Read more

Some interesting thoughts here, though the writer lost me when s/he wrote, "Gugu Mbatha-Raw was completely captivating as a brilliant, sexy, capable spy in J.J. Abrams' short-lived series Undercovers. She'd be an awesome Lara Croft. So would Noomi Rapace, who played Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Maggie Q from the CW's Nikita would also be an inspired choice." Er, no... Firstly, Undercovers was awful, and fully-deserved to be canceled. And much though I like both Rapace and Q, I can't think of many less suited to be Lara Croft. It needs a well-defined physical presence - and I'm not just talking about the breasts - which neither Rapace nor Q possess.

It's an odd piece. Something of a warped perception of realism.

She complains that many of the action heroines are only allowed to exist by dint of living in unreal worlds -- in contrast with, in her examples, James Bond, the Bourne Identity, and Mission Impossible.

Because a British government agency that issues licenses to kill and hands out laser cufflinks and exploding pencils to fight impossibly wealthy eccentrics whose hobby is creating the apocalypse is the epitome of gritty realism.

Because super-powered rogue assassins with amnesia are WAY more realistic than Buffy.

Because the art of disguise is so advanced that Tom Cruise can put on a mask and convince people that he's whoever he wants to be.

There was a female equivalent of those movies -- Salt, starring Angelina Jolie, was just as high-octane, just as unconvincing, and just as empty as those three male-driven franchises. (Bourne actually wasn't unconvincing.)

Which is just to say, outside of gritty cop dramas, action heroes are unrealistic. For the author to say that fantasy-action heroes are no-go but superspy action heroes are cool is a weird, unhelpful distinction.