Wonder Woman 2017

[Smith]

That would make for a very boring movie.

[JOE SOAP]

Not everyone agrees with you

[Apestrife]

Many years ago, we followed and respected people who, it was often believed, were chosen by some sort of devine power.  We raised them to the status of leaders - whist our myths were about those on the next step of the ladder, devine beings.

The 20th century saw the Rise of the Ordinary - individuals who were weren't particulary special, or who were known to be flawed, rose in prominence.  Working class men and women became heroes.  Depressive alcoholics led us in wars.   Our tales become not about Gods, but about supermen - people who actually were special or chosen.

The 21st century is quickly becoming the age of stupid.  Whole populations delight in taking political advice from the side of a bus, ignoring warnings from people who actually are experts, electing sleazy gameshow hosts to decide who gets bombed, screaming abuse at strangers over the internet.  Will the legends of the 21st century be about people who are just capable of making it throught the day?

Feels a bit like a summation of what I think Alan Moore went for with his League of extraordinary gentlemen century volume.

[Rogue Earthlet]

Not everyone agrees with you,

I have no idea what point you think you're making. That movies should only depict men committing acts of violence against other men, and women against women, or that there should be no violence in movies, ever. Which is it?

I made it obvious, but here it is again. Films and tv shows that present violence, or action as the makers call it, as entertaining, show mass violence almost exclusively against men, WW being a good example. Note that I say 'action' films. Is it still entertaining if it's women being slaughtered is my point.

[Rogue Earthlet]

I previously stated I'd stop posting here, but as others reply to my posts, I reply to them.

You've stopped replying to mine, buddy.

What's wrong with depicting fantasy violence against fictional characters*? What harm is done?


* in any quantity, justified, entertaining, or otherwise

Goodness, I've been accused of trolling, what would the reaction be if I replied to every message? As for violence I've never liked it being treated as entertaining.

[Rogue Earthlet]

He's just making comment after comment without truly paying any attention whatsoever to what people are saying to him. The argument came to an abrupt halt as soon as it was confessed that he hadn't seen the film that he was judging. That's complete ignorance. As such I can't take anything else said as being educated or relevant. He has no credibility.

1. Is it men that Wonder Woman slaughters? Yes.
2. Do I need to see the film to know that? No.

[Rogue Earthlet]

Many years ago, we followed and respected people who, it was often believed, were chosen by some sort of devine power.  We raised them to the status of leaders - whist our myths were about those on the next step of the ladder, devine beings.

The 20th century saw the Rise of the Ordinary - individuals who were weren't particulary special, or who were known to be flawed, rose in prominence.  Working class men and women became heroes.  Depressive alcoholics led us in wars.   Our tales become not about Gods, but about supermen - people who actually were special or chosen.

The 21st century is quickly becoming the age of stupid.  Whole populations delight in taking political advice from the side of a bus, ignoring warnings from people who actually are experts, electing sleazy gameshow hosts to decide who gets bombed, screaming abuse at strangers over the internet.  Will the legends of the 21st century be about people who are just capable of making it throught the day?

That's an interesting point. My view is that history is the tale of murderous empire killing their way to power on a grand scale. Sticking only to the last 500 years the empires of Britain, Holland, France, Spain and Portugal killed millions, enslaved millions more. There's also the Soviet Union, communist China and others who've engaged in mass slaughter, but we in the west cannot boast of our humanity.
This was long before Trump and others of his kind. It's also getting off topic for a forum about film, so I'll leave it at that.

[JOE SOAP]

Goodness, I've been accused of trolling, what would the reaction be if I replied to every message? As for violence I've never liked it being treated as entertaining.

Better stick to documentaries or 'real life' dramas then because just about every comic/action film is produced with entertainment in mind. Even a 'smart' film like RoboCop which features violence against both men and women – by men – is revelling in its depiction of violence.

[SIP]

He's just making comment after comment without truly paying any attention whatsoever to what people are saying to him. The argument came to an abrupt halt as soon as it was confessed that he hadn't seen the film that he was judging. That's complete ignorance. As such I can't take anything else said as being educated or relevant. He has no credibility.

