So, for example Ridley Scott's "Ripley" character is a hero I can understand. She's a capable person, second-in-command who suddenly has to figure out how to survive and does it in a believable way.
On the other hand James Cameron's "Ripley" -- who is supposed to be the same person -- is simply awful. She's supposed to be the Ultimate Mom, Ultimate Badass, and Ultimate Liberal Anti-corporate figure. I mean, come on. She outfights colonial marines who've been trained to sweep planets of dangerous life forms. Again, it's not because Ripley II is female, it's because her character is so implausible you can't identify with her at all. There is a palpable terror when Ripley I blasts the Xenomorph out into space. As she's edging into her suit, she could be you, every(wo)man; scared to death and knowing you're probably not going to be able to do this if you really think about what's actually happening. Ripley II, on the other hand is boring. There's never any doubt that she's going to get off of a planet infested with hundreds of these things that were able to kill a whole spaceship crew when there was just one of them.
One thing I do like about female -- as strictly opposed to male leads in films and books -- is that female leads are done as straight heroes these days. Unabashed, unapologetically, heroes. Most male heroes these days in popular culture are anti-heroes. Personally, I hate the whole anti-hero thing. It's bogus. Peter Jackson actually went a very long way toward wrecking one of the best and most important characters in the Lord of the Rings by making him an anti-hero (Aragorn.) In the book, Aragorn is a straight-up hero. He's an ambitious man. He wants to be king, because his line has been deprived of its rightful due, because he can't have the love of his life unless he's king, because Sauron almost singlehandedly led to the fall of his race and he wants revenge, and most of all because he is a virtuous and honorable man. He is exemplary. He's not some sulky, brooding twerp.
I don't give two hoots for these phony James Dean type heroes. They suck.
So, to finally give you the answer that you deserve: women who out-men men physically aren't realistic, so I don't care for 'em. But I don't care for unrealistic characters generally. Women who can outthink men, yes. Women who can be heroic and still be believable, sure. The Jeanne d'Arc treatments have generally been OK; Xena depends on the episode. Buffy -- to be honest I really have watched everything by Joss Whedon and I don't know why because he's awful. So, no Buffy for me, but again it's more about the artistic vision than gender.
She's supposed to be the Ultimate Mom, Ultimate Badass, and Ultimate Liberal Anti-corporate figure. I mean, come on. She outfights colonial marines who've been trained to sweep planets of dangerous life forms.
I don't think we saw the same movie. Ripley is obviously uncomfortable in a maternal role and it's this awkwardness that is endearing. She isn't interested in being "anti-corporate" she just wants to survive, which she know she can't do if the progressive (sacrificing others for their own selfish self interest) yes man continues his course. She sucks at fighting and has to be taught on the fly. She doesn't outfight the marines, she runs as they fight, even then almost every character in the entire fricking movie has to sacrifice themselves for Ripley in order for her to make it. Then and only then can she barely fight the wildy over powered "boss" creature through the use of a powered exoskelton that she had hundreds of hours of practice in. Even then; let's face it while she "wins" we know from future movies that she had already lost war before she won that battle. Honestly I see your characterization as being so wildly skewed I'm not sure we could find enough common ground to discuss the movie rationally.
Buffy -- to be honest I really have watched everything by Joss Whedon and I don't know why because he's awful
Joss Wheadon is awful? I suspect at this point if you did in fact like any writer or director (which I doubt) I would strenuously disagree with you.
I wanted to say that when I read Hunger Games, I was really drawn in. I couldn't put it down, not because Katniss was a particularly well-defined character, but because I simply wanted to see what would happen next.
Now that I've read it a few times (because I teach it) I have come to a few conclusions:
1) Katniss does have some identifying characteristics: she loves her sister, she is suspicious of nearly everyone else, and she is quite pragmatic. I do think the conversation she has with Peeta on the rooftop offers a good glimpse of her character: he is ruminating on how the Games might make a savage of him and turn him into something he is not; she is hoping there'll be trees she can climb. But she is self-aware enough to think "Wow, he's having all those deep thought and all I'm thinking about is staying alive."
2) At no point does Katniss overpower any men. She has one skill: archery. It is the only way she can kill anyone directly. Any other kills came from setting off a series of events (bees, bombs) and even the bees weren't her idea. Most of what she has is luck. (In the first book, anyway. If I remember correctly, this is the case in all three. She has luck, good aim, and a terrific capacity to withstand pain. Those are believably feminine attributes, all things considered.)
So now I have read Divergent (because some of the kids at my school are reading it.) I have to say, it makes Hunger Games look deep in terms of plot. Every single "plot twist" is identifiable from 50 yards back. I mean, literally, you read it thinking "Oh, the blue eyes, that means this" and "Gee, why wouldn't the government like people with this particular skill? Maybe they are planning to... (durr)"
But one refreshing element is that the parents are actually allowed to be parents (I don't want to spoil it if you do read it.) The other believable element is that most of this girl's strength is psychological. But for the most part, it should be called Derivative.