening businesses is good for the economy, showing no concern for people who might be endangered by doing so.

As if this wasn't enough, we have even had the problem of politicians making the questionable decision to keep beaches open during Covid-19, in spite of the obvious risks. While the reasons why they should be closed may be different (in real life, it is because crowds that normally form on beaches would produce favorable conditions for the virus to spread, rather than a shark in the water), the issue of politicising a life-threatening situation and putting people's lives at risk for the sake of money seems alarmingly familiar.

Vaughn manages to keep the beaches open, and sure enough the shark arrives. The first instance he tried to cover up, but the second happens in front of an entire crowd of witnesses, and results in the deaths of both a dog and a child. When a town meeting is called, Brody declares that the beach is going to be closed, only for Vaughn to suddenly add that it will only be closed for twenty-four hours. When Brody points out that he never agreed to that he is ignored, and finds himself ignored further when he tries to state that he has called for an expert. The culminates in the introduction of Quint, a fisherman who offers to kill shark for a price. For all his faults (as noted later) Quint is an experienced fisherman who has dealt with sharks before, and has knowledge and skills that could be put to use. But his offer is ignored by the Mayor simply for being too expensive.

The parallels only start become clearer when shark researcher Matt Hooper arrives. He examines Chrissy's remains and immediately determines that it was indeed a shark bite that killed her, and reacts in shock when Brody reveals that the town has failed to notify the coast guard or perform any sensible counter measures, which the viewer will know is thanks to the actions of the Mayor. When Vaughn is first introduced to Hooper, he more or less ignores him. They shake hands, but the whole time Vaughn's attention is elsewhere. 

Vaughn spends much of the film completely ignoring Hooper. When a bunch of fisherman claim to have caught the shark, Vaughn latches right onto it, ignoring the fact that Hooper has multiple reasons to doubt that they indeed got the right one. Of particular note is Vaughn outright refusing to let Hooper perform a test that could be used to confirm whether the shark that was caught was indeed the same one that killed Chrissy and Alex. No matter how much Hooper protests the Mayor only gives excuses.

Certainly this refusal to listen to an expert is reminiscent of Trump's efforts to ignore the CDC. Recently he even went the extra step of trying to bypass the CDC all together by ordering hospitals to report directly to Washington. One of the key voices of reason at the moment, Anthony Fauci, has been a frequent target for Trump, who has routinely tried to discredit him the same way Mayor Vaugn tries to discredit both Brody and Hooper. 

And worse still, two deaths is not enough to pursuade Vaughn to listen to any kind of reason. He keeps insisting on keeping the beaches open, because the Fourth of July is an especially popular holiday for tourists. This is even after Brody and Hooper confirm that the shark is indeed still a threat. He quickly seizes any opportunity he can to doubt their claims, pointing to Hooper dropping a shark's tooth as proof of their unreliability. He even tries to deflect blame by pointing to a sign that has been vandalised (probably by someone fed up of the Mayor's crap) and demanding Brody instead focus on catching the graffiti artist. 

When Hooper makes a last attempt to pursuade Vaughn, pointing out that the proportions of the shark in the vandalised sign are actually pretty accurate, he is met with "you'd like to prove that, wouldn't you?", as though the Mayor sees anything that challenges his political agenda as a conspiracy against him. Not unlike Trump's habit of making assertions and dismissing anything contradicting them as being part of the "radical left wing's" agenda or "fake news." Once again the beaches remain open, despite clear evidence that they should not be, because it's good for the economy. A politician prioritises his public image and money over the lives of the people he is mean to be leading.

So once again, after being warned about the dangers of keeping the beach open, Mayor Vaughn keeps it open for tourists. But he manages to go one step further. After blocking any effort to close the beach or get rid of the shark, he has Brody and Hooper reduced to conducting patrols on boats in the surrounding waters, a move that is conspicuously insufficient for tracking and catching a large shark that is likely to strike from under the water. 

