The Femmes all had fairly specific answers, albeit not always imaginative ones. We got Wonder Woman, Jean Grey, Rogue and Catwoman but all women seemed to say the same thing: they wanted a strong, funny, sassy woman and while yeah, it’s cool that we’re finally getting that, it’s taken way too long.

The Fellas responses however, are the exact problem with bringing superheroines to life on the big screen.

Jeff Sneider “only buys ScarJo and Angie, so if you don’t bring [him] one of them, [he’s] out.” He said he’d prefer a female remake of The Crow to any other female superhero out there and while I’m not denying how unquestionably awesome a female Crow would be, why genderbend when there are already so many other deserving ladies? And why limit yourself to Scarlett Johannson and Angelina Jolie when you have goddesses like Katee Sakoff, Gina Torres, and Amy Acker?

Jordan Zakarin thinks, “it’s sort of a silly debate to be having, because women have shown that they can lead…Plus, it’s not like a woman superhero would suddenly ruin the integrity and streak of perfection in these films.” True, we have shown we can lead and there have been more flops than the studios would like to admit, but to minimize the importance of the debate by calling it “silly” just proves how much more work women have to do to prove their worth. Would Jordan have called it silly when talking about the next male hero to be adapted? Arguably not.

Joseph Kapsch questions if “a studio can actually create a female superhero driven tentpole that is as viable a moneymaker as its male counterparts?” This kind of thinking is the exact reason why it’s taken so long to get a heroine onto the screen in the first place. Stop questioning and start trying.

Tony Maglio says, “I’m all for female superhero movies, but the fangirl market is still not what the fanboy market is, so it seems like a riskier investment from the studio side. Plus, historically, the vast majority of superheroes were men, so it’s inarguably slimmer pickings for the fairer sex within the realm of existing franchises.” I’m sorry, how does that matter? Sure, there may be “less options” but there are still an abundance of underrated powerful and complex heroines between all the comic universes, so why does the ratio of women to men in comics tilt the scales?

Todd Cunningham was one of my personal favorites (read: asshole). “I don’t think the gender of the superheroes matters that much, and I’m pretty sure that superhero equality shouldn’t be on the front burner when it comes to equality between the sexes. The fact is, most superhero movies are primarily the domain of teenage boys, who can identify best with male heroes (not to mention the “yuck — girls!” factor). That doesn’t mean it has to be that way going forward, but it’s not like Hollywood and Marvel and DC haven’t tried female superheroes before — if you look at Wikipedia, there’s nearly a hundred of them, and some have connected. I know Warner Bros. is pinning a lot of hope on Wonder Woman as a character. And Scarlett Johansson may yet get her own Black Widow movie with Marvel.” Mr. Cunningham could not be more confused. He gives the bigoted impression that he sees no gender inequality at all and therefore, why is everyone so upset? While no, a female hero isn’t the most important issue in the battle between sex-equality, the fact that out of all the superhero movies that have been made in the last fifteen years, I don’t even need a single finger to count the solo heroine films… That’s a major problem. The gender of superheroes released for public consumption in such a mass media market like cinema, and by extension television, is much more important that Todd realizes. Oh, there’s nearly a hundred female superheroes on Wikipedia? Why make any more, that’s plenty. Oh, ScarJo may finally get her own BLACK WIDOW movie 7 years after her character was first introduced, two IRON MAN sequels, potentially two THOR sequels, and one AVENGERS sequel later? No, there’s absolutely nothing wrong nor unequal about that. “Yuck – girls!” is no longer a feasible excuse – these films are not made for pre-pubescent boys anymore, they’re made for the general population which women just so happen to be part of.

These delightful gentlemen and the studio bigwigs are major contributing reasons that it’s take this long to adapt a female superhero into a cinematic feature; because it’s silly to wonder which heroine should get her own film, because unless you’re Angelina Jolie no one will want to see the film, because there are less options than male heroes, because “Yuck – girls!”

Unfortunately for these poor nimrods, however, a few of their male coworkers got it right: Tim Molloy offered his personal experience growing up on Black Cat and how much he loved and identified with her. He says that audiences today will embrace the female hero, especially if she’s an underdog. “But it’s sexist (and boring) if a heroine’s only supposed weakness is the fact that she’s a woman. Superhero movies need to give their women heroes the same kinds of flaws that men have, from Iron Man’s dying heart to the Hulk’s lack of self-control. If the story’s compelling, moviegoers will buy in.”

