Wonder Woman (2017)
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
I never got off of it. I just got tired of arguing about it. My opinion hasn't changed and won't change just because Gal Gadot has been seen doing some Kettle Bell exercises.
So what? I don't expect a tennis player to hold a giant metal axe and shield. Wonder Woman should like she can without us thinking the shield and axe are light plastic props.
Robin Wright getting in shape for her yet unrevealed role in WW. She said she'd be playing a superhero a couple months ago.
Poor Robin Wright has been AB-ducted.
First off, get over it already.
Second, she's Wonder Woman, she can hold a lot heavier than a metal axe and a shield. And that's the point that others before have been trying to make. Strike that, they did make that point, but for some reason, you just won't accept that.
Her powers are a gift from the gods, they are magic, she doesn't need to exercise. Sure, she "can fly somewhere to find something heavy to lift", but why would she?! All it would do is change the way she looks. It wouldn't make her stronger, she's already that strong, because, again, magic.
Sure. Whatever you say.
And that reason, which those on your side keep ignoring, is that the notion of a fashion model raised by warrior women flies in the face of the classical definition of "Amazon."
Hercules's strength is a gift from the gods. He looks strong.
Captain Marvel's strength is a gift from the gods. He looks strong.
Thor's strength is a gift from the gods. He looks strong.
Why is it these men all got the same gift as Wonder Woman but were given physiques to match their strength, but that's a no-no when talking about WW?
(Wait...I forgot...she was given that physique by the first artist to draw her for the comics...but we're supposed to ignore that I guess...)
Whatev's...have fun at the movie.
The classical definition of "Amazon" is "Grotesque barbarian who cuts one of her breasts off to be a better archer and whose warrior ways are an affront to our noble Greek principles of male supremacy." So the classical definition has no relevance to modern culture.
Because your idea of what "looks strong" is a media fiction that you've fallen for. Strong people can be extremely slim and lanky, or even stocky and overweight. The modern image of a "cut" figure with huge, bulging muscles comes from professional bodybuilders, and their muscles are more for show than for actual use. Assuming that men with huge muscles are stronger is as silly as assuming that women with huge breasts are better at nursing babies. The anatomy in question can be perfectly effective at a more compact size, and often its size is artificially augmented to cater to people's fantasies and gender assumptions, while having no bearing on actual function or efficacy. For decades, comic books have played up unrealistic fantasy images of male and female anatomy, and you shouldn't take them as factual any more than you should believe that Mars was once inhabited by shapeshifting humanoids or that the pharaoh Khufu has been reincarnated as Hawkman.
Well, you know, except for the tiny fact that every single facet of the character revolves around it, even if certain aspects have been neglected.
Huh?! DC's Amazons are no grotesque barbarians (although I've heard bad things about the way they were depicted in the New 52), and they certainly don't mutilate themselves. What is left is "whose warrior ways (this part can be debated on, depending of the incarnation of WW) are an affront to our noble Greek principles of male supremacy". And that last part works only if understood ironically.
Admiral2 said "the classical definition of an Amazon." "Classical" is a term that generally refers to things from antiquity, particularly Greece and Rome -- e.g. classical architecture or classical theater. Since the Amazons originated in Ancient Greek mythology, "the classical definition of an Amazon" would be the original Greek definition, and Greek myth presented the Amazons as barbarians exemplifying values anathema to those of Greece. The DC version is a modern reinterpretation, barely 75 years old, and it makes little sense to use one modern reinterpretation as an argument against a slightly more modern reinterpretation.
Last edited:
20th century western values look weird on a 4 thousand year old woman.
Is Gal wearing heals?
(Google Images says that she is)
No one with half a brain would go into battle in high heels.
If you can lift a sword, it's not that much harder to kill someone with a sword.
Besides, it's a ####ing short sword.
The blade is 14, maybe 16 inches long.
Maybe a little heavier than a machete.
Although if her weapons and armour are made from amazonium, it's light as wood but stronger than tank armour.
Is Gal wearing heals?
(Google Images says that she is)
No one with half a brain would go into battle in high heels.
If you can lift a sword, it's not that much harder to kill someone with a sword.
Besides, it's a ####ing short sword.
The blade is 14, maybe 16 inches long.
Maybe a little heavier than a machete.
Although if her weapons and armour are made from amazonium, it's light as wood but stronger than tank armour.
I think you are right, I'm pretty sure all that Marston took from the classics was the name Amazon and a warrior ethos. He turned the Amazons into a Greek idea, with a philosophy, religon and physical beauty to match rather than the antithesis of the Greeks that the classical Amazons were. Diana is supposed to be as beautiful as Aphrodite, not built like weight lifter.
Yes. And really, the Amazons of myth were inspired by horse-nomad cultures of Asia Minor and Central Asia, which had more gender equality than Greece. So the ideal "Amazon" figure would be the figure of a horseback rider and archer, not a weightlifter. And as a rule, horseback riders are preferably small and light, not massive and bulging.
Wonder Woman was invented by a perv.
Diana would lose all her powers if you chained her bracelets together.
Dude was really into B&D.
Diana would lose all her powers if you chained her bracelets together.
Dude was really into B&D.
This is not new information
What on Earth are you talking about?
Yeah, jockeys and other horse-based athletics tend that way, but military archers of the era you're referring to? Are you really that oblivious to reality? They were thick, bulky, with arms like woven cables. Even putting brainpower aside, you just have to look at their depictions of art.
Not sure if those are the mounted archers Christopher is talking about. The Scythians are the usual "inspiration" for the Amazons, not the Mongols