Corvinus

Wonder Woman (spoiler thread) - skip to pg. 14 for actual movie discussion

366 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Its ok to want to have sex with her, you shouldn't be afraid of your emotions. You don't have to dress it up with 'she has intense eyes'

Right. You got me. Your mind reading powers are astounding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, anyone here who up on the able to explain how this isn't technically illegal|? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Btw, anyone here who up on the able to explain how this isn't technically illegal|? 

Because technically it isn't illegal to ruin once proud and noble DC heroes by churning out mediocre films factory style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regarding the women's only screening, it is obviously discrimination. Does anyone deny that? The only thing that's in question is whether it's okay because the affected group are not really victims in any other sense. To me, that's just like punching up, and frankly I think it's pretty stupid. 

MRA is kind of sad, imo, and it's not really relevant here. One cinema screening does not represent some sort of mass antipathy or oppression. But does that mean it's right or fair? Not all discrimination is equal, but surely that doesn't mean that any discrimination is intrinsically okay? I see comments like ''oh poor oppressed white men" and "they can just go find another viewing", and I am really quite surprised. Doesn't it seem fallacious to assume that, because someone is a white male their life must be good enough already that kind of being a dick to them is fine? Does that mean it's less racist to call a black person the N word if he's rich? Wasn't the problem with segregation not just that Black people didn't have the same opportunities as whites, but that discriminating was just kind of dickish? No, that's not me saying that this theatre screening is as bad as segregation. But it is a form of segregation, however watered down.

But, you know, I can see the argument for it. Wonder Woman is a feminist icon after all, I understand that the character has specific importance to female audiences. What I don't understand is why men can't have a relationship with this character too - I know just how important it was having strong women as role models in my life.

In the same vein, I think it's ironically unfaithful to the Wonder Woman character to have a women's only screening. Does anyone else notice the parallel between Diana living on the women's only Island of Themyscira, and deliberately making the choice to leave? To embrace and affect Men, not reject them?

I've found that being a white male is pretty awesome. Frankly, I don't care that much that I'm not allowed to go to this showing that I wouldn't have been going to anyway. I don't think that this indicates we're headed towards some alternate reality version of The Handmaids Tale, or anything like that. My life continues as before -fortunately better than 90% of people on Earth. I find it revolting that I have to share a side of the debate with people who's views I find pretty disgusting (Edit: by which I mean MRAs and online trolls, not other users on this forum). I just think that discrimination is intrinsically wrong, and I don't think it's an appropriate celebration of this character. 

Anyway, I look forward to going to see the film next week. I'm glad to hear that WB have finally made a good film in the DCEU.

Edited by Leap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Btw, anyone here who up on the able to explain how this isn't technically illegal|? 

How about you try to explain why you think it might be illegal?  Keep in mind your anger that you missing out on a couple hours of sexually harrassing a certain group of women isn't a reason for it be illegal, or even unethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Btw, anyone here who up on the able to explain how this isn't technically illegal|? 

I think it's genius from a marketing standpoint, especially in regards to the film being featured. As far as a political statement, I think it's somewhat problematic, and there is a measure of hypocrisy that can be certainly applied.

 I don't see how it can reasonably be seen as being illegal though. There are plenty of other theaters that are showing this feature. Not sure how you could prove that your rights are being violated in any meaningful way by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that banning anyone based on their gender or race to a public event would be deemed discriminatory and probably illegal but that's why I'm asking the question.

Either way it's a poor way to get over a positive message ( unless of course your goal was to to stir controversy to promote your movie )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, where was all this faux-rage when we've spend the last decade without a female led superhero film among all the dozens of superhero films that have hit the screen.  

A single special event isn't preventing you from seeing a film.  It's not discriminating against you anymore than any other special event in which you aren't invited is discriminating against you.  The outrage and the sold out screenings makes it clear this sort of event is much desired amount the XX crowd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you ever get banned from a screening of iron man or man of steel ( I wish I had) because of your gender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, at the end of the day I think it's Much Ado About Nothing. 

 

To the point of not having a female led superhero film, I get your point, but it doesn't completely hold up under scrutiny. We've had Catwoman, Elektra, and I think you could reasonably include Fury Road. And I bet I'm missing one or two examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Movie theater sets up women only viewing for a film about a very meaningful female character.  Man tries to force another man to treat a woman like a sex object.  Man wonders why women might enjoy a women only space.  

Very well put. :bowdown: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Seriously, where was all this faux-rage when we've spend the last decade without a female led superhero film among all the dozens of superhero films that have hit the screen.  

A single special event isn't preventing you from seeing a film.  It's not discriminating against you anymore than any other special event in which you aren't invited is discriminating against you.  The outrage and the sold out screenings makes it clear this sort of event is much desired amount the XX crowd

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but for the last decade I've either been 1) a child/teenager who had no interest in comic book/superhero movies, let alone comprehension of feminism or 2) calling for a Wonder Woman film. 