But at first things go okay. People are able to enjoy themselves on the beach, but knowledge of the shark has made sure they stay out of the water, seemingly an okay compromise. But of course the Mayor decides to intervene and make it worse. He approaches one family on the beach, and actually pressures them to go into the water. Once one family is seen going in, others start to follow, until a large number of tourists are splashing in the water and making themselves very good targets for a hungry shark, all while Vaughn cheerfully brags to the press about how the situation has been resolved. 

Like just about every decision Vaughn makes throughout the movie, his decision to force people into the water turns out to have some serious consequences. It ends up creating a panic that actually diverts attention away from the shark. The ominous presence of a shark fin results in the crowd panicking and running back onto the shore, only for the police to find that it was a prank orchestrated by two children. It's not until after this scuffle is over that the shark is spotted in seemingly isolated area where it manages to eat one man and nearly kills Brody's son. 

Just like Vaughn, Donald Trump has failed to properly address the Covid-19 disaster. We can see him jumping on partial or just plain false information, leading outrageous claims being presented as facts, such as the assertion that drinking bleach will cure the virus. Just as Vaughn tries to encourage people to swim in water occupied by a giant shark, Donald Trump has openly resisted measures that could help contain the virus, and discouraged  his supporters from wearing masks that could help reduce the spread of the virus.

But while he might be the most obvious parallel, Mayor Larry Vaughn is not the only link to our current circumstances. I am far from the first person to notice the resemblance. A simple Google Search will quickly reveal a variety of headlines comparing Vaughn to Trump. There is even a quote from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (a conservative often compared to Trump) that claimed Vaughn was the "real hero" of Jaws. Yes, someone actually thinks the guy who got three people killed by ignoring a serious danger for the sake of money was a hero. But while there are other parallels of note.

Trump himself has made a lot of questionable decisions, but he also has a number of supporters who eagerly take in what he says and try to take matters into their own hands, often making the situation worse. As a simple example, the astonishing number of Trump supporters who have protested against masks. The problem with this, obviously, is that the reason for rules about wearing masks during a pandemic is to stop the spread of the virus. But some people, acting on misinformation, fear, and complete disregard to anything experts have to say, end up making the problem worse.

Just like anti-mask protesters in real life, Mayor Vaughn also inspires people in his town to act irrationally and foolishly. We see this at the Town Meeting, which starts with one of the Mayor's counsel joking about the bounty on the shark that just killed a child, which actually gets a laugh from some members of the crowd, indicating that not everyone is taking the problem seriously. But it gets worse when a woman in the audience (which includes several local business owners) asks if the beaches will be closed. When Brody says they are, he is met with a disapproving groan from the audience, presumably because they are more worried about how it will affect their jobs. Not unlike anti-mask protesters who put their own interests over much bigger problems.

But things go further when residents of the town come up with some poorly-thought out methods of trying to catch the shark. Two men sneak onto a pier and try to catch the shark using a chain, which almost gets them killed. The next day, several groups launch their own witch hunts against the shark in the hopes of claiming the 3,000 dollar bounty, people who disregard safety protocols and ignore Brody when he tries to point out their mistakes. We then get a parade of boats going out and tossing dynamite into the harbor, before coming back with a random shark that is just assumed to be the correct one. 

We then get a big moment of the shark being put on display by the fishermen who caught it. Their ignorance is exposed when one asks what kind of shark, and Hooper (a shark expert) points out that it is a tiger shark, to which one of the fisherman simply responds with "A what?" A crowd gathers around the shark, with the press eagerly jumping on and a photographer trying to compose a shot, all of which ignores Hooper when he finds reason to question if they actually have the right shark. The fishermen dismiss his measurements of the shark's bite radius and he is yelled at to clear out of the way before his investigation is finished. This easily calls to mind the Trump-supporting Americans who refuse to follow instructions and refuse to listen to experts, endangering themselves and others by refusing to wear masks in public.

