Well there you go.
I've barely read any comics since Crisis, so there's the reason I'm so clueless.
Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
Well there you go.
I've barely read any comics since Crisis, so there's the reason I'm so clueless.
Diana is not a lesbian.
That's not even a thing where she comes from, is it? I guess I always assumed that Amazons don't even have romance or sex.
Justice League Task Force 8 (1994), clearly paints Wonder woman as gay, even though she is from a "world" without men, so "straight" is completely make believe.
There's a lot more, from before and after that, but Justice League Task Force was my Eureka Moment.
https://www.autostraddle.com/wonder-womans-10-gayest-comic-book-moments-385469/
OMG!
"Gay" Wonder Woman was one of the accusations from Seduction of the Innocent! (Seduction of the Innocent was a 1950s novel that murdered comic books, claiming that they were inappropriate filth that the government had to step in on and cancel. It was a whole thing.)
Last edited:
Nope. This is a Hollywood movie. The director is the authorial voice, not the screenwriter.
The fact that a woman was the director was absolutely essential to that sequence, and to the entire film, working and speaking to people. The identity of the storyteller matters.
Yes, a great deal of Hollywood's output objectifies people from marginalized communities by only portraying them from the POV of the privileged. A great deal of Hollywood's output is thus inherently misogynistic and/or white supremacist (and/or other forms of oppressive).
"Yeah, no" is not wishy-washy. Just as "deafening silence" does not mean the speaker cannot decide if the noise in a room was loud or absent, "yeah, no" does not mean the speaker cannot decide between affirmation or negation. "Yeah, no" is an oxymoron that means, quite decidedly, "no."
It appears that Superman is going to be a pivotal element of the CW's adaptation of Brian Michael Bendis's Naomi comic -- more so than in the comic itself:
Sounds very intriguing for a Superman fan like myself. The show premieres January 11 following the second season premiere of Superman & Lois.
https://ew.com/tv/the-cw-naomi-photos/
Sounds very intriguing for a Superman fan like myself. The show premieres January 11 following the second season premiere of Superman & Lois.
Yes, ultimately Wonder Woman was, at it’s core, about women’s empowerment. As I read the words above, it struck me how easily you could have replaced the words,
“women” with “Black people,” and in the larger post, Black Panther for Wonder Woman, because in order for those movies to have realized their full ideological potential, their director’s needed to have more than a passing familiarity with how women and Black people view the world in which they live.
And as we’ve seen established in this thread
, despite who the script writer is, the on screen interpretation of the script is the director’s vision of the movie. WW and BP would likely have been okay if directed by a man, or white man, respectively, but it’s a pretty good bet neither would have been the inspirational phenomenoa both turned out to be.
Last edited:
James Cameron begs to differ.
Before he turned into human garbage, Whedon as well. Or was Buffy never a thing?
And every person behind Xena.
To start.
Last edited:
Yeah the 1988 run rebooting WW by Perez after crisis included same sex couples, and the amount of representation has grown over the years. I also want to say I thank there is a brief comment about it in the Teen Titans run by Wolfman and Perez that predates it, but it was shown just suggested. In the same way they gave plenty of hints that Robin and Starfire were sleeping together but it wasn't until 84 or 85 that is featured them unclothed in bed together.Well there you go.
I've barely read any comics since Crisis, so there's the reason I'm so clueless.
Don’t be silly. Being a woman or being a Black person is hardly the same as being a particular nationality. And your last bit is about actors in a movie not directors. Your first “point” is based on a false equivalency and your second point is irrelevant to the topic at hand
.
???
As I said, a man can competently direct a movie with female empowerment as a major theme, but it is unlikely that a woman directing such a project would not do a better job. Same with a Black director helming such a ]movie with Black empowerment, themes, especially if it’s in a multicultural setting,
Norman Jewison would likely have done a good job directing Malcolm X, but that movie would certainly not have been as idiosyncratically “Black,” and would not have resonated nearly as well with the people who were the subject of MalcolmX.