1. Is it men that Wonder Woman slaughters? Yes.
2. Do I need to see the film to know that? No.

Sigh, and that reply proves my point entirely. Either you have not been reading the plentiful replies that you have had or you just haven't understood them. You aren't listening, you aren't debating, you are lecturing like a rabid preacher.

[Frank]

What harm is done?

I've never liked it ...

Not my question. What does it matter who dies, or how that's depicted, if no negative effect is produced?

[Modern Panther]

Is it still entertaining if it's women being slaughtered is my point.

Firstly, it should be noted that you've raised this issue in respect of a film you have not seen, primarily based on the fact that this film stands alone in its genre as having a female lead.  Violence against men is the norm in huge swathes of the media, but you've complained about it here alone, which, along with your frequent mention of "red pill" gives the strong suggestion you are a whiny misogynist.

Secondly, violence against women is the norm in cinema, and has been since it's creation.  Indeed, it is a trope in pretty much all human entertainment since the beginning of time to present women  as victims who exist to spur a male protagonist to action.  Its a function of the sacred feminine in the monomyth theory.  It's why Princesses Leah awards the medals.  That you don't know this, and seem to believe that women are not victims of violence, makes you appear a whiny misogynist.

Thirdly, women have, throughout history, been the actual victims of violence, primarily at the hands of men.  Historically they have been disenfranchised, regarded as property, and been the first to suffer in times of strife.  Yes, men have suffered too, but the role of women historically and what this means to us a society must be taken into account when deciding whether or not to continue to present women as victims or violence, or take steps to present them in more proactive and positive roles.

Question answered.  Go see the film, or stop complaining about it.

[JamesC]

Not everyone agrees with you,

I have no idea what point you think you're making. That movies should only depict men committing acts of violence against other men, and women against women, or that there should be no violence in movies, ever. Which is it?

I made it obvious, but here it is again. Films and tv shows that present violence, or action as the makers call it, as entertaining, show mass violence almost exclusively against men, WW being a good example. Note that I say 'action' films. Is it still entertaining if it's women being slaughtered is my point.

But Wonder Woman isn't a good example. What about the Amazonion battle?

[Frank]

Note that I say 'action' films. Is it still entertaining if it's women being slaughtered is my point.

... violence against women is the norm in cinema ...

Rogue's made it clear he's discussing the action genre, so all the Silent Witnesses, Silent Lambs, and Hushes don't count *. Where those examples are undeniably relevant to his question is that the characters on screen reflect the core female audience for those genres.

Female audiences find the opposite sex a credible physical threat, but that doesn't appear to be true for men. To the financiers of Wonder Woman, pitting a pretty princess against female opponents would have felt like scrawling STAY HOME on $10 bills and mailing them to the film's putative base of male nerds. ***

There's no evidence the assumptions described above are objectively true, but - in the absence of contrary examples - the fiscally conservative executives who decide the content of films assume they are so. As soon as someone proves there's a paying audience for action films with female villains, The Rock will be wailing on Meryl Streep's face with a 2x4.


* They do. I don't accept the essentially meaningless distinction he makes between genres.

*** Asking male nerds to accept Diana Prince as the avatar of their power fantasies was already a gamble; hence the presentation of Gadot as a hot, magical girlfriend for Chris Pine, like Hanks and Hannah in Splash. 

[Smith]

I imagine Rogue Earthlet must have hated Kill Bill. 

[Tiplodocus]

He's just making comment after comment without truly paying any attention whatsoever to what people are saying to him. The argument came to an abrupt halt as soon as it was confessed that he hadn't seen the film that he was judging. That's complete ignorance. As such I can't take anything else said as being educated or relevant. He has no credibility.

1. Is it men that Wonder Woman slaughters? Yes.
2. Do I need to see the film to know that? No.

I don't think you know what "slaughters" means.  Or that Wonder Woman doesn't slaughter anyone in the film. So I'd say the answer to those two questions are actually No and Yes respectively.

Your keyboard, as is your head, is full of wrong.