Finally, I'd like to talk about Quint as a similarly problematic figure in the second half. While the Mayor's dismissal of his offer in the earlier town hall scene easily feels like he is ignoring an expert, Quint himself has issues that ultimately prove detrimental to dealing with the shark. Notably, he puts profit above actually helping others. Although he is not entirely unjustified in being reluctant to risk his life pursuing the shark, he demands an increase in pay from the initial $3,000 bounty already being offered. Some of his claims about the shark are also somewhat exaggerated, such as claiming it will "swallow you whole." While he has knowledge of sharks, certainly more than most people in the town, his behaviour leaves one to wonder if he is really the best choice.

After the initial town hall scene, Quint is more or less forgotten until about halfway through the film. He might have disappeared all together if not for the Mayor's interference. It is only by desperation that Quint is even permitted to take part. Brody resorts to hiring Quint after his own son was nearly attacked by the shark, this being after three people have already been killed by it and the Mayor consistently blocking any reasonable response. Had the beaches just been closed at the start Quint would never have needed to be involved.

Once Quint is finally brought onboard he frequently runs into conflict with Brody and Hooper. One of the first things we see when the boat leaves is Quint sitting in a chair while the other two men are visibly working hard. He goes on to pull out an oversized fishing rod that he thinks has successfully caught the shark, even after Hooper quickly figures out it is probably something much smaller- we never get to find out exactly what as Quint's stubbornness results in the rod being broken. Later on, he gets everyone drunk leaving them vulnerable when the shark manages to attack the boat.

When they do finally encounter the shark, Brody speaks the famous line "we're going to need a bigger boat." Sure, on its own it makes a good dramatic line, but it actually comes up a few times. After saying this line, Brody attempts twice to emphasise the point to Quint. He's not just making a remark about the shark's size, he is legitimately realising that a bigger boat will be needed to take on this shark, an observation that is ignored by Quint. He even tries to convince Quint to just use the radio to call for someone to bring a bigger boat,  bot his pleas fall on deaf ears.

Quint is too proud a man to show weakness. As the hunt continues it becomes increasingly clear that he wants to be the one to kill the shark. This also explains his refusal to get a bigger boat, doing so would, at least in his mind, show that he is incapable of catching the shark. That would be a weakness. This aspect of him is foreshadowed back in his introductory scene, where he openly refuses to take on any crew members and insists on going alone because "there are too many captains on this island." He even resists taking along Brody and Hooper at first.

This also proves to be a series of very poor decisions as, like the Mayor in the first half, Quint ignores the advice of others and, unsuprisingly, it backfires on him. There was a reason Brody wanted to call for a bigger boat- because he quickly figured out that using the one they had was going to put them in unnecessary danger and wouldn't be sufficient for fighting the shark. Sure enough, when the shark is provoked it manages to destroy and sink the boat. Quint even goes a few steps farther during the final confrontation by destroying the radio when Brody tries to call for help, putting them in even greater danger. Quint's insistence on being the one to kill the shark ends up being the very thing that results in him getting eaten, much like Ahab being dragged down by his white whale.

Now unfortunately, this same problem can be seen in the American government's reaction to Covid-19, perhaps most obviously in Trump but also in his supporters. Like Quint, Trump is afraid to show weakness. He doesn't like to be wrong, but he also wants to be the one to address problems. Trump has claimed to respond to the pandemic while obviously making the situation worse, just as Quint is ostensibly killing the shark but ultimately just makes things more dangerous for him and his crewmates. Trump ignores advice that contradicts his view, and refuses to do things that he think will make him look weaker, just as Quint refuses to get a bigger boat when it is obviously needed. Like Quint destroying the radio that could have saved his life, Trump opposes actions that could help contain the spread of a deadly virus.

For a film that came out 45 years earlier made by people who could not have known about the outbreak of Covid-19, the parallels are astonishing. Jaws suddenly feels extremely relevant to our current situation in this day and age, maybe even moreso than it did when it first came out. While the filmmakers obviously could not have known about what would happen in 2020, what this shows is that the political climate of today is nothing new. The problem of a life-threatening situation becoming the subject of political controversy is one that may have existed long before, but perhaps only now has been fully exposed.

