I'm almost afraid to wade into this again, but this is where my confusion is coming from.
I read the comic back in college, and I really enjoyed it. But I'm beginning to think I misinterpreted it, because what I got out of it is this: fiction, and specifically in this case movies, have been artificially constructed to revolve around men. This construction is so rigid that authors are constructing stories to revolve around men even when no men are present, and they're doing it by showing female characters wondering where the men are, obsessing over what the men are doing, and defining themselves by their relationships to the men.
However, if a movie (or book, or whatever) passes the Bechdel test, it doesn't necessarily mean the female characters involved in the conversation aren't horrible stereotypical cardboard cutouts. It doesn't necessarily mean their dialogue is poignant or well-written. What it does mean, however, is that there is at least one scene in the story that does not rely on the presence of a man, explicit or implied, to function. There is at least a part of the fictional world that wouldn't collapse on itself if all the male characters were removed.
In other words, I thought the Bechdel Test was about the narrative, not the characters.
I'm beginning to think I've been doin' it rong this whole time.