None of it has to make sense. Just because you disagree with the reasoning doesn’t mean that it’s automatically sexist. It just means that you disagree with the reasoning and think that I’m being unfair to one particular person who just happens to be a woman. No one has commented on the possibility of the reverse situation, or the Jay and Silent Bob situation, which I have offered in order to try to show that the reasoning I am using is not sexist, even if it is a little silly.
There was someone else in this thread that thought the same thing I did. I think there are people that are totally blinded by the fact that they instantly recognize Anderson as Scully, whereas I do not, and they cannot get themselves to understand why someone else doesn’t. You don’t have to have the same opinion as me, but you should be able to recognize that my subjective estimate of the situation is at least possible. You might find my reasoning super-silly and beyond stupid, and I might agree with you that those are perfectly valid ways of dismissing my argument. But I don’t see one bit how it’s sexist. Stupid and silly, yes. Sexist, no.
Because nobody can figure out what else you could be thinking, other than a gender-differentiated standard.
Not really. If one has had a much more successful career and is in more demand, then he or she is going to get paid more. I don’t follow TV personalities all that closely, but it seems to me that Duchovny has done all sorts of high profile stuff in the last decade, but I haven’t seen Anderson in much of anything.
You don’t. But you do know what they looked like 20 years ago and so it’s not irrational to base your expectations on how they looked when they were “famous”.
A minority of two, at least, since I already said that I wouldn’t have recognized her form that photo. More accurately, I didn’t recognize Anderson as Anderson whereas Duchovny was instantly recognizable to me. Show me that photo without context and, for all I know, it’s Dave and his cousin.
However I’m sure that, within the show, no one will be looking at the redheaded woman in the suit and saying “Who on earth is that? I thought Scully would be in this show!”
But you didn’t judge a man by his appearance in the exact same manner. You have claimed that you would have, but what you actually did in the real world – not in a hypothetical situation that you imagined – was say that a woman deserved to be paid less* than a man doing essentially the same job because you don’t like the way her appearance has changed with age.
It may be comforting for you to think that you would have said the same thing about a man, but what you think you would have done in a counterfactual situation doesn’t matter. If what you actually do is go around saying things that are exactly the kinds of things someone with sexist attitudes about women would say, you cannot expect others to believe that this is just a weird coincidence.
It doesn’t help that the character of Scully wasn’t one of those female characters that exists primarily as eye candy. While Gillian Anderson is an attractive woman, The X-Files wasn’t Baywatch and youthful good looks are not essential to Scully’s role. Anderson is also eight years younger than Duchovny, so if you think she looks too old for her role and he doesn’t then I have a difficult time believing that you’re holding them to the same standard.
*And it wasn’t a trivial difference, either. Anderson has said that she was offered half what David Duchovny is being paid.
I don’t necessarily think it’s stupid, and in my post, I said that I was putting issues of sexism aside.
I just think that not recognizing Gillian Anderson, as she looks today, as Dana Scully is really, really unusual.
I absolutely admit that it is possible that you find Gillian Anderson today to be unrecognizable as Gillian Anderson of twenty years ago.
But you’re probably the only one. Or of a very few.
I think you’re probably more in tune with Anderson and the X-Files than the average citizen and lack of recognition isn’t as amazing as your bias makes it seem.
Edit: I’d suggest that probably goes for the SDMB in general, given the demographics and general geekery.
FWIW, while I haven’t had any trouble recognizing recent photos of Gillian Anderson, in those I’ve seen her hair is a different color and style than how it was back on The X-Files. So I could believe that someone who’s bad with faces, doesn’t have a great memory, or has a thing for redheads might not realize that a woman with longish blonde hair is the same person as a woman with shorter, dark red hair.
That said, it would be easy enough for Anderson to get her hair cut and dyed to look like her old Scully 'do. She may even have already done so (I don’t think I’ve seen any stills from the new miniseries), and if not then I’m sure she would have been willing to if this were really the only thing preventing her from making as much money as her co-star.
Well, hanging out with all those “whiny little bitches” while drink mohitoes all day will do that to a person.