Thursday Movie Picks: Globetrotting Movies

For this week, the theme for Wanderer's Thursday Movie Picks is Globetrotting Movies. If you're not familiar with this activity, it's pretty straight forward. Each Week Wanderer over at the blog Wandering Through the Shelves presents a different theme. The idea is for participants to pick out three-five movies that fit that theme, and include a short description of their choices. In theory it's pretty simple, though sometimes finding movies to fit the category can be challenging.

According to Google, Globetrotting is defined as "the action of traveling widely around the world." Okay, that's pretty straight forward. So a "Globetrotting" film would be one that involves characters travelling around the world. Obviously, these films usually take place on Earth- I don't know of any globetrotting films set on other planets. Of course there are some science fiction films that could be
considered solar system or galaxy-trotting. Most of the Star Wars films see characters travelling to several different worlds. Alternatively we could point to movies like Interstellar that involve exploration of a Solar System.

So obviously, in a globetrotting film we can probably expect to see a variety of places visited by its characters, preferably locations that are very far apart from each other. A lot of globetrotting films may try to take advantage of their varied settings by using locations with very different environments, giving each visited place a unique appearance. Now admittedly it is a bit difficult to identify how far one must travel to be considered "globetrotting" but I would imagine at least travelling between different countries or continents. For instance, a film that takes place across several different American states probably wouldn't qualify.

It was tricky to pick out a set of films that easily qualified for the definition of "globetrotting." Figuring out what films constituted sufficient travelling was no easy task. But I found a few good ones, I think.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)

Now this might not be the first thing most people think of as "globetrotting" but... well... most of the world is covered in water, so it might be more globetrotting than most. Based on the famous novel by Jules Verne, this sci-fi classic follows four men in the mid-19th century aboard a highly advanced submarine that is centuries ahead of its time. While perhaps not offering as many different locations as its source material, it still takes the viewer on an epic underwater adventure around the world.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

Okay, so technically three of the four Indiana Jones films could be described as globetrotting adventures, the one exception being The Temple of Doom (which, aside from the opening sequence, takes place entirely in India, largely around in and around one palace and a nearby village). But The Last Crusade probably has the most variety in locations visited. Over the course of his adventure, Indy travels to a bunch of different locations with their own unique environments, and the film makes full use of the different places he ends up.

Tomb Raider (2018)

The 2018 reboot of the Tomb Raider films draws on some of the changes that have occurred in the more recent games, particularly the emphasis on survivalist themes and efforts to get to know Lara on a more personal level. But it still offers a big globetrotting adventure across several different locations. What changes compared to the Angelina Jolie films is the fact that we meet a younger Lara before she's fully established herself as the Tomb Raider and still developing her skills while also dealing with some complicated personal issues. But even with the complications in her life Lara still isn't ready to give up pursuing an ancient legend in an effort to find answers and outwit a dangerous secret society that is deeply intertwined with her life.

Thursday Movie Picks: Period Dramas

This week, the theme for Wanderer's Thursday Movie Picks is Period Dramas. If you're not familiar with this activity, it's pretty straight forward. Each week, Wanderer over at Wandering Through the Shelves has a theme that gets posted on Thursdays (hence the name). Based on that theme, participants are expected to choose three movies and include roughly a paragraph on why they chose them. Pretty straight forward in theory, although sometimes is can prove more challenging than you expect.

Of course, "period drama" is a fairly broad term that could encompass a number of different films making this list slightly trickier to assemble. The obvious definition of a "period drama" would be a dramatic narrative set against the backdrop of a specific period of history, but this could encompass a wide range of sub-genres set across different eras. Probably the most obvious one would be the "costume drama"- elaborate melodramas (often romances) that make a huge spectacle of their selected era, (often somewhere in the late 18th or early 19th century, or sometimes adopting a Victorian/Edwardian setting). Typically the big thing you expect to see put on display is the fashion trends of the period (or at least those of the upper class- you don't normally see costume dramas about the poor). Depending on who you ask these are either examples of fine art or overly pretentious. Or somewhere in the middle.

