The Official Movie Thread

[herman]

If we are just going to throw articles at this of women responding to the film, here?s one:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/7/15740804/wonder-woman-amazons-feminist

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles? 

That?s a pretty shallow read on the film and is exactly what Cameron was saying. Gadot?s beauty is presented as a matter of fact, not the defining trait of the character she portrayed. She doesn?t get the Michael
bay treatment. I can pretty much guarantee that the only people getting hung up that Wonder Woman was too beautiful are the ones who are judging women based on their appearance.

 

[Kin]

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles?

It's probably worth mentioning that Gadot, in addition to being an ex-model, is also an Israeli army veteran. So you'd like to think that anyone who saw her in the movie might have picked up that she wasn't just a nice looking woman but also credibly carried off the warrior element to it. And I think that if you look at the shots of the other women on her island you do see a variety of women who don't all fit into any conventional model of attractiveness.

But this is where we should probably take a step back and remember we're talking about a big budget tentpole summer movie made from a comic book and that a lot of the things we'd like to see from things like that(inclusiveness, intelligence, etc) are sort of at odds with the source material and the aims of the studio(mass appeal, making bank). Like I said earlier putting more women in charge of productions and directing movies probably means we'll get some of the diversity you're talking about but we shouldn't expect solutions to these problems to come from the massive corporations that churn out these teenage power fantasies for adults.

Supporting movies that deal with other things besides people in spandex throwing trucks at each other is another way to get more diversity in theatres.

 

[rdowdall]

If we are just going to throw articles at this of women responding to the film, here?s one:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/7/15740804/wonder-woman-amazons-feminist

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles? 

That?s a pretty shallow read on the film and is exactly what Cameron was saying. Gadot?s beauty is presented as a matter of fact, not the defining trait of the character she portrayed. She doesn?t get the Michael
bay treatment. I can pretty much guarantee that the only people getting hung up that Wonder Woman was too beautiful are the ones who are judging women based on their appearance.

The movie is no different than Tomb Raider.  Hey look girls, it's a video game for you, because there is a woman in it.  Don't worry, we spent two months getting the "jiggle algorithm" correct. 

It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  Lets get out of the way, and let them dictate what feminism is or isn't, and what they want a strong woman to be.  Sure the movie is directed by a woman, but the movie studio still controlled the message.  It didn't get the Micheal Bay treatment?  Oh great, Wonder Woman doesn't seductively pose on a motorcycle.  High bar has been reached.  She still is lead around World War 1 by a bunch of men who essentially use her for their own gains.  Steve Trevor flat out lies to her so that they can "win the war", because that's what she wants.         

But sure, I'll take the hit and be called shallow just because I think we can do better. I'll stand by the premise that this movie isn't ground breaking.  It could have been that if they had decided to take a different direction and cast Rhonda Rousey or Serena Williams as Wonder Woman, because regardless of what they look like, they are strong women who have achieved the pinnacle of their profession.  You could argue that maybe they wouldn't have acted as well, but I think you could have worked with them.  Sure, I'll be called shallow, because I imagine that if you queried the 18 - 25 male demographic about what they liked about the film, I'm sure the comment "She's hot" was in there more than a couple of times.  I would hope that if they had casted someone like Rousey, the narrative would have been more "She kicks ass", which is what the movie should be about to males.  It should be about what the female lead accomplishes, and not about what she looks like, but when you cast a super model as the lead, you inevitably make it about what she looks like, because her job is literally to be looked at.  That's not ground breaking.  We've seen that.  If you want, I'll use the Tomb Raider movie with Angelie Jolie as an example. 

Also that scale you linked too.  That's the scale that trumpeted Iron Man 3 as being this great movie for women because there was a car ride which had two women in it, and they didn't talk about their boyfriends for the whole entire ride.  Can you imagine that?  I still think we can do better.  And maybe that's part of the problem.  Here I am saying what I think would be better for women. 

Really it gets back to Nik's comment about putting women in power and letting them dictate the direction that they want the movie/ad/article go.  Make it about what they want.  You even said, the studio didn't even let Jenkins cast her own Wonder Woman.  Why is that?  Because the studio still wanted to make a movie that would attract males, because they want to make more money.  Men are still dictating what the movie is going to be about.  And now that they did that they are standing back and men are saying "This is ground breaking feminism people."  All Cameron, who is also a man, is saying is that he doesn't think it is.

