Geez Bob, do you think the reason audiences have been rejecting YOUGOGRRL! Action Heroines like the new Lara Croft is because legacy franchises like Star Wars have been ramming ideologically driven versions of them down our throats the last couple of years? Is it because you're not allowed to make a female action hero unless it's made perfectly clear to audiences that she's a perfect fish that don't need no bicycles? (Also, that White Men suck and are stupid.)
I haven't watched the new Lara Croft movie and I have no idea if it's pandering SJW bullshit or not, but previous female action star-led movies have poisoned the well, no doubt. It's also difficult to make a movie with a female action lead, because if you're going to make it with any measure of verisimilitude or dramatic tension, you're going to have to *gasp!* put the female lead into actual danger! That means that there will be a chance that she will be manhandled by male enemies (which, as feminists know, is the equivalent to rape.) Also, even if you try to make the most feminist action heroine you can think of, you'll still fail, because
(a) portraying her with masculine traits and attitudes is sexist because she's just then a man with tits,
(b) portraying her with feminine traits and feminine connections to family and community is also sexist because it implys women are different from men,
(c) portraying her as a good, athletic fighter is bad because it bodyshames fat people,
(d) portraying her as a woman attractive enough to draw audiences is sexist because of the Male Gaze, (e) portraying her as having realistic limitations will discourage all of the little girls watching in the audience from becoming heroic themselves and
(f), portraying her as invincible will make her boring.
Why deal with that when you can just make a film starring a man and avoid all that crap? (Make an action movie starring a black man, and you'll get all of your Oppression Points plus you'll rake in a ton of money from white nerds who want to appear "woke" to their friends.)
