2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Film & TV => Topic started by: Apestrife on 03 November, 2016, 08:29:45 PM

Title: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 03 November, 2016, 08:29:45 PM
New trailer just out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8fG0TtVAY

Really like the WW vs WW1 thing they got going. Cool to see her in the air and then running straight off after landing, without any need to pose. Action seems to have a good sense of weight. Doesn't seem like they'll give into the urge to throw in some typical city destruction.

While slomo seems to be the thing more than "a thing" in the Snyder DC films, in this one it seems like it'll work quite well. It's not there to help her to look rad while posing.

For all their faults, I quite like both MoS and BM v SM ext. cut, but I felt a bit fooled by the trailers when watching Suicide squad in the cinema. But I'm having hopes for Wonder Woman. Looks really rad.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 04 November, 2016, 08:41:07 AM
And it appears to have a little levity in it. A good thing.

Plus Chris Pine. Swoon!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 04 November, 2016, 09:08:59 AM
Looks like pretty good fun to me.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: GordonR on 04 November, 2016, 09:12:52 AM
For anyone optimistic about WW, beware.

A few months ago, this open letter from an ex-Warners employee hit online, basically slating the Warner Bros CEO for his terrible creative decisions, mostly involving anything to do with Zack Snyder. 

Here's the pertinent part about WW:

QuoteMaybe Wonder Woman wouldn't be such a mess. Don't try to hide behind the great trailer. People inside are already confirming it's another mess.

Full letter here:  http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/an-open-letter-to-warner-bros-ceo-kevin-tsujihara-about-layoffs-zack-snyder-and-donuts.php (http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/an-open-letter-to-warner-bros-ceo-kevin-tsujihara-about-layoffs-zack-snyder-and-donuts.php)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: von Boom on 04 November, 2016, 10:21:26 AM
I will not get my hopes up, I will not get my hopes up, I will not get my...

Dammit! Hopes up.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Skank on 06 November, 2016, 04:42:47 AM
Quote from: GordonR on 04 November, 2016, 09:12:52 AM
For anyone optimistic about WW, beware.

A few months ago, this open letter from an ex-Warners employee hit online, basically slating the Warner Bros CEO for his terrible creative decisions, mostly involving anything to do with Zack Snyder. 

Here's the pertinent part about WW:

QuoteMaybe Wonder Woman wouldn't be such a mess. Don't try to hide behind the great trailer. People inside are already confirming it's another mess.

Full letter here:  http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/an-open-letter-to-warner-bros-ceo-kevin-tsujihara-about-layoffs-zack-snyder-and-donuts.php (http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/an-open-letter-to-warner-bros-ceo-kevin-tsujihara-about-layoffs-zack-snyder-and-donuts.php)

I would take that with a pinch of salt, the letter reveals next to nothing about the plot and seems to be more a angry ex employee moaning due to layoffs. Not to mention its "inside Sources" dont even have a name.

That said as much as i liked BvS, the WW trailer has had little to grab me yet. I love the redesign for Dr. Poison and i really like DC using more minor villains in its films. But the slo-mo seems a bit overused, Gadot is decent actress but im not sure she can carry a film.

Then again the director is good, visuals are decent and here's hoping for an Enemy Ace cameo.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: By-Jove on 07 November, 2016, 09:49:54 AM
This looks like it may be awesome!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: dweezil2 on 01 June, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
Don't believe the positive buzz, Wonder Woman was a cliché ridden stinker.

Incoherent character motivations and actions, with one of the most dull and formulaic climaxes seen in a comic book movie in a long time-and that's saying something!

4/10
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 02 June, 2017, 06:40:54 AM
On the flip side, do believe the hype as my brother saw it yesterday and thought it was great.

Going to see it with him next week.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Mattofthespurs on 02 June, 2017, 08:18:07 AM
I'm going early next week.
Toyed with the idea of going yesterday but the weather was far too good to be spent in a darkened room for 3 hours.
Supposed to be cooler and wetter next week.
Perfect for the flicks.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: positronic on 02 June, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
I just came from seeing it.

The good things: 1. Gal Gadot is very convincing in the part, both acting and in the fight sequences. (Chris Pine also did a good job with his part.) 2. SFX and stunt/fighting choreography both also generally very good, with lots of action set pieces.

