|
Phylodox posted:It doesn't mean he's a poo poo, it just means he didn't have a good grasp on the character. Besides, it's a first draft. First drafts are always just throwing whatever at the wall and planning on refining it later. Yeah but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, he's made a lot of gross poo poo and hidden behind unconvincing "But actually, I'm the feminist!" talk when he gets called on it. Whedon projects that didn't involve fetishizing "strong female characters" being tortured, psychologically broken and/or degraded: 
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
I'd argue Zoe(I think, the character played by Gina Torres) from Firefly counts, but that show has so many examples of the opposite it by far cancels it out. If Whedon did end up making WW in 2004 and cast from his usual talent pool back then, Gina Torres would have been amazing (though I don't think WB would have allowed it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
It's being reported that WW hit $600 million on Wednesday and is expected to surpass $650 million this weekend (estimates are $645 - $655). Final box office estimates are $725 - $740 million.
Mr. Apollo fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:fetishizing "strong female characters" being tortured, psychologically broken and/or degraded: But isn't that a trope for super heros/heroines? Batman comes to mind. Hell, Ironman and Superman too. All were broken down, tortured, and degraded (in multiple movies even). Movies where everything goes right all the time, and the main character has nothing to overcome, wouldn't be fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I think that's one of the key components of super heroes that make them relatable. Sure they have this power or ability but they also have problems like regular people. Some are more messed up than others but they all seem to have issues of one type or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:But isn't that a trope for super heros/heroines? Yes, but Whedon doesn't exclusively do superhero movies, and this sort of thing pops up pretty routinely in his work, is what's being argued here. Some people are noticing a pattern in his work, in much the same way that one might notice that close up shots of women's feet tend to keep popping up in Tarantino's work, or that Wes Anderson movies tend to have some slow-motion walking around somewhere in there. Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
A friend of mine linked me to this analysis of Whedon's weird writing tics vis-a-vis female characters and I think it checks out: http://laureljupiter.tumblr.com/post/118320729761/laureljupiter-im-looking-at-screenshots-of-thisquote:The next major Joss project was Dollhouse, with evil scientist and Joss lookalike Topher Brink programming, manipulating, and violating various women into playacting roles he’d scripted for them. It was such a blatant story about Joss and his actresses it was difficult to watch. Like, My Feminism Is Just An Excuse To Exploit Hot Actresses, I Am Such A Disgusting Creature!!! Coming soon to the CW! His next project, the webseries I Am So Horrible And My Feminism Is A Sham, featuring NPH as the Joss stand-in, was similarly cringeworthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I never really thought of Topher or NPH as Whedon stand-ins. I wouldn't really call Topher a lookalike either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I saw this movie, and I'm not quite sure how it got all the praise it did. It wasn't terrible, but it was pretty bad. There were just so many scenes that were utterly ridiculous. Wonder Woman charging out of a trench, and across no -mans land... Hundreds of enemy soldiers, including mounted machine guns, all shooting directly at her shield from straight ahead of her. No one shoots at any part of her exposed body. Not one person shoots at the 4 dudes with no cover, who then proceed to take out the entire enemy front line. Wonder Woman sneaking into the German HQ, by cutting one piece of barbed wire. Fighting the top German bad guy on top of a guard tower in the middle of the loving base, and not one person notices... The final fight scene against an evil, lightning throwing Englishman in a suit of armor... I can go on, but man, how does stuff like this make it into the movie? RCarr fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Why don't they just shoot Robocop in the mouth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
RCarr posted:I saw this movie, and I'm not quite sure how it got all the praise it did. It wasn't terrible, but it was pretty bad. There were just so many scenes that were utterly ridiculous. Did you like all the realism in the last Thor movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Serious answer to that dude: those scenes were all intentional
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I saw someone online get upset that Wonder Woman was so excited about seeing a baby because that signified that Hollywood isn't ready for a badass give-no-fucks warrior woman and they had to tone her down by making her overly maternal blah blah blah. It's not like it's Elektra, where the whole movie hinges on how the ultimate assassin is an adorkable girl-next-door who just wants to be a mommy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Why don't they just shoot Robocop in the mouth? I know we're pointing out how silly it is to expect any realism in a comic book movie, but I'll respond tho this as though you were actually asking. Supposedly it's just some skin they stretched over metal and you can't actually get a bullet through to his brain that way. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I know we're pointing out how silly it is to expect any realism in a comic book movie, but I'll respond tho this as though you were actually asking. I think it's still worth a shot. I'm gonna try it next time I see him
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yeesh, and it's like, five seconds. She's excited because she's literally never seen a baby before. Yeah, she's literally amazed to see a child for that reason. And probably sees children/babies as the most important thing in the world (because she was raised alone where she was the most important thing to everyone). I didn't get any kind of mommy wannabe feelings from it. It also came across to me later in the movie how much she would be upset by the war stuff that caused the death/suffering of babies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
"A female lead can only be good if she never actually expresses anything definitively feminine in any way" is always a crappy argument. Even if it wasn't a 5 second scene there's nothing wrong with a character expressing maternal feelings nor does it make them less badass. (primary example is one Ripley, Ellen.)
