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

[Dr. Pepper]

Well, I mean, in a way it would sort of be awesome.  Probably not for the reason DunderMuffin is suggesting.  It would be awesome if female breasts were no longer sexualized to the extent they are and were instead treated as just breasts, not much different than male breasts. 

Although, there would be a practicality issue in that superhero-ing can be a big difficult with a breast flopping around depending on the superheroines size.  But in general I'd be cool with a superheroine walking around post shower scenes with just a towel around the waste, same as her counterpart.

[DunderMifflin]

22 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

 

Didn't they also cut the other one off?
 

Did you really just say that the first solo female superhero film featuring a topless protagonist would be "pretty awesome"? I am honestly at a loss as to why you ever think that anyone with two brain cells to rub together will take your posts seriously.

Yeh. I did say that. Being that I'm not a 1950s Baptist preacher, "topless" isn't some sort of negative trigger word for me. 

And please, no need for the shitty brain cells comment. I'm guessing you don't have some sort of microchip implant that makes you go into rage and insult mode when someone on the internet has an opinion you dont like. This thread already has Dr Pepper for raging out and insulting people, it doesn't need another one.

[DunderMifflin]

No one is claiming they would actually do it. Someone just brought it up as if it was an absurd suggestion, which it was. But imo it would be pretty awesome to actually try something daring, wouldn't have to be specifically Scots topless suggestion, but something. 

It would be a dumb and risky business decision to be daring and creative with their outfits rather than bland and safe but I don't watch movies just so I can witness studios make a nice financial profit.

[red snow]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The Guardian review was one of the few negative reviews about the movie I've read so far. Their problem seemed to focus on what the movie 'could have been', which is a fair comment. But at the same time it wouldn't be surprising that the movie played safe in a number of elements. 

A few people have said its basically a female 'Captain America 1' movie. 

That's how the trailers come off as well. Which is fine for a popcorn movie.

It's probably missing the point from a feminist POV but one reviewer does highlight how Chris Pine's character as the love interest actually has an interesting arc - something usually completely missing from a female love interest in such a film. Given the screenplay is by a male that might just be that bias creeping in (although Alan Heinberg usually gave his female comic characters due treatment too).

It also sounds like the first DC film to get decent reviews is the first one directed by a woman featuring a female lead which should count for something even if the content isn't groundbreaking. If it can match or top the box office of the other films that would be icing. It would be interesting what DC would pursue if Wonder Woman makes less than BvS and Suicide Squad though - do they chase the cash or do they chase the critical response?

In terms of "skimpy" outfits I'd be interested to see how many shots we get of Wonder Woman being tastefully lacking in clothing. Because if you think of how often Hugh Jackman has happened to be shirtless (or running around in pants) whilst playing Wolverine it's clear this is an aspect of Hollywood. Pretty sure Thor often finds himself having a bath in his films (pretty sure in the Ultron trailer he was shirtless in a cave-pool although I don't think it made the final cut). I guess the difference is Wolverine's costume isn't him wearing a jacket with no shirt on all the time.

[Kalbear]

This review is much more positive.

 

Quote

 

The last time Warner Bros. put out a good/great superhero film was five years ago, with 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises, the last chapter in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

In that context, the absolutely gorgeous and joyful Wonder Woman — easily the best Warner Bros. superhero film since Nolan put his flair on the cape and cowl — is a major relief. Director Patty Jenkins’s fight scenes are masterpieces of motion. Gal Gadot is majestic. Chris Pineis impossibly charming. And Jenkins has created a film that rightfully does justice to its legendary title character.

 

 

[The BlackBear]

I am so glad it's getting good reviews. I'd pretty much decided that if this film was bad I was done with DC, unfair to put that much pressure on this film, but there it is.

[DunderMifflin]

All these conveniently nameless and faceless men that are outraged by the women only movie showing are really going to have a tantrum when they find how menfolk get treated on Wonder Woman's secret island.
But in the end the SJWs will be bummed when despite her upbringing she falls for a completely heterosexual relationship with the first man she's sees in her entire life.