Andy Gensler also brought up a great point that women in comics have more often than not been reduced to sexy ninja warriors because if they don’t fall into that category they tend to have a tough go of it in comics. He wants the superheroine to be reinvented. His thoughts: “I’d like to see R. Crumb’s Ideal Woman, but made-over as a bad-ass contemporary feminist, a warrior who can cut through male megalomania BS in a single honest, authentic, and castrating bound. Who should play her? Melissa McCarthy, looking buxom and badass.”

And lastly Travis Reilly put it in terms that even Cunningham should be able to understand. “1) I like superhero movies, and 2) I like women. Those are my thoughts.” Upset that “companies are still — in the vast majority of instances — clinging to Caucasian male leads,” Reilly has been waiting just as long as women have for a heroine to get her own film.

*Side note, Microsoft word does not try to autocorrect “superhero” but does give me the red squigglies for “superheroine.” Jus’ sayin’.

I do not like Angelina Jolie, but when I say she was the best part of this 97-minute Disney flick, I mean that with the utmost respect and complimentary intentions. I went into this movie really hoping that it would change my opinion about SLEEPING BEAUTY and make me love Maleficent the way everyone else seemed to. Instead, the movie made me wonder what in the hell the studio was thinking. In an effort to make the audience empathize with one of the most infamous Disney villains of all time, they changed the [Disney] story of Sleeping Beauty* altogether, and made an arguably strong female villain, into a horrible depiction of a spurned woman. Thus, the critique that follows is that of an angry feminist, because there is no other way for me to express my rage at this atrocity.

Before I start on my rant, let me a say a few brief words about the rest of the film. The SFX were acceptable. I keep reminding myself that this is a Disney movie that was designed, marketed and made for children, and that I shouldn’t be too critical of the choice of magical creatures created or how fake the CGI** was, but I can’t seem to get past it. I wanted something darker and grittier – Maleficent was a villain – but somehow the fairies and all the other “dark” creatures were just so absurdly comical and obviously fake that I don’t think I ever really fully invested in the story; my disbelief was not, and could not be, suspended.

In addition, while the majority of the writing and dialogue was average, some was absolutely horrid. There were lines (about the begging, for example. Something about, “You’re begging. I like it when you do that.” or some such silly nonsense) that made my skin crawl because they were so overwritten and utterly ridiculous (so much so that not even a child in the ideal marketing demographic would have enjoyed them). But on the other hand, there were a few really great lines too, and Jolie had some wonderful dry humor-moments. For instance when she looked down at baby Aurora and hissed and the child just giggled and cooed. Maleficent snapped back with a sharp, “I hate you.” and it was so hilarious and endearing that you almost forgave all the bad lines (of which there were quite a few).

The minimal positive qualities were really limited to one: Diaval, Maleficent’s sidekick. While he didn’t get the screen time I wished he had, nor the ending (I was totally rooting for him to be Prince Charming) his comic relief and acting as Maleficent’s good conscience was quite lovely throughout the entirety of the film.

But really, the only other good thing I have to say about this film is that Jolie did a particularly good job for what she was given to work with. She made Maleficent likeable and funny, and really made us connect with an otherwise horribly conceived character. She not only looked the part and had the calm, cool and collected attitude to really chill someone to the bone, even when she was angry and dark, Jolie was really able to get Maleficent’s vulnerability across which is something I haven’t seen her do successfully, maybe ever. (…Also, that opinion may be a little tainted because I truly can’t stand the woman.)

And now the femirant begins. The premise of this film – of Maleficent’s origin – is that she fell in love with a poor boy, and at 16 he gave her “true love’s kiss.” That boy then went to work in the castle and upon the kings’ deathbed, he decreed that the person who brought him Maleficent’s wings would be named his successor. In turn that boy, Stefan, returned to Maleficent, manipulated her, cut off her wings and then became king. Maleficent grew vengeful and hateful at the betrayal and on the day of Aurora’s introduction and celebration of birth, Maleficent cursed her that she would fall into a deep sleep on her 16^th birthday only to be awoken by true love’s kiss.

Thus, Aurora was carted off to live with the three most annoying fairies anyone could have ever designed, and Maleficent began to watch over her while she grew up. Even through her hate and rage at Stefan, she grew to love and harbor affection for the sweet natured Aurora, and when the curse fell upon her, it was Maleficent’s kiss that woke her, not Prince Phillip’s (who I’m pretty sure was one of the boys from One Direction. That hipster hair was the worst.)

In theory, this all sounds like a very touching tale of darkness and redemption, but looking at it clearly it’s a story of a woman scorned by a man whose only path back from evil was through motherly affection for a young girl. Maleficient, at the betrayal of her true love (however rightly so: this dude physically abused her and gave a whole new meaning to “domestic violence” by mutilating the poor woman) pushed her so far down the path of retribution that she would curse a baby using the same words that solidified her trust in that man to begin with.