Another sub-genre would be the "sword and sandal" films- big-budget historical or religious epics, many of them set in Ancient Rome. This type loves to make a spectacle of its setting (expect to see lots of Roman architecture), and may incorporate lots of special effects. We could also point to any number of war films that dramatize historical conflicts, such as the innumerable range of dramas about World War II or the Vietnam War. Certainly any drama set in the Victorian period would qualify.

Literature is also a common source material for period dramas. The romances of Jane Austen, for example, seem to be a popular choice.

So for the purposes of this theme, I had to come up with a selection of period dramas. Since it was a broad topic it was hard to narrow it down to just three. I did eventually manage to come up with three after filtering it down from a lot more, and produced the following selection. Plus an unexpected bonus.

Let's get started!

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Technically, several of Stanley Kubrick's films could be classified as "period dramas." Certainly Paths of Glory and Spartacus, and even Full Metal Jacket, but Barry Lyndon has a way of standing out. In the 1970's Kubrick took on the ambitious project of trying to make a biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte. A lot of what he did accomplish was quite impressive. The amount of research Kubrick had managed to do was alone impressive. He was going to go above and beyond. He had everything figured out. It was an ambitious project for sure, but if anyone could pull it off it was Stanley Kubrick. Then just as he was about to start filming, another Napoleonic film came out bombed. As a result, the investors panicked and pulled Kubrick's funding.

But while they may have deprived us of seeing what might have been the greatest biopic of all time, Kubrick did manage to take his extensive work on Napoleon and put into his next project- his underrated 1975 period piece Barry Lyndon. Based on a popular romance novel, Barry Lyndon follows an 18th century rogue who gambles his way into the aristocracy and gains just about everything he could possibly want, only to eventually see it all come crashing down (that's not a spoiler by the way, you're literally told from the beginning how it's all going to end). As far as costume dramas go, it's pretty well made.

Perhaps the most famous story about this film is one of Kubrick's more unusual decisions. For the indoor scenes, Kubrick was very adamant about using actual candlelight. It took a specialized camera normally used by NASA to make that possible, but it was worth it.

The Elephant Man (1980)

David Lynch's second feature film was a Victorian drama inspired by the real-life Joseph Merrick (referred to here as "John" due to a peculiar choice in the source material), the titular "Elephant Man"- a man who gained a great deal of attention from the medical world due to his unusual medical condition that puzzled doctors of the time, and which to this day experts still try to diagnose without success. They even got an actual cast of Merrick's head to use for the makeup job on John Hurt.

The Elephant Man brings to the forefront two aspects of Victorian society. It provides a thorough look into the British medical scene, offering a glimpse into the life of a doctor at the time, but perhaps more obviously it brings up the less glamorous subject of "freakshows". This is a once-common practice where circuses would gather "freaks"- people with weird physical quirks whose bodies would be put on display to be met with fascination and discomfort by their audience. The Elephant Man has a very cynical view of freak show exhibitions, and their tendency to exploit the misfortunes of others for profit.

Now some would argue that freak show acts actually helped a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to make a living (contrast this with a film like The Greatest Showman, which emphasizes how a lot of people with deformities were generally marginalized at the time and how circuses were basically the only career paths available to them). While this angle isn't discussed much in The Elephant Man (if at all), it does show the problematic society that marginalizes people with conditions over which they have no control, and certainly questions the ethics of using a human's deformities for entertainment. In fact, one of the big questions of the film is whether Treves is actually making things better for Merrick or if he's just created a whole new circus.

The Draughtsman's Contract (1982)

As one of my professors once remarked, this probably should have been called The Draughtsman's Contracts because it's a major theme and there are at least two important contracts he takes (three if you count the "contract" at the very end). Peter Greenway's period drama revolves around an 18th-century sketch artist who is hired to produce drawings of a British estate, while also entering deals that involve sexual affairs with two upper class women. Oh, and there's a murder which may or may not have its solution in said drawings (it's a bit confusing). There's also a naked man who often pretends to be a statue and keeps appearing in various parts of the estate for reasons never made entirely clear. This film can certainly be described as "weird" but it does a pretty impressive job with the period detail.