 

[herman]

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this, SI, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe Wonder Woman is equivalent to Tomb Raider because it is a female lead crafted for men, by men, to placate women and fulfill the male gaze fantasy? And therefore is problematic, anti-feminist, etc.?

Your description of the film doesn't really jive with how I remember it, so perhaps I'll watch it again, particularly where men use Diana for their own gains. I remember them trying to, and I remember her just doing her own thing anyway and working with the ones that chose to fight alongside her. They literally destroyed the film's most phallic symbol that was touted to be the McGuffin that will solve all the problems.

I mean, I agree with you that we can do a lot better. What I don't understand is why you're so interested in the male response to gauge whether or not the film is feminist. I provided several examples of women responding very positively to the message of the movie and you probably saw it demonstrated at Halloween in kids' costume choices and comic conventions with more people opting for WW's bracer pose, than Leia's RotJ slave-kini. Yes, it is shallow to say that a strong feminist needs to look a certain way. The implication there is that strong women need to look like men.

What I also don't understand is why the standard it sounds like you're holding to the feminist ideals of this film outstrip its context in reality. Women already have so many extra rungs to climb to be taken seriously, and Cameron's comments are saying this didn't climb enough.

The Bechdel Test is not a scale that rates movies' greatness, by the way. It's merely a check to see if the movie or show fulfills the following criteria:

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

If you scroll through the list, something as simple as two women interacting for their own sake is astonishingly rare.

Men got the writing credits for Wonder Woman as a function of how screenwriting credits work, and how WB wanted the DCEU to come together under Snyder's vision, but it is quite clear women were behind a good number of the story, costume, and directorial choices (which they, naturally/ironically, barely got recognition for).

 

[Bullfrog]

...
It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  ....

I've been watching this conversation with great interest, but have been reserving comment because -- in truth -- I really want to take time to form an opinion. However, I just wanted to make a quick comment on this quoted part. While I'm good with what you're proposing, I think there's a danger in suggesting that one side can't understand the other or that they can't assist in the solution.

I get your view that men are the problem, but I don't think to cut them out is the solution.

 

[rdowdall]

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this, SI, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe Wonder Woman is equivalent to Tomb Raider because it is a female lead crafted for men, by men, to placate women and fulfill the male gaze fantasy? And therefore is problematic, anti-feminist, etc.?

My problem is that you can't serve something up as ground breaking if it isn't really ground breaking.  It doesn't move the needle forward as far as the perception of women.  Diana is still a princess.  She's a princess with powers.  Same as Frozen.  Or look, princessses, but one has powers.  Tangled, princess, but her hair is powerful.  All of these princesses are now solving their own problems.  No need to wait for a prince anymore.

The standard should be higher.  We've got to actually look at things and call a spade a spade if we want to advance things.  Saying we are making advances, when we might actually not be making advances will cause us to stall.   

Your description of the film doesn't really jive with how I remember it, so perhaps I'll watch it again, particularly where men use Diana for their own gains. I remember them trying to, and I remember her just doing her own thing anyway and working with the ones that chose to fight alongside her. They literally destroyed the film's most phallic symbol that was touted to be the McGuffin that will solve all the problems.

Which in and of itself is great.  A woman saved the day.  How is that ground breaking.  In Tomb Raider, Laura Croft saves the day too, fighting off a whole bunch of evil men to boot.  What about the above story line is ground breaking?

I mean, I agree with you that we can do a lot better. What I don't understand is why you're so interested in the male response to gauge whether or not the film is feminist. I provided several examples of women responding very positively to the message of the movie and you probably saw it demonstrated at Halloween in kids' costume choices and comic conventions with more people opting for WW's bracer pose, than Leia's RotJ slave-kini. Yes, it is shallow to say that a strong feminist needs to look a certain way. The implication there is that strong women need to look like men.

