What I like is she's literally coming out of the darkness into the light.
Wonder Woman (2017)
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
Well, this is Wonder Woman. For 75 years, her costume--form fitting to varying degrees--was as much a part of the character's identity as anything else about her. By the time the The New Original Wonder Woman / The New Adventures of Wonder Woman was a TV fixture well into the "second wave feminism" era, there were adult women and young girls that still found Carter's version a significant role model, even in an allegedly visually sexualized costume that became a cultural hallmark.
Many accepted Carter's costume and body image as part (not all) of the power of Wonder Woman, and were not storming the gates of ABC/CBS, pitchfork in hand. As much as women had to fight on several levels during the 1970s, the Carter Wonder Woman did not receive as much criticism as the more aggressive attacks on actresses that were thought to be bigger examples of the sexualized image (ex. Suzanne Sommers, Farrah Fawcett, et al.). The lesson of that period is that a costume is not some board room decision by a gang of sticky, horny Roger Ailes types. The costume and its form has been central to the character's look, and personality. If the poster only focused on the breast region alone, some would have an argument, but most of her body is featured, with her sword a prominent object, clearly speaking to her warrior status so well-introduced in Dawn of Justice.
Many accepted Carter's costume and body image as part (not all) of the power of Wonder Woman, and were not storming the gates of ABC/CBS, pitchfork in hand. As much as women had to fight on several levels during the 1970s, the Carter Wonder Woman did not receive as much criticism as the more aggressive attacks on actresses that were thought to be bigger examples of the sexualized image (ex. Suzanne Sommers, Farrah Fawcett, et al.). The lesson of that period is that a costume is not some board room decision by a gang of sticky, horny Roger Ailes types. The costume and its form has been central to the character's look, and personality. If the poster only focused on the breast region alone, some would have an argument, but most of her body is featured, with her sword a prominent object, clearly speaking to her warrior status so well-introduced in Dawn of Justice.
And yet, even though Lynda Carter's chest was quite the attention-getter, it was her smile that people noticed the most...
People. It's a teaser poster. Does it emphasize the boobs via placement and lighting? Yes. Is it also meant to inspire curiosity, and anticipation of future/main posters, which would not be well served by a brightly lit, fully visible face? Yes, again.
As the AV Club commenters love to say: It Can Be Two Things.
As the AV Club commenters love to say: It Can Be Two Things.
Breasts are still a thing?
Of course it's a teaser. There's no need to try to shut down criticism by pretending that everything is an absolute, all-or-nothing proposition where you're either completely unquestioning or completely condemning a thing. There is room for nuance. There is room to like most stuff about something, yet still acknowledge the occasional imperfection. I have a great deal of faith in the makers of this movie; I just don't think the makers of this poster did a perfect job. So please don't blow this out of proportion.
This just seems like an over-reaction -- kinda like the anti-female Ghostbusters movement... only from the left. This time, being-hypersensitive to what seems like an emphasis on breasts/sexuality, where for many, that is not necessarily so
.
What that sounds like is the TV adaptation of Wonder Woman. Now, I think it was an iconic one, that Lynda Carter puled off well, and most certainly through the features you described.
But as someone on this board said, adaptations are njust that -- adaptations. SO they are subject to interpretation and emphasizing different things than another adaptation. Oh wait, I believe that was you.
.
In this image...to me, it is emphasizing WW's warrior aspect...it feels like an old Greek painting of a Greek warrior
ANd why not the face -- because it is emphasizing the character, not the actor. I mean, did you complain when Batman and Superman movies (or B v. S) only had the symbols, and no Face (or body for that matter).
With Wonder WOman, anyone can picture themselves in that pose. ANd wouldn't that be empowering?
Oh, and for the record, I am very interested in seeing this film. With Gal's accent, and the WW 1 setting rather than 2, I am intrigued, and think well have a better DC movie Than the recent ones.
Last edited:
Showed the teaser poster to my mother 1/2 an hour ago.
"Lynda's boobs look great for her age." She says.
I explain "That's not Lynda Carter."
"Whatever." She shrugs.