Bonus: History of the World, Part I (1981)

I thought that while we're on the subject of "period dramas" it would be fun to also include an underrated film that parodies the genre. Mel Brooks' take on the period drama is an anthology that ruthlessly mocks various types of period dramas, both historical and religious.

The two main sections include a mock "sword and sandal" epic that follows the adventures of a "stand-up philosopher" in Ancient Rome, and a mock costume drama about the French Revolution. The film also has a segment depicting the "Dawn of Man" which includes a parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey and a chronicling of early human discoveries such as the spear, fire, the first marriage (and first homosexual marriage), music, and art (which also caused the birth of the critic). And of course we can't forget the bizarrely cheerful song-and-dance number about the Spanish Inquisition.

Mel Brooks himself plays several different people over the course of the film (even having a dual-role in the French Revolution segment), but quite a few other big names also make appearances. Several of Brooks' regulars manage to find their way in- Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuoise, Ron Carey, Chloris Leechman, and Sid Caesar all show up. Other surprising appearances include John Hurt, Bea Aurthur, and dramatic narration by Orson Welles. 

Why We Need a Break From Batman

Batman is a character who has become so iconic that his very image is recognizable at a glance. The character has been portrayed by far too many actors to count across every form of media imaginable- comics, television, feature films, video games. You name it, Batman's appeared at some point. And that's to say nothing of the innumerable parodies and homages that have been made by fans. Batman is an extremely popular character that has resonated across generations, but that's part of the problem.

Like fellow comic book hero Superman, the character of Batman, and his sidekick Robin originated in the 30's. Also like Superman, a lot of the lore that has come to be associated with the character was not yet established. Batman was a caped hero who fought crime alongside a sidekick with some homoerotic undertones. Pretty straight forward really. Batman's first filmed appearance was actually a 1943 serial simply titled Batman that established some aspects of the franchise, such as the presence of a butler named Alfred, and the presence of a "Bat-Cave" that serves as a base of operations. It was also influenced by World War II-era racism against the Japanese, with its white heroes working to outwit a Japanese antagonist and occasionally spouting some unfortunate racial slurs.

A lot of what we've come to associate with Batman comes from the famous 1960's TV series, also called Batman. This series was designed to be campy and ridiculous. Batman, famously played by Adam West, was often getting into weird situations, often ending up in situations that led to over-the-top cliffhangers parodying those of older serials. Although it drew many of its characters from the 1940's comics, the show helped to solidify their roles as key figures in Batman lore. Several antagonists from the comic are established as Batman's main enemies- most famously the Joker (who by now has more or less become the "primary" nemesis of Batman), but also Two-Face and the Riddler, as well as an early version of Catwoman. We also see Commissioner Gordon established as Batman's friend on the police force.

Then we get to Tim Burton's 1989 Batman with Michael Keaton in the title role. Tim Burton made an unusual decision for the time by deciding he was going to break from the campiness of the show and present a much more serious interpretation of the character. Since then, Batman has gone through several different incarnations, some of which managed to add new characters that went on to be recognized as key pieces of lore. For instance, in Batman: The Animated Series Joker was often given generic henchmen, but then someone had the idea that it might be interesting to see a henchwoman for a change. This resulted in the creation of Harley Quinn, a character often reappeared in future versions of Batman's adventures and herself had a long and complex evolution.

But of course, the darkness and brooding of Batman remained throughout most subsequent iterations. With the exceptions of obvious parodies (as in The Lego Batman Movie) the idea of Batman being dark seemed to be solidified in the minds of his writers. After Tim Burton, we see it reappear again and again, from Batman the Animated Series to Christopher Nolan's Batman films to the Batman: Arkham series of video games. They keep trying to frame Batman as being dark and brooding. And to be honest, I'm kinda sick of it.