[Dr. Pepper]

22 minutes ago, Leap said:

This is just a blatant misunderstanding of what a comparison is. What it is not is a way of saying ''these things are both alike in every way'', that defeats the purpose of a comparison. Of course I can use any two things I want and say they are comparable, provided the aspect that I am comparing them on is the same. Example: an apple, like an orange, is a fruit. That doesn't mean I'm saying that an apple is the same colour as an orange. 

Likewise, I can say that Big Ben is comparable to a Grandfather Clock, in that they both tell the time. That doesn't mean I am saying the Grandfather Clock is huge and currently located in London.

 

The context here is discrimination and you chose to use marriage equality to illustrate how a one time special event at a movie theater was a bad sort of discrimination.  It's foul.  They aren't remotely comparable in this context, it isn't relevant at all in this discussion.  We're talking about a group of people not being invited to a party one evening, not a group of people who have been systematically excluded from multiple aspects of society. It's meaningless.  You might as well have said this special event is comparable to 5 year olds not being allowed to drive cars or seniors not being allowed to attend kindergarten.  I mean, they are both examples of discrimination so it's automatically relavant and comparable, amirite?. 

This is literally like any other party where only certain people aren't invited.  One of my friends has wondered if the confusing part for some people is that people still need to pay to attend this party.  That doesn't make much sense to me since most parties tend to require some sort of monetary contribution, but whatever, maybe it really is the case.

Quote

Edit: Holy shit, WW is at 96% on RT! If that wasn't impressive enough, it's at 7.8/10 on average, which is a really amazing score. I can't help but feeling it might be slightly skewed upwards as critics are relieved to finally have a DCEU film that doesn't suck, but honestly this is a better score than most MCU films anyway. 

Well this score might be enough to actually make me go see it in theaters.  I was marginally interested because it's Wonder Woman, but DCEU and DC film/tv media in general has a history of sucking so I wasn't excited.

[Dr. Pepper]

16 minutes ago, Leap said:

What on Earth are you talking about? Yes, the context of my comparison was discrimination, but I was quite clearly specifically referring to the logic of their interactions, not "how bad the consequence was". Your poor analogies show that you completely failed to comprehend this, since neither of them follow the logic that I earlier described (i.e. it is almost always not legal for 5 year olds to drive, nor can seniors ever go to kindergarten, and there are good reasons for both of those things). 

I'll give another example. I can compare both apples and oranges in the context of ''colour'' by saying they are both "light coloured fruits". Again, that does not mean I am saying an orange is green, or an apple orange. 

But let's go back to discrimination. Do you agree that not all discrimination is equally bad? If so, why is it impossible to compare two examples of discrimination without stating that they are equally bad? 

Sigh.  You seriously don't get it.  There may be times when comparing marriage equality to not being invited to someone's party is relevant, but it's not this time.  The degree of consequence has no bearing when the two things being compared are completely irrelevant to one another in the context of this discussion. Calling apples and oranges light colored fruit is only useful or relevant if you're talking about color. 

Obviously not all discrimination is bad.  But this isn't about whether or not one is equally bad to another, but whether or not they are even meaningfully comparable.  You've given two examples of discrimination - one where people aren't invited to a one time party, one where they being prevented from participating aspects of civil society.  No comparison.  You might as well pull out any random 'discriminatory' thing and try to say the logic flies.  A more apt and less offensive comparison would have been bakeries who don't sell cakes to gays.  It obviously still doesn't work because one group is banned entirely all the time while in the other situation it's just a single party. 

We're never going to agree on this, so you go ahead and keep talking about marriage equality in relation to a party you aren't invited to.  Here's my blanket statement about all of it: It's obscene and it's offensive.  They are unrelated in every way in the context of this discussion.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

It was a public event. Not a private party. Nobody was specifically invited, tickets were available to the public, to anyone as long as they were not men.