Last edited:
Superboy spent some time in the future recently, it's amazing that the Legion of Superheroes didn't let the beans slip about About Jonathan's sexuality, or...
If Jon knew he was going to come out "soon" and this was a thousand years after he came out... Then it should have been a flaming loop hole to be out and proud.
If Jon knew he was going to come out "soon" and this was a thousand years after he came out... Then it should have been a flaming loop hole to be out and proud.
Germans are not a marginalized community, and Britons are not their oppressors.
Listen, I love Die Hard but it has definitely got some 1980s misogyny going. The entire movie is about how a tough, blue-collar all-American guy has to save his poor, helpless wife (who had oh-so-unjustly rejected him) from evildoers. Holly is such a non-entity with so little agency in that film that she might as well be a sexy lamp for all the effect her status as a human being actually has on the story.
The only thing I remember about 3 is the title and the fact that it had Samuel L. Jackson. Who the hell remembers 4 or 5?
So what?
Buffy absolutely represented significant progress, but Buffy definitely still presented its female characters from a male POV and reflected some elements of toxic masculinity, especially in terms of how it framed Xander. Even as far back as 2011, Buffy was coming under increasing scrutiny for the ways in which it reflected the acceptable misogyny of the era in which it was produced.
Xena represented some good forms of representation, particularly when it embraced its lesbian subtext in the later seasons. But it also found every excuse possible to sexually objectify its female characters. Xena definitely reflected a cishet male POV.
Sorry dude, but some stories don't belong to dominant in-groups. Some stories aren't theirs to tell.
Might have been birds of Prey ten years ago, but they had a montage of Dick and Babs hooking up down through the ages.
Dick cheated on Corey, the night before their wedding.
No, the way we look at sexuality is changing rapidly.
The way we view sexuality has existed as long as it has because of the Christian faith's dominance in Europe and the world due to colonization. Much of the "conservative" attitudes in Africa did not exist prior to colonization. Similarly with North America. The Pre-Christian Romans and Greeks had much different attitudes toward sexuality.
That viewpoint is rapidly becoming disentangled and could probably become obsolete within a couple of generations.
My point being that the LSH probably live in times where sexuality is viewed much different, and Jon's orientation/sexuality are so insignificant historically that there is no point in even discussing it with him.
Or, if viewed by a different point, those damned liberal teens from the future deliberately abducted Jon to corrupt him and send him back to the past as a weapon to corrupt our society's contemporary beliefs about sexuality and the American Way.
You were a stylish terrorist .. We don't see many of those.
Very, very incorrect. I--for one--have researched the history (concerning family and others) of the various cultures of the continent, and what you refer to as "conservative attitudes" date back to the earliest tribes, cities and other collections of organized groups long before colonization. It was not a movement, a doctrine or anything else--it was the people acting /living as nature shaped them to be. Thankfully, there's a movement within some quarters of academia researching / revealing the true history to counter what the other side of academia--that rooted in Western White liberalism (and resubmitted in modern times by media such as The New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc.)--have been Hell-bent on rewriting (some older legacy media sources have attempted this over the course of several generations) by using situational examples as some "evidence" of an inherent belief or action.
Last edited:
You don't "flush" that which is not crap. That is reserved for true waste, like the majority of Berlanti's CW/DC shows.
I don't buy it. Having the movie told by a woman, framing images based on her aesthetics and experiences, was an important part of the film. It removed the "male gaze," which almost certainly would have been part of the film if a man had directed it.
You speak as though Holly were a real person in a real scenario. Die Hard is a work of fiction, and it would not have been difficult to write Holly differently or to modify the plot. (Example: Maybe Holly escapes her captors and teams up with John to do action-packed attacks on the bad guys.) It would also have been more than possible for the plot not to be constructed in such a way as to frame Holly as having been in the wrong for rejecting John.
Are you seriously questioning whether or not marginalized communities are marginalized, or are you just being argumentative on the internet?