Every time Batman appears post-West, it's the same story. Bruce Wayne was the son of rich parents who were killed in a mugging-gone-wrong that happened after they left a theater one night, which inspired Bruce to become a vigilante who strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. Blah blah blah, you know the deal. Even The LEGO Batman Movie implies this backstory. Then of course we have all the same bad guys and their gimmicks- The Joker, who has a habit of cheerfully committing murder in a carnival atmosphere; the Riddler, who likes to challenge people to figure out his crimes based on riddles; Two-Face's habit of acting on a coin flip. It's been done.

And let's face it, maybe it was cool when Tim Burton did it, maybe even when Nolan did, but for all the efforts to treat the series as serious, the Batman franchise as a whole is pretty cartoonish. This is literally about a rich guy who puts on tights to fight crime and feels the need to make absolutely everything in his life bat-themed. Even many of his enemies. Joker, Two-Face, the Riddler, Scarecrow, the Penguin, Mr. Freeze. How are any of these characters realistic? They're all bizarre outlandish characters who rely on silly gimmicks, whose plans mostly hinge on destroying Gotham simply because they're evil. When was the last time Batman actually take on a criminal like you might find in real life?

Batman as a character has been portrayed in sixteen feature films and appearing in video games since 1986. I think we've seen enough of the character at this point, and yet we keep seeing a new Arkham game coming out every few years while other more interesting superheroes remain untouched. Sixteen different Batman films, some of which were released within only a few years of the character's comic debut. Yet it took seventy six years and the release of Batman vs. Superman just to get Wonder Woman (another character who is equally iconic in the comics) onto the big screen.

You know how many video games Wonder Woman has starred in? Sure, she's appeared in some games, either as a playable character in an ensemble cast or as a supporting NPC, but how many has she actually taken the lead in? Exactly zero. Batman, Superman, and other Superheroes get to appear time and again. Sure we can keep cranking out Arkham games because we haven't had enough Batman, but nobody seems to have considered the possibility of a Wonder Woman game.

And this is just it, I'm sick of Batman. I'm sick of his stupid costume. I'm sick of his brooding. I'm sick of his cliched backstory being repeated again and again for the sake of edginess. I'm sick of the relentless efforts to turn what is really quite cartoonist into something serious. I'm sick of every single thing Bruce Wayne uses having to be bat-themed. I'm sick of the whole "strike fear into the hearts of crime" thing that never seems to actually fix anything. The point is, Batman as a character has been done to death. He's been done so many times that every single repetition of the exact same thing is just infuriating.

You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a really good Wonder Woman video game- in fact I'd like to see a few. I'd love to see Wonder Woman take central stage more often. She's a way more interesting character than Batman anyway.

However, as Batman is a deeply ingrained part of our pop culture, and too profitable to go away any time soon, I would like to also propose some ideas for how it may be possible to refresh the character.

Literally how almost every single Batman story after the Adam West show begins.

One approach that might be a nice change is to abandon the serious brooding approach in favor of a return to Adam West-style campiness. You could still have similar plots but embrace the silliness of it.

Another possibility might be to try experimenting with alterations to Batman's backstory. For instance, how might it affect the character if only one of his parents were killed in the mugging, rather than both?

Yet another direction we could go is to perhaps rework the "strike fear into the hearts of criminals" thing, especially given that simply beating up criminals whenever they're found doesn't actually fix anything- in fact, if anything it's more likely to make it worse. Perhaps a suitable alternative could be to take advantage of his dual identity, with Bruce Wayne using his financial resources and connections to do things that actually help reduce crime, while Batman focuses strictly on the people who get in the way, perhaps even using one persona to gather information that can be used by the other. So that Bruce Wayne can use his connections to get information on organized crime then sabotages their efforts as Batman.

What this does show is a major gender bias in superhero media, one which is slowly changing, but still present. We can see a similar tendency with Superman, a character who originated only a few years before Batman, and went through an even more complicated evolution. The original comics from the 30's were much more simplistic than later iterations. The most prominent part of the lore to really be established was Superman's alter ego as a reporter named Clark Kent. Originally he was just an invincible human with bizarre superpowers who used his unique abilities to fight crime- not Lex Luthor or anything like that, but more realistic criminals like scam artists, extortionists, corrupt politicians, and so forth.