Probably not. I remember The X-Files fondly. I don’t think I’ve seen any episodes since the original run. I’ve never seen any of the movies. I have seen Gillian Anderson in exactly one movie post X-Files (The Last King of Scotland). I really don’t think I have any bias here. I’m just very surprised that there are people who think her looks have changed so much over the years that she’s unrecognizable as the same person twenty years ago.
Probably true.
I want to be paid the same as him.
Half.
Ninety percent.
Half.
Sevently percent.
Haaallllllf
Sixty percent?
Half. Half. Half.
Okay what about fifty five percent?
HHHHH aaaaa llll fffffff.
Fifty one pecernt?
H A L F.
Okay, fifty percent then.
You drive a hard bargain. Half it is.
People age and change. That’s life.
Dana Scully would have aged over the years, just as Gillian Anderson has. If it’s important to keep the original cast, both Duchovny and Anderson should return. If you just want a reboot, hire two younger actors and start fresh.
Their salaries are unimportant to me. That’s between the studio and their agents.
Sigh. Again a thread with a completely misleading subject line.
I don’t think that your opinion is sexist. I think that your opinion is stupid. And possibly sexist.
I tend to think that there is something at least a little bit sexist in the notion that the physical appearance of a character is intrinsic to the actual characterization of said character. And fictional characters whose characterization is closely tied to what they physically look like are typically one-dimensional and uninteresting. Now, I was never a hardcore X-Files watcher, but I never got the impression that the physical appearance of Dana Scully was essential to the character of Dana Scully, such that Gillian Anderson “not looking like” Dana Scully could actually be a thing; I never got the sense that Dana Scully was supposed to “look like” anything in particular.
Granted, I don’t think that your opinion is completely sexist, I don’t even think that it’s mostly sexist. But, I do think that it’s a little bit sexist. Fixating on the physical appearance of a fictional character? IYAM, that’s like, 95 percent idiotic nerd-rage, 3 percent ageism and, like, 2 percent sexism.
Also, like, all of Post #46.
That’s my opinion. If I’m going to get worked up about age gaps, it’ll be over someone making $30k instead of $40k because of their gender. The Hollywood types can afford to lawyer up if they think they’re being mistreated.
Know how much Anderson is making? More than me 
Only skimmed the thread so apologies if someone already said this.
I had to look up current pics of Gillian Anderson (she hasn’t been on my radar for a while)
WTH? How in the hell does she look LESS like Scully now than she did then?
Is it the hair color and/or length?
The age?
What is the difference that makes her less like Scully?
The only reason I could justify for not paying her as much is that she’s been less on my radar than duchovny for some reason. Heh I’d rather see her than duchovny
Lets face it (heh).
Part of why get an acting job is how you look. Maybe it is because you are handsome as hell. Or a sex pot. Or have just that kinda wierd mad scientist look. Or whatever. That is just the way it is.
While she wasn’t obviously select originally for the X files for being a super hot babe, she wasn’t butt ugly either and nobody else that was butt ugly would have been hired either.
Either her looks currency has gone down in the studio’s eyes and/or or she has a shitty negotiator.
If for some reason she had aged horribly, they wouldn’t even think of hiring her, and she would be getting zero percent of what Big D is getting.
Now if she was some random women trying to hired to be a programmer or the like I’d be all over “appearances and sexism”.
For a Hollywood job where all the big players make absurd amount of money while making rather dubious contributions to our species well being and future success?
Not so much.
Hell, I didn’t even like the X-Files that much, and the only other thing I remember Anderson from is from the one episode of Broadchurch I watched. She’s got a vert distinctive face, and has barely aged at all in the last decade and a half. The idea that she’s unrecognizable now as the same person is just bizarre.
A common attitude is that female characters must be fuckable. So it’s assumed that an essential character trait of say Princess Leia is that she’s fuckable. Well if you keep following her story as she ages she’s going to stop being fuckable, even though fuckability never once enters into Leia’s on screen story. Make characters aren’t nearly as limited by this because they have a much later fuckability expiration date.