Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
My local nonIMAX local theater will also be bringing back WW starting this Friday, so looks like many places are getting this expansion.
This August completely sucks for movies, so theaters might as well bring back WW, right?
I'm pretty tempted to see the movie again on the big screen.
This August completely sucks for movies, so theaters might as well bring back WW, right?
I'm pretty tempted to see the movie again on the big screen.
Last edited:
Well, that was not going to happen with a film that was heavily patterned on Captain America: The First Avenger. Wonder Woman so closely followed the Cap journey of a character who finds themselves/rises to the occasion during a 20th century war, only to (ultimately) reappear in the present day, that WW as a origin film was not going to break the well-used 3-act play structure.
Without detailing this thread, I'm going to say that it's a very troubling state of affairs when even the subject of entertainment has been overrun by an epidemic of people buying into an idea that isn't even remotely accurate and can be easily and factually disproven and continuing to espouse and cling to said idea even after it has been disproven.
Hmmm . . . I tried it. I liked the character of Kara Danvers/Supergirl, but I could never get into the series At least not yet. Also, I've never had a problem with the portrayal of Superman in "Man of Steel". Every time I watch that movie, I enjoy it even more.
Hmmmm . . . not quite. I thought it would happen, because there so many similarities. But there were also many, many differences. Especially in the emotional journeys of the two characters . . . and their fates.
James Cameron certainly put his foot in his mouth today with some bewildering remarks...
Patty Jenkins replied...
So a "beauty icon" can't be a strong, independent kick-ass lead? What makes these comments particularly egregiously wrong is that the real-world Gal Gadot would give his fictional Sarah Conner a run for her money.
Patty Jenkins replied...
So a "beauty icon" can't be a strong, independent kick-ass lead? What makes these comments particularly egregiously wrong is that the real-world Gal Gadot would give his fictional Sarah Conner a run for her money.
I dunno, T2 Sarah Connor was pretty badass.
If Cameron wanted to critique the movie, I wish he'd have focused on the moral quandary of cheering on a deeply ignorant demigod with just about zero knowledge of world history, let alone current events, charging into battle and killing soldiers who were merely defending their positions - many of whom were probably been conscripts, teenagers to boot. And I think it's certainly fair to argue that even in T1, Sarah Connor is a much more intellectually mature character than Diana. Better to leave the arguments over women's looks to women critics.
Diana's naivety was kind of the whole point of that story. She started out as a child listening to stories of good vs. evil and everything that happens to her after she leaves the island is teaching her that the real world isn't that straightforward. You can't just kill the bad guy and have everyone live happily ever after.
Yes, most of those German soldiers were probably not bad people at their core, even if they did however just ransack a defenceless village and enslaved the one's that couldn't fight. Did everyone Diana kill to free those people deserve death? Maybe not, but that's the point!
As for what Cameron has to say...I'd say calling that a singularly narrow and superficial perspective would be charitable at best. Also: Sarah Conner was hardly unattractive and was hardly free of Male Gaze in the way he presented her.
Yes, most of those German soldiers were probably not bad people at their core, even if they did however just ransack a defenceless village and enslaved the one's that couldn't fight. Did everyone Diana kill to free those people deserve death? Maybe not, but that's the point!
As for what Cameron has to say...I'd say calling that a singularly narrow and superficial perspective would be charitable at best. Also: Sarah Conner was hardly unattractive and was hardly free of Male Gaze in the way he presented her.
Let's face it. All women are objects of attraction to men regardless of whether you're being invited to "gaze" on them, and really, that's not so bad. If that were not true, humanity would go extinct, so let's stop criminalizing it. You'll never stop men from thinking about a given star or character is appealing or sexy. That's a big part of what gets butts in seats and, frankly, it works for both genders (think Magic Mike). So the uproar over "objectification" is pointless. As long as the film doesn't ride the camera up her legs ala Transformers then people should not fixate on the hotness-factor. Plus, Cameron's bad-ass archetype is just another fetish and based on his personal life (like being married to Linda Hamilton) you can see how all that reflects his own taste in women. He just likes the tomboys. I think that's fine but some people are always on the warpath for signs of outrage.
I think he should have avoided wading into the waters as it will trigger countless people to accuse him of "mansplaining". The fact is that at the time, Cameron's willingness to create action films around women was groundbreaking. It wasn't being done before, at least not very well. But we're now living in an era where the bad-ass action female has become a well-worn trope, and a little repetitive. Having a female action hero who can express more of her softer side is refreshing.
The thing is that Sarah Connor WAS a little helpless waif when she started in T1. It's just that Cameron transformed her into a buff survivalist. He has a hard time with the idea of a female action hero who can hold onto her soft side rather than needing to sacrifice it.
Cameron has a point insofar as soldiers in general go through a process of having to "turn off" empathy in order to be able to kill, but as has been expained upstream, Wonder Woman represents an ideal. The good soldier, the Paladin, as it were, is difficult if not impossible to achieve in the real world.