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Another serious answer: Seriously you guys think aiming a mounted machine gun or a bolt action rifle is like aiming a laser?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
RCarr posted:I can go on, but man, how does stuff like this make it into the movie? They make it into the movie because they serve the narrative of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
The weird thing about the "why don't they just shoot her in the exposed legs? why didn't they shoot at the dudes running by?" question is that it's not like an RTS where these dudes in the trenches have 360 degree awareness of the battlefield. It was probably a sequence of events like: 1. look at this lunatic crossing the field, let's shoot her 2. what the hell, why isn't she falling? shoot her more! 3. *a bunch of bullets and noise and sparks and dust and the chaos of people freaking out at the weird rear end poo poo that's happening* 4. Some dudes have now shown up and are killing us Like I can't remember if we see the perspective of the machine gunners but I'd imagine they see a figure in the distance and then vaguely see it standing through a hail of bullets and dust, I don't know that they could've just been like "oh she clearly has a magical shield but her knees are exposed!" from their vantage point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
It's a visual play on the Angels of Mons. As discussed already
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Another serious answer: Seriously you guys think aiming a mounted machine gun or a bolt action rifle is like aiming a laser? Since every single one of the hundreds of bullets hit a shield with a 2 or 3 foot diameter... yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
RCarr posted:Since every single one of the hundreds of bullets hit a shield with a 2 or 3 foot diameter... yes? I don't remember anything in the movie that suggests that nobody missed her completely. Can you refresh my memory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Do bullets actually hurt her? The graze in the intro implied Wolverine style healing factor, but the punishment she took in the final fight seemed to suggest Superman levels of invulnerability. Still confused about how much work the bracers were doing re: energy blasts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
It doesn't actually matter if the bad guys aim for Diana's shield or not. She's repeatedly shown to be fast enough to intercept a bullet on her bracers. She's going to tank the bullets on whichever piece of her gear she drat well please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I know we're pointing out how silly it is to expect any realism in a comic book movie, but I'll respond tho this as though you were actually asking. Why don't they shoot Batman in the mouth? And don't give me "Well, he put a target on his chest so they'd aim for that instead."
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Another serious answer: Seriously you guys think aiming a mounted machine gun or a bolt action rifle is like aiming a laser? First world war trench lines were replete with snipers. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Why don't they shoot Batman in the mouth? And don't give me "Well, he put a target on his chest so they'd aim for that instead." Because the director doesn't want them to. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:First world war trench lines were replete with snipers. Just saying. Yeah but how many amazons did the trench lines have
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yeesh, and it's like, five seconds. She's excited because she's literally never seen a baby before. spacetoaster posted:It also came across to me later in the movie how much she would be upset by the war stuff that caused the death/suffering of babies. ImpAtom posted:"A female lead can only be good if she never actually expresses anything definitively feminine in any way" is always a crappy argument. Even if it wasn't a 5 second scene there's nothing wrong with a character expressing maternal feelings nor does it make them less badass. (primary example is one Ripley, Ellen.) She was able to be a woman without having to act super macho. Same thing with Steve, his masculinity was never joked about or teased just because he followed her. They're both allowed to just be without resorting to tropes for their characters. Mr. Apollo fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jun 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
I saw someone say that Wonder Woman isn't feminist because Diana is "highly sexualized", and I have to disagree. I'm trying to think of a male gaze-y shot in the movie, and I'm drawing a blank. There was no close-ups on her (or any Amazon's) rear end and tits, nor was there a dumb scene where Diana is changing clothes, and Steve trying to sneak a peak. Like, there's more to sexual objectification than "is she showing skin, y/n".
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Equeen posted:I saw someone say that Wonder Woman isn't feminist because Diana is "highly sexualized", and I have to disagree. I'm trying to think of a male gaze-y shot in the movie, and I'm drawing a blank. There was no close-ups on her (or any Amazon's) rear end and tits, nor was there a dumb scene where Diana is changing clothes, and Steve trying to sneak a peak. Like, there's more to sexual objectification than "is she showing skin, y/n". That shot of her eyes when they go to the room in the inn 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:That shot of her eyes when they go to the room in the inn I feel weird saying this about a love scene but that whole thing was really sweet and intimate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Equeen posted:I saw someone say that Wonder Woman isn't feminist because Diana is "highly sexualized", and I have to disagree. I'm trying to think of a male gaze-y shot in the movie, and I'm drawing a blank. There was no close-ups on her (or any Amazon's) rear end and tits, nor was there a dumb scene where Diana is changing clothes, and Steve trying to sneak a peak. Like, there's more to sexual objectification than "is she showing skin, y/n". Yeah, I was expecting an rear end shot when she was climbing that ladder up to no-man's land. But nope, they didn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
I saw an interview with Patty Jenkins and they were asking about the problematic nature of female superhero outfits. She said that she wanted Diana and all the Amazons to be hot but not sexualized (that's why Diana has heeled boots, Jenkins wanted them to all have long legs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:Yeah that was really something. I kinda like that it was completely left to the audience's imagination. For all we know, Diana and Steve were just cuddling  .they totally hosed, tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Equeen posted:I kinda like that it was completely left to the audience's imagination. For all we know, Diana and Steve were just cuddling I was expecting a "morning after talk" or for the rest of the squad to make joke or innuendo but it was really nice to see a complete absence of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:I saw an interview with Patty Jenkins and they were asking about the problematic nature of female superhero outfits. Why female only? They're all that way. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why female only? They're all that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:That was one of Patty's points. The male superhero outfits are tight with bulging muscles but no one complains. That ain't no muscle bulge sweetie. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 03:34
|
|