I'm less happy with the original story, on several levels. Not enough recognizable here from the WW comics, and the change of venue from WWII to WWI serves no real purpose other than to make the film seem a little less like Captain America (in retrospect, I wound up wishing they'd just set the film in the present). The core of the story problem is that it doesn't succeed in achieving that admittedly difficult balance of portraying WW as both the ultimate warrior woman AND the emissary of love and peace to Man's World. The short present-day epilogue plays lip service to the latter, but it feels like too little, too late.

That said, I probably went into it with too high expectations based on the trailer, and yes, I should know better.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Mattofthespurs on 02 June, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: positronic on 02 June, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
I just came from seeing it.

The good things: 1. Gal Gadot

That's all I need to hear.  :D
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: dweezil2 on 02 June, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
Quote from: Mattofthespurs on 02 June, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: positronic on 02 June, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
I just came from seeing it.

The good things: 1. Gal Gadot

That's all I need to hear.  :D

I even thought her performance was rather flat and one note to be honest.
Chris Pine was the only one who walked away with any dignity intact, maybe surprisingly.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Professor Bear on 02 June, 2017, 08:33:44 PM
I hear there's a cheeky wink to Gal Gadot in real life, where Wonder Woman bombards a German school with rockets and kills 11 children then calls it self defence.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: dweezil2 on 02 June, 2017, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 02 June, 2017, 08:33:44 PM
I hear there's a cheeky wink to Gal Gadot in real life, where Wonder Woman bombards a German school with rockets and kills 11 children then calls it self defence.

I see what you did there!

Though that's closer to the plot of Batman Vs Superman!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: positronic on 02 June, 2017, 10:11:39 PM
I didn't see Batman vs. Superman. After seeing the trailer, it seemed ill-advised. Nothing I read or heard about it afterward changed my mind.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 03 June, 2017, 12:30:49 AM
Can't comment on something if you haven't seen it!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: positronic on 03 June, 2017, 05:10:26 AM
I don't really see a lot of comic book movies. I think the last one I saw before Wonder Woman was Deadpool (which I liked).
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 05 June, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
Was carefully optimistic when going to the theatre. Thought the ww1 wouldn't fit tonally. But it did. I think the whole movie delivered. Good mix between Casablanca, Batman Begins and Indiana Jones. Loved it :)

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 11:09:59 AM
Despite a noisy and slightly muddled final act, Wonder Woman is pretty great. Liberated from the Snyder template of grim, Rand-ian superheroics, Jenkins' film gives us a story about strength with compassion, about doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Gadot positively shines and brings both genuine warmth and steely determination, whilst Pine lends excellent support.

Well worth a couple of hours of your time.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 08:18:28 PM
Produced and Story co-written by Zack Snyder I should point out.

Just back from seeing this and it was great!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 08:18:28 PM
Produced and Story co-written by Zack Snyder I should point out.

Well, somewhere in its progress to the screen someone, maybe even Snyder himself for all I know, decided that this wasn't going to be that kind of movie. If it was Snyder, fair play.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JayzusB.Christ on 06 June, 2017, 09:12:58 PM
I think I'll go and see it.  I really don't care much for the Marvel films (never really followed the source material i suppose) and I was about as impressed with the Snyder DC films as most people were, but this sounds like a return to the form of Nolan-Batman.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
It's certainly nothing like the tone of the Nolan Batman films. I think if you after more of that then you won't find it in Wonder Woman.

It certainly has serious themes throughout, but the actual script and dialogue is actually more light hearted. Trying to think of a similar style of film but cant quite find a good example. Maybe more in the tone of something like Raiders of the lost Ark? Bad Nazis, people dying.....but light, humorous dialogue.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:45:05 PM
On reflection, it does have a Marvel-esque feel to it really, just not quite as wise cracking jokey as some of those films.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 06 June, 2017, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
Maybe more in the tone of something like Raiders of the lost Ark? Bad Nazis, people dying.....but light, humorous dialogue.

Weren't all the Nazis bad? (Mitchell and Webb did come to mind when I read your post)

Seeing this on the weekend weather permitting. Glad to see people are actually going to see this, I was starting to think it could be another Ghostbusters...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 10:17:42 PM
Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 06 June, 2017, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
Maybe more in the tone of something like Raiders of the lost Ark? Bad Nazis, people dying.....but light, humorous dialogue.