"Lynda's boobs look great for her age." She says.
I explain "That's not Lynda Carter."
"Whatever." She shrugs.
Huh? That's a contradictory statement. What better way to emphasize a character than to show their face, to let us see the personality in their eyes and expression? That's exactly what I was saying earlier -- that Wonder Woman's character is iconically defined by traits like wisdom and compassion, personal attributes that are best conveyed through seeing someone's face. Like I said, the most iconic feature of Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman was her smile.
That's a non sequitur, because that's not even close to what this poster displays. It's not a stronger example of the principle, because it's completely devoid of the aspects that are actually at issue.
If you think most women would find it empowering to have their breasts emphasized above their faces, you really need to try asking some women what they think about it. (The phrase "My eyes are up here" comes to mind.)
So am I -- as I already stated hours ago. My comments are not about the movie at all; they're strictly about this poster. Obviously posters, trailers, and the like are made by ad agencies, not by the actual filmmakers. So it makes no sense to mistake a criticism of an ad or a trailer for a criticism of the movie it's advertising.
I mean, we saw the same thing with Supergirl. One of its early promotional banners from CBS focused on Supergirl's chest and cut off her face -- an unfortunate reminder of an infamously sexist comic-book panel -- and yet the show itself has been wonderfully empowering and feminist. The poster's issues with representation had nothing to do with the show's content. But that's exactly why it wasn't a great poster.
It makes sense to me that they would want to emphasize the costume over Gal's face, sense they are focusing on the character rather than the actress. As we get closer to the release and get the actual main posters I'm pretty sure we'll see plenty of posters showing Gal Gadot's face.
I really don't see what Lynda Carter's smile would have to do with this movie since she's not in the movie.
I really don't see what Lynda Carter's smile would have to do with this movie since she's not in the movie.
You don't seem to see any of the things I see. Sometimes it's staggering how clueless the people on this board are about anything to do with gender issues. I see things widely discussed and understood elsewhere on the Internet, and then I come here and try to remark on them and it's like I'm speaking an alien language.
You know The Mary Sue? It's a feminist blog that discusses gender issues in media. That's probably the last place that people would be clueless about gender issues, right? Well, here's their opinion on the costume.
The First Wonder Woman Poster Is Inspiring as Heck
I understand in general what you are saying about Lynda Carter, but Gal Gadot is not Lynda Carter, so I don't see why we expect should expect them to base their promotion of this movie off of her.
As I've already acknowledged, different observers have different opinions. I've heard some women say they love the poster and others say they don't like its emphasis on the boobs. I've said over and over here that I like aspects of the poster but have a mild criticism of one thing about it. But it's impossible to have a nuanced conversation here because everyone overreacts and treats everything like an existential war about a thing's very right to exist. It's tiresome.
That's a bizarrely overliteral reading. I was using Carter's smile as an example of my point that showcasing a person's face is a good way to illustrate their character, particularly if that character is Wonder Woman. I mean, to be blunt, if any incarnation of Wonder Woman was going to have people obsessing over her breasts, it was Lynda Carter. And yet the thing people remember most about her was her smile, her attitude, the personality she brought to the role of Wonder Woman. People prioritized her face over her body, even though her body was absolutely incredible. Because it was her personality that made her right for the role.
And yes, as a matter of fact, I see that same thing in Gal Gadot, even more so. When I saw her speaking in videos of New York Comic-Con panels last year, when I saw her warmth and poise and serenity and kindness and respect for others, I felt "Yes, this is Wonder Woman." It isn't her costume that makes her Diana of Themyscira, it's her personality.
There is a poise and presence that Gal Godot brings to Wonder Woman, it's so strong it's palpable. It's little moments in the fight with Doomsday. The smile when she's about to get up, the almost giddiness of going into battle. When she's in front of Superman and Batman, ready to take on Doomsday and when she looks over her shield. Then you put her theme song on top of all that, I'll take her Wonder Woman any day. I can't wait to go and see her movie.
The trailer is out!
Why is Steve Trevor wearing a German uniform complete with the Blue Max?