• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About fionwe1987

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 07/03/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,071 profile views
  1. They're releasing 3 chapters a week from Oathbringer every Tuesday, on Tor.
  2. So in the Justice League TV show, she's said to be Hippolyta's daughter with Hades. Hades tricks Hippolyta, who helps him, and the Gods punish her by banishing her to Earth to rule over the Amazons and with them keep the gates of Hades shut. I was kind of surprised the movie had Aries killing all the Gods. That made little sense, since it takes away the most powerful threats/allies for Wonder Woman in her future films. Maybe it'll all be revealed as story, and keeping Hades at bay will also be shown to be part of the Amazon's job?
  3. Don't they also show that scratch on her arm early on healing on its own, and that healer comments on it? I think she's likely bulletproof, but maybe more like Wolverine is rather than how Superman is.
  4. I thought this was addressed. The initial story was just that: a story, as Hippolyta tells Diana when she says she wants to go fight Ares. It anyway never made much sense for Zeus to be dead thousands of years ago and also be able to grant Diana's clay statue life/impregnate Hippolyta so recently.
  5. Well, given how big a success the movie was, I hope we'll see more female superhero movies. I guess it would be too much to ask for a Legend of Korra movie though. Black, bisexual muscular female lead movie is probably a ways away. But the possibility has gotten stronger, one hopes.
  6. Saw it last night as well. I definitely think it was the best DC movie, but the ending was just stupid. Seriously... love is the answer? They seriously couldn't come up with anything better? The story they set up had so many better directions to go. Why does it have to be love? Also, I'm mystified, given Wonder Woman's heritage, and the time period they chose, that we didn't get to meet any suffragettes. I['d have thought that would be better time spent in London than 5 minutes of Diana choosing clothes. Still, the Themiscyra parts were actually fun, and well done. Gal Gadot owned the role, and she and Chris Pine had some actual chemistry.
  7. You traitor to the brotherhood. Its men like you who destroy our cause and set us back (to the future)!
  8. Whatever do you mean by finally? Have I not made this clear pages ago? To clarify, I not only think it's ridiculous to protest some discrimination, some discrimination is necessary against those groups that enjoy the benefits of racial or sexist structures. You cannot create a clean slate one fine morning without addressing the systemic impacts of social structures that harmed specific groups.
  9. Yeah, it seems like they may all kill themselves with apoplexy over not being able to watch specific movie screenings. In fact, they should start doing this with every movie screening to keep them distracted. Might be something in that plan...
  10. No a race or gender, but the same race/gender that has been systematically subjugated for a long time.
  11. It would be a justifiable uproar.
  12. They didn't. Some incredibly oblivious men are reading that message into it. Who said it did? Who the heck takes one movie screening and extrapolates it to mean all of female empowerment excludes men? If that was indeed so, the MRA morons could have just kept quiet and stolen their thunder, you'd think? As it was, this didn't become a news story till they made a hue and cry about it. It really isn't. You can bring up edge cases, sure, but till there's proof that this keeps happening and causes harm to the subclass of "white-looking African Americans", you've not really shown me that the harm exists. You do know, by the way, that plenty of lighter-skinned African Americans still identify with Black culture, and no one makes any issue of it, aren't you? Yes. How discriminatory and exclusive. Call the cops! Depends on what that group is. If it is the majority continuing to enforce its long-held power, then yes, the anger will be palpable and justifiable. If not, then no, the anger will be limited to clueless morons on the internet, and I guess it'll start a thread in these forums, but it won't be "palpable". You seem to be one of those man-babies if you actually think those are "double-standards". They are not. If you list some examples, I'm sure we can clear it up...
  13. No. The exclusion of one gender isn't what is being used to celebrate empowerment. They clearly aren't celebrating the absence of men in the screening, or, in fact, the movie, so I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. And don't you feel even a smidgen of absurdity at accusing women of celebrating the exclusion of men while women are routinely excluded from almost everything? Do you stay away from every movie that doesn't allow women even a named speaking role? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it being an African-american only showing. Why would someone of mixed race not be allowed in? Why is that an analogy to this event? You know such showings happen, right? The Indian Student Association at my university recently screened an Indian movie. And members of the association only were invited. Black people weren't, and they didn't see the need to protest it either. But also... the gall of suggesting that the Chinese would have any interest in celebrating, let alone have an exclusive showing of, a movie that puts a white man in charge of saving China is so absurd that I burst out laughing at work. Wait... you're asking for a mixed dog-cat movie screening to prove your point??? See how crazy this makes you sound?
  14. The exclusion of men isn't the celebration. The celebration is of a movie about a female superhero. Its like, say, Indians had a party when they got independent and didn't invite the British. Sure, that party would be discriminating against the Brits, but the party is about Indians and celebrating their independence. The exclusion of the Brits is by the way, not at the root of the celebration.
  15. The two are not analogous situations. You sound like one of those people who says "I don't see skin color", and expects that to be the end of racism. Except, of course, if you've treated a class of people based on a biased standard for centuries, or in this case, millenia, then suddenly say "hey welcome to the 21st century where *everything* is strictly equal, no advantages to anyone", you're only repackaging the old biases in new language. I don't think this is about safe spaces. This is about celebrating a comic book icon that has an (admittedly variable) tie to female empowerment. The celebration is restricted to those whose empowerment the event seeks to celebrate. If you have a male only showing of the Dark Knight, you wouldn't, of course, be able to celebrate empowerment. You'd only be celebrating exclusion, and reinforcement of the societal structures we're still trying to fight. That context is crucial to why a female only showing to celebrate empowerment sounds okay, and shouldn't generate controversy, but a male only showing of a movie sounds asinine.