There is a difference. Unless you consider every time you go to the cinema a little private party with a bunch of people you don't know. 

 

[DunderMifflin]

I don't think anyone on this thread is willingly outraged on their own about not being included in a movie screening. The conversation clearly is being fanned, as it being brought up in the very first post of the thread. Most of the actual "outrage" seems to be about usual personal insults and attacks that always accompany these sorts of social justice-ish type of topics. 

Which would seem to back up the claim that it's just fabrication for hype, because it's showing how incredibly easy it is to get passionate and hostile about.

[James Arryn]

22 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What Does Wonder Woman Actually Represent?

Interesting little cartoon.

Does it address why someone from an ancient Hellenistic culture wears a Star-Spangled Banner? Or just one mountain at a time?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Yeah despite commenting on it often I can safely say I am not outraged at the screening. But I don't mind taking a position on it seeing how easily people tend to jump down the throats of anyone who might point out the issue.

 

The hypocrisy of showing a movie that purports to bring feminist ideals  outright banning a gender from a viewing is pretty amusing more than anything. On one hand it's a totally misjudged move, on the other hand WB must be loving it

 

 

[DunderMifflin]

Yet somehow whining about C4's whining doesn't convince me this is as issue that anyone is outraged about.
At most it seems like a thought experiment in the technicality of what equality actually means. And yes, as much as it shocks you, C4, or Dr Pepper, people are still going to have their own opinions. No matter how vicious or clever your insults are.
As an added bonus, people usually just cling harder to their opinions when you insult them and are hostile to them. People who actually care about what's best for all people realize this, people who don't care just want everyone to think how progressive they are so they frame every debate as how evil/stupid/racist/sexist/etc the other person is while relying on the delusion that they are perfect.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

32 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Does it address why someone from an ancient Hellenistic culture wears a Star-Spangled Banner? Or just one mountain at a time?

Because she was sent as an ambassador to Steve Trevor's land (aka 'Merica! Fuck Yeah!). 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The hypocrisy of showing a movie that purports to bring feminist ideals  

 

Citation needed. Where in the marketing does Wonder Woman say anything about feminist ideals? This is a story about a being that was literally created of clay and lives without any men. How feminist do you believe that to be?

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

outright banning a gender from a viewing is pretty amusing more than anything.

It's especially amusing given the overreaction of folks like yourself. I'm glad you're amused too at the massive reaction to one theater offering two screenings of a movie called 'Wonder WOMAN' to women only. They'll be soon offering a 'dressed up as clown-only' screening for IT. 

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 On one hand it's a totally misjudged move, on the other hand WB must be loving it

I don't see how it's misjudged. It is certainly appearing to reveal huge swaths of badly informed people. 

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. Where in the marketing does Wonder Woman say anything about feminist ideals? This is a story about a being that was literally created of clay and lives without any men. How feminist do you believe that to be? 

Sounds about right to me

[red snow]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This review is much more positive.

 

 

I've heard several mentions of the fight scenes with WW vs WWI being great. Better yet, it seems the trailers haven't completely given them away.

Much like Marvel it seems the only consistent criticism is about the villain being a bit meh. I can take that as long as WW herself works well

[fionwe1987]

4 hours ago, Leap said:

The first bolded part suggests that you still don't comprehend. The fact that one thing is much worse than another has literally no consequence when comparing unrelated aspects of these entities, but you keep pushing that even though you quite obviously failed to show that I said anything of the sort.

Let me try and get this right: your argument is that you're merely comparing the geographically limited impact of one clerk refusing to marry gay people (permanently, till she was thrown out of her job) to the geographically limited impact of one theater holding one screening which was only for women. Correct? You're not saying gay marriage equals single sex theater screenings, only that both instances cited are restricted, and restriction alone doesn't make it okay.