I think he should have avoided wading into the waters as it will trigger countless people to accuse him of "mansplaining". The fact is that at the time, Cameron's willingness to create action films around women was groundbreaking. It wasn't being done before, at least not very well. But we're now living in an era where the bad-ass action female has become a well-worn trope, and a little repetitive. Having a female action hero who can express more of her softer side is refreshing.
The thing is that Sarah Connor WAS a little helpless waif when she started in T1. It's just that Cameron transformed her into a buff survivalist. He has a hard time with the idea of a female action hero who can hold onto her soft side rather than needing to sacrifice it.
Cameron has a point insofar as soldiers in general go through a process of having to "turn off" empathy in order to be able to kill, but as has been expained upstream, Wonder Woman represents an ideal. The good soldier, the Paladin, as it were, is difficult if not impossible to achieve in the real world.
The decision to kill didn't bothered me. After all, war is hell. The Snyder-vision aspect of showing the kills in gratuitous slo-mo did. It's all about presentation. If it seems like it's reveling in killing then it's really starting to blow the high ground.
It was fine when she made the fateful decision to charge the line. The worst part was the slow-mo on the beach battle. The kills felt like a videogame. Very dehumanizing. I don't go "gee, isn't this cool?" over spears slowly penetrating chests. But that's pure Zack Snyder. Porn-like violence.
I think that had mostly to do with her feeling obligated to satisfy Snyder's aesthetics. She claimed she wanted WW to have its own voice but when these shots cropped up it had a cover-band aspect.
I personally don't like it, but there is a tradition of "beautiful violence" in film (John Woo, for example) with brutal things presented in an aesthetically interesting and artistic manner, such as gunshot wounds bursting like blossoming flowers. Perhaps Snyder is going for that.
Kor
Kor
You must be joking. That "Superman" is in name only, and presents none of the heart, struggles or "stranger from another planet" tone of the near-perfect DCEU version.
You have a faction of the post 1960's Left to thank for Cameron's remarks, since this group created the idea of resenting heroines being attractive; the belief was that casting an attractive woman in a heroic role (no matter the substance of the character) was objectifying women instead of accepting them "as is".
I cannot totally disagree that Sarah Connor is a gritty, truly self-made heroine--once a frightened waitress, she had to find strength not from Reese, but from within against a threat she personally witnessed slaughter (what was assumed to be) larger, stronger, well armed policemen--and anyone else who stood in the Terminator's way. When she was alone--cornered, she elevated herself (breaking down her old need to rely on anyone else) to kill the Terminator. Jump to the sequel, and the development of Sarah makes sense; no ability or philosophy from the character seems forced or out of place; she became a seasoned, world-wise fighter/survivalist. I take it that's what Cameron meant in comparing the rough Connor to Wonder Woman as a heroine, though the comparison would have worked better against a non-super-hero character lacking the benefits of fantasy powers. Moreover, he's still forgetting that Wonder Woman was always meant to be very attractive in addition to super-powered. Its not as though WB added that to the character to titillate.
While there was some objectification in the WW movie, it was definitely a lot better than some movies out there. I definitely don't agree with any of what Cameron said.
I think the Hannibal TV series is a perfect example of this. I'm not one that usually goes for the violence and gore, but that show had some of the most beautifully shot scenes of violence and gore I've ever seen.
I disagree. When, in the screening I attended, audience members repeatedly whooped and cheered her slow-motion, totally awesome kills in the No Man's Land/occupied town sequence, I don't think they were applauding the scene for its nuance. Imagine how powerful it might have been if she'd noticed, after the battle was over, that she'd killed several teenage soldiers who were basically children. Could have been a deep, nuanced moment. Instead, we get a scene in which she's enchanted by her first snowfall, flashing her bright, undisturbed smile, and then gets cozy with her hunk.
Sure, the movie pays cursory attention to the matter of human nature later on, but I still want to know why Diana didn't grill Steve on human history during the weeks-long sail from the Mediterranean to London before she starts killing. (And I think it's clear that the answer is they couldn't pretend WWI Germans were basically Nazis had she done so.)
Well, that's just objectively false.
Last edited:
These are not mutually exclusive concepts. An audience enjoying an action scene doesn't take away from the subtextual underpinnings of the narrative.
Again, because she's naive. It doesn't matter to her which nations are fighting which and why or that the poor old ostrich died for nothing. All that matters to her is getting to where the fighting is fiercest because that's where she believes Ares will be and once she kills him, all sides with cease fighting and go home.
She may be operating on the assumption the the Germans are the "offending" side in there war, based solely on what Steve said while under the compulsion of the lasso, but that's just more naive thinking.
The film repeatedly makes it clear that she doesn't lack for moral conviction. This is a problem because it's yet to be tempered by wisdom and experience. That's part of her arc.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