The way males perceive women is part of the problem.  We view them as sexual objects.  Part of what needs to happen is that men need to start viewing women as human beings, with hopes, dreams, and feelings.  Placing a good looking women in front of a male crowd and then saying look she's also strong doesn't do anything.  I get the angle your coming from.  Hey guys she's good looking, just ignore that, and focus on her accomplishments.      We've already done that in several films in Hollywood.  How does continuing to do that break new ground?  Why not come at it from the other angle?  Hey guys here's this women that has accomplished a lot in field X.  You should accept her because she knows what she is doing.  Don't allow looks to come in to the equation. 

I don't see what the problem is with saying that the bar should be higher if we are going to break new ground for the representation of women in mainstream media?   

What I also don't understand is why the standard it sounds like you're holding to the feminist ideals of this film outstrip its context in reality. Women already have so many extra rungs to climb to be taken seriously, and Cameron's comments are saying this didn't climb enough.

We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again. 

As Nik mentioned this movie does help because of it's financial success, so it has given Gal Godot the power to dictate some of what is going to happen with the next film, which is great.  That's a positive to be taken from that.  But that has more to do with the financial success of the movie than it does with the overall message that the movie is trying to portray. 

Taking the movie content as it is and offers up and then saying "Yes now Women have someone they can look up to.  It's a super model princess who is a demi-god." and saying that this is a ground breaking moment in cinametic history for women seems like an overstatement of what has happened.  It's kind of like calling a hockey player generational because you want everybody to know just how good he is.  It may be that he isn't actually generational but he still is pretty good.         

The Bechdel Test is not a scale that rates movies' greatness, by the way. It's merely a check to see if the movie or show fulfills the following criteria:

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

If you scroll through the list, something as simple as two women interacting for their own sake is astonishingly rare.

[/quote]

I knew what the scale was.  I had heard about it during Iron Man 3.  The article that I read about it in was about how comic book movies are good for women because they pass the checks.  Again, if that is the scale that we are using to measure how well a movie represents women, Wonder Woman didn't really break any ground there, because Iron Man 3 passed those check in 2013, 3 years prior to the release of Wonder Woman.  The big difference being that main characters genders switched places (Steve Trevor <--> Pepper Potts, Tony Stark <--> Princess Diana).

Men got the writing credits for Wonder Woman as a function of how screenwriting credits work, and how WB wanted the DCEU to come together under Snyder's vision, but it is quite clear women were behind a good number of the story, costume, and directorial choices (which they, naturally/ironically, barely got recognition for).

Well hooray for those women.  They did the work and got very little credit.  Sounds fair. 

 

[herman]

I don't think I'll keep reiterating my points, because that's boring, but I'll make some point form notes, and we'll see if anything there makes sense:

- Beautiful people with incredible physiques as leads in movies, especially action movies, is par for the course. Name an action movie where they are not.

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

- Do you know why studios have been hesitant to run female-led comic book movies? Because Catwoman flopped, and is therefore not financially viable. How many male-led comic book movies have flopped? Other than Burton Batman and Superman 1, 2, pretty much all of them before Iron Man. Nevertheless, they persisted in making garbage male-led comic book movies, or male-run female-led comic book movies for male audiences (Catwoman, Elektra).

- WW has now earned over 800M worldwide.

- As steam picked up on the audience response to Wonder Woman in BvS, Marvel finally felt safe enough to fire up their own female-led entry into the MCU in Captain Marvel, casting Brie Larson in the titular role, and she'll be sporting the flight suit uniform instead of the mid-90s swimsuit and sash.

- Marvel's toy division subbed out Black Widow in toy sets depicting an Age of Ultron scene where she was the primary actor and replaced her with Cap. Because girls don't play with action figures or Lego, apparently.

- You can't fix male gaze issues by not forbidding people from seeing attractive women doing good work. You show them, and then highlight the good work.

- Perfect is the enemy of good.

 

[rdowdall]

...
It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  ....

I've been watching this conversation with great interest, but have been reserving comment because -- in truth -- I really want to take time to form an opinion. However, I just wanted to make a quick comment on this quoted part. While I'm good with what you're proposing, I think there's a danger in suggesting that one side can't understand the other or that they can't assist in the solution.

I get your view that men are the problem, but I don't think to cut them out is the solution.

Yeah, my fear there would be that men would eventually take it over an make it about them.