As for a special event discriminating against people, well we know it's still discrimination even if it doesn't prevent you from doing X *ever*. Discrimination isn't ever made okay by the fact that there is a scenario where you're not being discriminated against. It's made less bad, maybe, but I don't understand how it becomes acceptable. I also don't understand how it becomes more acceptable if the people party to it really, really want it. I mean, remember that Kentucky clerk who refused to marry gay people? She wasn't preventing them from getting married, or even getting married in Kentucky (I assume there was more than one clerk who wasn't as objectional), she merely refused to do it herself. But it was wrong, wasn't it? Isn't it wrong for private companies to also discriminate by sex, race, sexuality etc?

Again, to be clear, I do not think this is a particularly meaningful issue, and probably not worth arguing about at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you boys are...well you're a word I probably shouldn't use here.  Way too much to respond to individually.  I want to make clear that a special event at a movie theater is not the same as someone preventing people from marriage, so just move on from trying to attempt that comparison because it's sickening.  My right to marriage is in no way comparable to you missing out on one night special event film screening.  

There is one poster here who throws a fit anytime someone discusses the lack of women present in X group.  I'll be sure to bookmark some of your posts here so I can quote you to remind you that you thew a fit that you weren't invited to a special event to watch a film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Wow, you boys are...well you're a word I probably shouldn't use here.  Way too much to respond to individually.  I want to make clear that a special event at a movie theater is not the same as someone preventing people from marriage, so just move on from trying to attempt that comparison because it's sickening.  My right to marriage is in no way comparable to you missing out on one night special event film screening.  

There is one poster here who throws a fit anytime someone discusses the lack of women present in X group.  I'll be sure to bookmark some of your posts here so I can quote you to remind you that you thew a fit that you weren't invited to a special event to watch a film.

Firstly, I did not state that being restricted from a special screening was anywhere near as bad as the Kentucky clerk incident. The only reason I used that analogy was to illustrate that preventing someone from doing something because of their sex/race/whatever is wrong even if they can still do it at another time and place. Which, by the way, every single person trying to get a marriage license from that clerk could have done. You see how two things can be logically comparable without being the same in proportion or degree? 

Secondly, if you're going to call anyone names or anything like that, you should at least respond to their comments, and not hand wave anyone's position away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leap said:

You see how two things can be logically comparable without being the same in proportion or degree? 

I think you have hit upon Dr. Pepper's willful blind spot here. It is a debating tool she uses over and over and over again. She will give you no quarter on this point. 

The two points are logically comparable, obviously. You'd have to be completely delusional not to concede that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, in case none of you looked more into this issue of the theater, the special 'women only' screening will be on June 6, at one theater of the ones they have, and according to their statement, not just for women customer, but their entire staff for the evening will be only women.

Quote

“The most iconic superheroine in comic book history finally has her own movie, and what better way to celebrate than with an all-female screening?” wrote the Austin-based theater. “Apologies, gentlemen, but we’re embracing our girl power and saying ‘No Guys Allowed’ for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ‘Women (and People Who Identify As Women) Only,’ we mean it. Everyone working at this screening — venue staff, projectionist, and culinary team — will be female.”

So this event will take place nearly a full week after the movie's release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is anywhere near the anger about the issue that is being suggested by the media. It's helpful to portray the whole issue as a bunch of butt hurt white males crying into their basements.

 

But it does seem to part of a general trend and for a movie that wants to promote itself as about equality, instead is being very regressive and creating segregation. 

The real problem is you have people like Pepper who seem to see that as a cause for celebration and shouts down anyone who points out the problems with the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it's not about something super important like wedding cakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad. This is a case where the discrimination is not bad, and can in fact be justified; it's not treating a group historically oppressed or disadvantaged less favourably, it's not perpetuating dangerous and toxic ideologies, it's limited in scope (seriously one fucking movie theatre in a huge ass country get a fucking grip people) and makes perfect sense from a marketing perspective. It's a total non-issue that shouldn't even require discussion yet here we are because boo hoo one movie theatre is giving a woman's only screening for a film with an iconic female superhero.

And if your take-away from this is that the film is promoting segregation you obviously haven't paid attention to the wider media coverage. In interviews and such the cast has been very good in pointing out, in response to "female role model" that actually she is a model for young children of any gender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a total non issue except the media is making it an issue by blowing it up and making look like it's upset those evil backward men on the internet.  Like I said, that's a convenient narrative for the makers of the movie and I'm sure they are happy to stir the pot even more. 

Obviously the movie isn't promoting segregation, it's about trying to create a strong feminist icon.. but then they pull a stunt where they ban men. It's for effect clearly , but what's the message they are sending 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now