However, after getting to know this little girl and learning to love her as a daughter, Maleficent sees the error of her ways – her maternal instinct is too strong and she tries to lift the curse (to no avail because evil Maleficent was apparently more cunning than good Maleficent). In fact, Maleficent’s love apparently grows so strong that it becomes “true love” and she is the one to break her own curse, waking Aurora from her sleep.

It could be argued that it wasn’t about a spiteful woman enacting revenge, but about love between women, and I would be more than willing to accept that… Had the message that maternal instinct is what saves women from a path of evil not been so apparent. A man hurts her, and the only way for her to get back on track to being a “hero” and beloved by all the magical creatures is by being a mother to a girl – that was not unlike herself when she was a child. Disney tried so badly to make Maleficent into an empathetic character that in twisting her story of descent into something that could be restored in the end, they [un]intentionally sent a horrible message about women.

While I do believe that the story was written this way to ensure a family-friendly atmosphere (true love is always good for that), there must have been a better alternative. What if Stefan had been her brother and traded her in for the human world? Or what if she had traded him in for the magical one? What if it wasn’t Stefan at all, but the nameless and absent queen? What if they were sisters – or best friends – and one betrayed the other? Disney had to make Maleficent’s actions worthy of the crime, and moreover, the crime worthy of the reaction, but the way in they mapped out her story to be recouped in the end was all wrong. The man-hate-only-forgivable-by-maternal-sentiment was the weakest link in the entire film, which was not very strong to begin with.

Unfortunately for Disney, their first live-action Villain story left so much to be desired, that one can only hope they will learn their lesson if they ever decided to reinvent Ursula, Jafar or The Evil Queen and give them more substance than merely wicked, gender-specific trials and tribulations.

*In the original story of Sleeping Beauty, Aurora was cursed for 100 years and in that century her “Prince Charming” found her, raped her, and in her sleep she gave birth to twins. Only after all that horror did she wake up.

**The CGI wasn’t great, but the dragon was awesome. Then you stop and realize that Maleficent wasn’t the one to turn into the dragon in this version, and it’s suddenly less awesome.

Most people don’t have a vesting interest in watching the Oscars, or don’t care beyond the opening intro, and haven’t seen any of the nominated films (I’ll give a tip ‘o the hat to anyone who has actually seen ERNEST AND CELESTINE). What better way to enliven the party, create your own, or forget the exhausting festivities than an OSCARS DRINKING GAME?

So put on your finest pajamas, pick up the cheapest bottle (or five) of champagne at the store (while supplies last), and let’s drink to the fact that we’re not as pretty, rich, successful and clever as 99% of the people on the Oscars telecast.

RED CARPET EDITION: One Rule Only.

1. Drink every time Ryan Seacrest asks, “Who are you wearing?” It’s the only time that question doesn’t imply that you’re Norman Bates wearing your mother’s skin as a face.

But if you want more…

2. If a star brings her Mother or Father along as their date…Awww. DRINK.

3. Any time you realize that you’re actually watching a slew of “fashionistas”/C-level celebrities talk about celebrities hair, makeup, jewelry and clothes and doing so un-ironically on E!, you probably deserve a drink.

THE OSCARS DRINKING GAME RULES:

1. Drink every time Ellen dances.

2. Drink every time one of these rules make you groan.

3. Drink every time the cut-off music is offensive and flusters a speaker.

4. Drink every time a winner cries during their speech.

5. Drink every time there’s an annoying new hashtag on the screen.

6. Drink every time someone swears and it gets past the censors.

7. Finish the bottle (collectively) if Jennifer Lawrence trips over her dress. Sorry.

8. Have a sip if someone cracks a joke about George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio’s playboy ways. Har har.

9. Don’t drink for any Shia LeBeouf or Justin Bieber jokes.

10. Drink for every musical number. Sing along if you can, or especially if you can’t.

11. Sip whenever an old Hollywood luminary says something only a famous old guy/gal could get away with saying.

12. Drink for these lies: “I didn’t have a speech prepared” or “I am so shocked” or any variations thereof.

13. Any wigs, hairs or boob jokes about AMERICAN HUSTLE are made. Drink double if it’s in reference to Christian Bale’s rack.

14. If anyone makes a Steve McQueen joke, pout until the next time you can drink.

15. Drink any time a speaker uses the word “transformation” to describe someone’s performance, or a joke about weight loss, weight gain or Jared Leto is made.

TO SOBER UP: Waterfall water during the technical awards.

AFTER THE SHOW: Don’t drive, call a Lyft/Uber, or pass out on your friend’s couch.