Wonder Woman (2017)
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
I'm curious how idiots like this would react to Alamo (or another chain) putting on an black-only screening of Black Panther during Black History Month next year... sadly, it'd probably get burnt to the ground, but I'd love to see them stick the middle finger and use the film to celebrate another demographic that has typically been shunned, ignored and typecast. But then, of course, such a screening would be deemed to be racist and elitist twats like Stephen Clarke would jump at the chance to sue and defame the cinema.
Hugo - embrace diversity! But only as long as middle-aged white guys don't get left out!
Saying "you can't join us because of how you were born" in a public (that's probably the key) venue in any circumstance is a dangerous place to be in.
Sure, this is just a movie and meant as a fun night and at the end of the day really is harmless and a lawsuit is silly. But in this day and age, they should have known better or somehow (I don't know how) done things differently.
Sure, this is just a movie and meant as a fun night and at the end of the day really is harmless and a lawsuit is silly. But in this day and age, they should have known better or somehow (I don't know how) done things differently.
Oh, come on. It's not a permanent practice, just a couple of showings. It's no different than a theater renting itself out for private showings. Say that someone rented a theater for a showing that was only open to members of their extended family. That would be "because of how you were born." But it's not oppressing anyone because it's just a temporary, special situation. Most of the time, the theater is open to everyone.
Private functions are different than public ones, and I tried to make mention of that. And there really is a big enough distinction between the two.
As Picard might say: how many exclusionary screenings does it take before it becomes wrong? I think we (on this board) can all agree that these handful of screenings aren't a big deal or a grave injustice. Still, discrimination is discrimination.
Such a private screening would not be publicly advertised, nor would it be open to half of the general public. So, yes, it's obviously different.
Eh, I'm not at all convinced the Alamo theater chain (which I support and enjoy) wasn't hoping for a bunch of free publicity over this, which is yet another reason not to start an impassioned brouhaha. If a wedding cake shop can be fined for not baking a cake for a gay couple, albeit in a different state than the one in question, I don't see why a theater shouldn't be fined for advertising discrimination.
On an emotional/gut level, I have no problem with these screenings. But, while I'm no lawyer, I don't think these sorts of legal complaints are meant to hinge on the judge in question's gut feelings.
A theater in Belgium did the same thing last night and nobody cared. Until the theater gave the audience goodie bags filled with cleaning products, that is...
Cleaning products? Now that's an odd gift bag.
Do you think women-only gyms are also discrimination?
It's easy enough to find a different theater or go to the same one few hours earlier/later. It's not like they do this all the time and it's not like men are a vulnerable group that is systemically oppressed or excluded. So maybe, just maybe, this really isn't comparable to a place that excludes minorities or women.
Can we just be a little more hesitant about using the term "discrimination" when it's about men not being able to see one showing of a movie, considering there are actually people out there who experience real discrimination?
(Yes, this is sarcasm, and no it's not aimed at anyone here, just sexist and bigoted idiots in general).
Yeah. Men still have an enormously unfair advantage in representation and inclusion in countless aspects of life. Men are not under any actual threat of being deprived of power and opportunity at any point in the near future. Any so-called "men's rights activism" is merely a hypocritical cover for the efforts of misogynists to attack and deny women's rights at every turn.
A while ago, I learned about a science fiction anthology project that I would've potentially been interested in participating in, but it was for female authors only. I felt disappointed about that, but I didn't make a fuss or claim I was being oppressed, because I understand that there are still a wealth of other opportunities for me -- indeed, being male probably gives me an unfair advantage when it comes to being considered for inclusion in anthologies and magazines in general, even in this day and age, so I could afford to take the hit in the one instance. Whereas for other, more marginalized groups, it's rare to have opportunities that privilege them rather than privileging people like me, so having that opportunity is more important to them than it is to me. (As it happens, the publishers did soon offer a companion anthology open to both sexes, although it turned out the timing didn't work for me.)
The brouhaha began in Texas and I loved the Mayor's response to the idjit that put this in writing.
"The notion of a woman hero is a fine example of women's eagerness to accept the appearance of achievement without actual achievement."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...nds-to-man-angry-about-wonder-woman-screening
The mayor's list wasn't complete and neglected to name specific high achieving women. Let me name a few.
How about the first person, male or female, to win TWO Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences. (previous double winners did it in conjunction with a Peace Prize).
A woman who may have deserved to share in a Nobel Prize but missed out because someone stole her data and handed it to Watson (of Watson and Crick fame).
Its obvious the writer of the anti woman email that also disparages women in the armed forces doesn't know about Mary Jennings Hegar.
In case he wants to read about her, he can pick up her 2017 autobiography, "Shoot Like a Girl."
Perhaps everything 'Richard' knows, he learned from the movies. If so, he obviously missed a big film from last winter.
Millie Dresselhaus, is another high achiever in science. Here's a cute video made just before she died. RIP my dear.
If 'Richard" is a Megyn Kelly fan, perhaps tonight he learned about this lady, someone who was told as a high schooler that good girls didn't study science.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i17/...for-the-groundbreaking-gene-editing-tool.html
"The notion of a woman hero is a fine example of women's eagerness to accept the appearance of achievement without actual achievement."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...nds-to-man-angry-about-wonder-woman-screening
The mayor's list wasn't complete and neglected to name specific high achieving women. Let me name a few.
How about the first person, male or female, to win TWO Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences. (previous double winners did it in conjunction with a Peace Prize).
A woman who may have deserved to share in a Nobel Prize but missed out because someone stole her data and handed it to Watson (of Watson and Crick fame).
Its obvious the writer of the anti woman email that also disparages women in the armed forces doesn't know about Mary Jennings Hegar.
In case he wants to read about her, he can pick up her 2017 autobiography, "Shoot Like a Girl."
Perhaps everything 'Richard' knows, he learned from the movies. If so, he obviously missed a big film from last winter.
Millie Dresselhaus, is another high achiever in science. Here's a cute video made just before she died. RIP my dear.
If 'Richard" is a Megyn Kelly fan, perhaps tonight he learned about this lady, someone who was told as a high schooler that good girls didn't study science.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i17/...for-the-groundbreaking-gene-editing-tool.html
Last edited:
I saw it a few days ago and I think it's a really great movie. 
Really enjoyed this. I loved how sweet and pure and innocent Diana was throughout. I much prefer this characterisation to the jaded, sexualized older version seen in Batman v Superman (a film I really liked too, as unpopular as that opinion is in some corners of the net)
OK, I finally saw it, and I gotta say, yes, it is very entertaining. Not the least bit believable, of course; but very entertaining, as I think, in general, comic-book-based movies should be. Indeed, I'll go so far as to say that, as of now, there are three and only three outstanding, live action, DCU-based movies (or movie series, as the case may be), ever: first, the Christopher Reeve version of Super-Man, Tim Burton's Batman and now Wonder Woman. 
Wonder Woman wins Critics Choice Award for best action movie. Well deserved.
http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/01/12/critics-choice-awards-2018-best-action-movie/
http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/01/12/critics-choice-awards-2018-best-action-movie/
If there are any model builders here, Moebius Models recently came out with an incredible 1/8 scale Gal Godot resin kit. Here's my build of it:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/figures/wonderwoman.html
http://www.inpayne.com/models/figures/wonderwoman.html