Here's a story from my life.  My wife used to come home each day and tell me about her day and the problems that she as having.  Being the loving husband that I am, I figured that I needed to solve all these problems for her.  So each day I would tell her what she should do.  You should do this, or you should do that.  Why don't you say this. 

Finally my wife had enough.  She said to me "Look, I don't want you to solve my problems.  I just want you to listen to them and understand what I go through at work.  I'll take care of the solution."

It was kind of an eye opening moment for me.  I'm a problem solver at heart.  It's what I try and do.  I get singularly focused on something and I have a hard time letting go of it.  It's part of who I am.  I thought I was doing the right thing, but I never took the time to ask her what it is she actually needed from me.  I just assumed that I knew best.   

 

[rdowdall]

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids. 

 

[herman]

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

 

[Kin]

We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again. 

I don't really get this. By definition "breaking ground" isn't about finishing something but starting something. You can acknowledge the way in which this movie was a step forward(a big budget superhero movie that made a ton of money while starring a woman and being directed by a woman) while acknowledging that it wasn't the be all and end all for dismantling an oppressive patriarchy.

 

[rdowdall]

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.

 

[rdowdall]

We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again. 

I don't really get this. By definition "breaking ground" isn't about finishing something but starting something. You can acknowledge the way in which this movie was a step forward(a big budget superhero movie that made a ton of money while starring a woman and being directed by a woman) while acknowledging that it wasn't the be all and end all for dismantling an oppressive patriarchy.

Which is fair.  However, would you say that what Gal Godot portrayed as Wonder Woman was in fact ground breaking as far as a women character on the screen, which is really the comment that started the whole conversation.

 

[herman]

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.

Please accept my apologies for that oversight. The use of 'you could' was for rhetorical purposes as an appeal to ethos and not as a presumption about your specific parenting situation.

 

[rdowdall]

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.

Please accept my apologies for that oversight. The use of 'you could' was for rhetorical purposes as an appeal to ethos and not as a presumption about your specific parenting situation.

Look.  if you have kids, you'll understand where I am coming from.  If you don't then you won't.  Leave it at that.  You don't know my life, or what challenges I have to face when it comes to my boys.

 

[Kin]

Which is fair.  However, would you say that what Gal Godot portrayed as Wonder Woman was in fact ground breaking as far as a women character on the screen, which is really the comment that started the whole conversation.

Sure, in some ways. Not in others. That the movie is about her as opposed to, say, Linda Hamilton in T2 being the 3rd or 4th most important character of the movie seems like a pretty big step.

But this is where I think it's important to point out that I'm not and never have been one of those "If women ran the world there'd be no wars" kind of people. WW was a super hero popcorn flick. It was not a massive revolution in the way women are portrayed. If and when women are somewhat evenly represented in terms of acting/writing/directing/producing there will be women making bad, or at very least simple, movies that aren't especially progressive. The important thing is that won't be the only stuff out there. 

 

[Kin]

In slightly less contentious movie news, Rotten Tomatoes has announced they won't be releasing the Justice League score until the day before the film:

http://www.slashfilm.com/justice-league-rotten-tomatoes-score/

I've never heard of this before. I know it's a big thing in Hollywood these days to blame Rotten Tomatoes' scores for being too influential but this seems like overkill even if it isn't unduly influenced by Warner Brothers having a stake in the site.

 

[herman]

Look.  if you have kids, you'll understand where I am coming from.  If you don't then you won't.  Leave it at that.  You don't know my life, or what challenges I have to face when it comes to my boys.

For me this was a largely academic exercise of killing time at work. No judgment or anything personal was intended, and I'm sorry it went there.

As an aside: just because I don't know what you're going through, that doesn't mean I don't care. I see what you've been saying and I think it's great that you want to make a positive difference in the lives of those around you.

Whatever your challenges are, I'm available if you want to just bounce ideas or what-not off of in 'public' or in PMs because I don't believe anyone's challenges are meant to be faced alone. And I don't think I'm the only person here who'd be willing to lend a listening ear.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

*Wanders into thread to catch-up on a discussion that was interesting yesterday*

 

[herman]

*Wanders into thread to catch-up on a discussion that was interesting yesterday*

I thought you'd still be in your bunk.