From there the character evolved and started appearing in serials. One particularly noteworthy appearance was the 1946 radio serial Clan of the Fiery Cross, a story arc in which Superman fought the Klu Klux Klan, aided by activists who had infiltrated the Klan and provided the show's producers with information. This serial was such a huge hit that it even ended up being a huge blow to the Klan in real life. But at this point, Superman was just that- a superman. He was just a guy who had lots of crazy powers that he could use to fight criminals.

And like Batman, Superman has been through many different incarnations across comics, movies, video games, and television. Over time these various iterations produced the lore that would become associated with the Superman franchise. It became established that Superman's love interest was Lois Lane. Like Batman, we start to see various nemeses associated with Superman- with Lex Luthor as the most prominent. Later on he started to get a backstory stating that he was an alien sent to Earth from a dying planet (offering more justification for his superpowers). Then there's also Superman's ongoing relationship with Batman. When the idea of him being invincible started to get tedious he was given a weakness in the form of a mineral called Kryptonite. Then there was the idea of him having a cousin, Supergirl, who was also sent to Earth.

But what can we say for someone like Wonder Woman? Sure, she's been through a lot of different iterations in the comics, but what else? She occasionally appears in animations, usually as part of an ensemble, starred in one TV show, and a single feature film (with an upcoming sequel), and zero video games where she has a starring role. Keep in mind that she's one of the most iconic figures in DC comics, often shown alongside Batman and Superman, not to mention she also made her debut around the same time. Yet a lot of what is written about her has not changed all that much.

So why is it that we get Batman and Superman again and again but so little of Wonder Woman? The simple answer is because Batman and Superman are white men. And that's just it? They don't have to be, that's just how they were originally designed and nobody ever questioned it. It's not like their sex or ethnicity are key defining features of their character, so why not change them? Surely we would not have to change anything if we had, say, a black actor playing Superman. Or even if we changed it up. Why not just have a female Batman or a female Superman? And I don't just mean Batgirl or Supergirl, I mean like actually have the roles of Batman and Superman be played by women.

And of course these female characters are consistently overshadowed by their male counterparts. Sure, sometimes Batgirl is incorporated into the Batman lore (emphasis on the sometimes) as a sidekick. Sometimes she is ommitted entirely, and sometimes you run into other situations. In the Arkham series, Barbara Gordon's status as Batgirl is restricted entirely to backstory. In the present, she is paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair, mostly talking to Batman over a radio, and offering a convenient excuse for the games to keep her from actually taking an active role in the story. She then gets reduced to a damsel in distress for most of Arkham Knight.

Now the good news is that there is some hope. The massive success of Black Panther shows that  non-white superheroes can still be huge hits, and we have seen a recent trend of female superhero movies finally starting to appear (after several decades of being almost non-existent)- starting with Wonder Woman (2018) and continuing through Captain Marvel (2019), Dark Phoenix (2019), and the upcoming Black Widow and Wonder Woman 1984. This surge suggests a growing awareness of the problem of gender inequality. So at least there is some effort to address the problem.

But the underlying issue still stands. The thing is Batman and Superman are getting old. They've been done to death. We need a break from them. Their tired backstories have been retold over and over again and they're always the same. We don't need a new Batman film or Superman film, TV show, video game, whatever. Give us something different. Maybe some more Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel. I am sick of Batman and Superman. If you want to go that route how about a good Supergirl movie, or give Batgirl her own film (especially considering her only feature film appearance so far was 1997's Batman and Robin).

And to their credit, sometimes this has happened. Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther both came from lesser-known parts of Marvel Comics and proved to be huge hits. The 2018 Aquaman film did a lot to undermine the character's long-standing and often-ridiculed reputation for being useless. But Batman and Superman are overused and have been in way too much. It's time to put them aside, at least for now. We need a break from them.