The problem, of course, is that these are not remotely analogous situations. When one clerk refuses to marry two men, say, they face the crushing humiliation of being rejected on a day they hoped would be the happiest of their lives. Assuming some bloke who doesn't know this screening is for women only and reaches the theater. Firstly, he will almost certainly face the altogether different problem of the screening being fully booked. Say that doesn't happen, he will be told its for women only. Is there some reason that missing this screening harms him? Has he been dreaming of watching the Wonder Woman movie in this theater at this time for a long while, and this dream has now been crushed? 

In other words, the impact of the geographically/temporally restricted discriminations you are comparing are wholly different. The issue with Kim Davis wasn't that one clerk was saying no to gay marriage and others were okay with it. It was that she specifically was saying no, and this was causing harm to those she was refusing. Till you can show harm to any man refused entry to this screening, any comparison you make of these two events will come across as absurd, offensive, and tone deaf. 

You're saying "Only Kim Davis refused to marry gay people, yet everyone pointed to that as a horrible crime, whereas only this theater is refusing to show Wonder Woman to men, yet people say it isn't wrong", as if the morality of the issues depends on one clerk/one theater. It does not.

To put it another way, if someone said they were allergic to peanuts, and this makes life difficult for them, you wouldn't reply with, "yeah, and I dislike almonds, which are nuts too, and so we both deserve sympathy", would you?

Quote

The second bolded part emphasises that even further. You're trying to magnify this to make it about marriage equality in general, when the example I specifically cited was an instance where marriage equality was already granted on a wide scale, yet was denied in one instance. Those are obviously two massively different things.

No, they are not. They're closely linked things. What made Kim Davis stand out was that even though the law had said she and everyone like her needed to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, she was refusing to comply, and this was a clear case of discrimination and a disregard for the law. Before marriage equality was the law of the land, Kim Davis never granted a marriage license to anyone, and no one knew about her or cared. By continuing her actions when the law said different, she emphasized her prejudice and made it worthy of comment and censure.

In other words, context matters. 

Quote

If I'd said that this special event was a relevant comparison to marriage inequality, it would be an absurd comparison - because as you say, they are different scenarios where the affected group is discriminated against in different ways. But I didn't say that.

It is pretty impossible to separate the two in the analogy you presented. You brought it up to justify your argument that:

Discrimination isn't ever made okay by the fact that there is a scenario where you're not being discriminated against.

To which I can only make the obvious point that this depends on the kind of discrimination you're talking about. There are discriminations where general non-discrimination changes the valence of a particular act of discrimination. In other cases, this just isn't true. Society and the law both take context into account when judging acts of discrimination. For instance, "Black lives matter" vs. the ridiculously absurd "All lives matter". 

Quote

I am not talking about ''marriage equality'' in relation to one event. I was talking about one event in relation to another event, and the type of discrimination was wholly irrelevant since I was only comparing the means and acts. It is not offensive to use two things in the same sentence, nor even necessarily to use them in the same comparison.

 

You can compare any two things, but if you take something that is deeply emotionally painful and compare it to a movie screening, you can quite correctly be accused of trivializing the former, and thus being offensive. This is why if you said "I had to stand in an elevator with a guy who had noxious BO. Now I know what a gas chamber must have felt like", you would be correctly called offensive, and a twat, even though technically you claim you're only making the analogy related to forced presence in a closed 4-walled room while unacceptable gas particles are in the atmosphere.  

[Squab]

The outrage is hilarious. I saw someone on twitter saying they were happy to have a safe space away from penises which was then transphobic as "just because you have a penis, doesn't mean you're a man".

IMHO, the cinema should be allowed to decide who it sells tickets (or cakes) to for whatever reason it likes but that's not what the law says.

I see there are rumours about Lebanon banning it cause Gal Gadot is Israeli.

Is the studio encouraging all this for a Streisand effect? I thought it was odd initial reviews were crap but recent ones say its good. Have they suddenly started throwing money around? (not that journalists are corrupt or anything)