Weren't all the Nazis bad? (Mitchell and Webb did come to mind when I read your post)

Seeing this on the weekend weather permitting. Glad to see people are actually going to see this, I was starting to think it could be another Ghostbusters...

Good point. Not many decent Nazis knocking about.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 10:29:27 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
Bad Nazis

Bad Germans. There are no Nazis in this movie.

Best direct comparison is probably a gender-flipped Captain America: The First Avenger. Gadot is definitely the DC movie universe's Chris Evans, just absolutely embodying clear-eyed heroic decency and a fierce moral centre.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 06 June, 2017, 10:48:15 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 10:29:27 PMGadot is definitely the DC movie universe's Chris Evans, just absolutely embodying clear-eyed heroic decency and a fierce moral centre.


Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
Now the world is ready for you,
and the wonders you can do.

Make a hawk a dove,
Stop a war with love,
Make a liar tell the truth.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 11:00:25 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 10:29:27 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
Bad Nazis

Bad Germans. There are no Nazis in this movie.

Best direct comparison is probably a gender-flipped Captain America: The First Avenger. Gadot is definitely the DC movie universe's Chris Evans, just absolutely embodying clear-eyed heroic decency and a fierce moral centre.

No, no Nazis in Wonder Woman, I was referring to Raiders.

Excellent comparison with the first Captain America, that's spot on. It's very much in the same tone and approach as that film.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 06 June, 2017, 11:11:43 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 08:18:28 PM
Produced and Story co-written by Zack Snyder I should point out.

Re-written by Patty Jenkins and Geoff Johns, I believe. Since he was the originator of this iteration of the basic story, Writers Guild arbitration (and possibly part of his credit as Producer) would mean Zack Snyder gets a screen-credit, whereas other writers who followed, and may have contributed more, get nowt but paid. Similar thing happened on Guardians of the Galaxy, apparently – Nicole Perlman wrote the first draft but James Gunn completely re-wrote it as a new script with a different story. Both get a screen-credit.

It's possible all that remains of Snyder's idea is not much more than Wonder Woman set during World War One.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:47:17 AM
Or its entirely equally possible that Snyder wrote all the best bits. It's all conjecture.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 07 June, 2017, 07:32:32 AM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 June, 2017, 11:11:43 PM
It's possible all that remains of Snyder's idea is not much more than Wonder Woman set during World War One.

Hollywood screenwriting credits have been a complete mystery to me ever since, many years ago, I read an interview with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade co-writer Jeffery Boam, in which he revealed that George Lucas' contribution to the screenplay was literally no more than a 'laundry list' of story elements (Nazis, Holy Grail, Indy's Dad).

Then, I discovered a couple of months ago, that Boam's screenplay was the subject of an extensive, uncredited re-write (https://creativescreenwriting.com/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade-learning-from-stoppard/) by Tom-frickin'-Stoppard. Baffling...

(See also: a movie-tie comic I worked on a few years back which, despite being based on a chapter of the original book not used in the movie, required that either the movie screenwriters were credited and paid alongside the comic writers, or that all reference to the comic writers was removed from the strip...)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 07 June, 2017, 07:34:36 AM
Quote from: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:47:17 AM
Or its entirely equally possible that Snyder wrote all the best bits. It's all conjecture.

Given that the film is strikingly un-Snyder-ish in not only tone but philosophy, the logical conclusion is that he had a lot less to do with the finished movie than other films with his name on...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 07 June, 2017, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:47:17 AM
Or its entirely equally possible that Snyder wrote all the best bits. It's all conjecture.

Going by the accreditation it's not too much conjecture and it's not an 'equal' possibility at all because he didn't write the actual screenplay. 2 other screenwriters also get 'story' credit - Allan Heinberg and Jason Fuchs - then the first script drafts were written by Allan Heinberg, then rewrites by Jenkins and Geoff Johns - so it's doubtful Snyder wrote much or any of that script, nevermind the 'best bits'. Some story beats or action concepts might remain but at the end of the day he wasn't the one to make them work on the page and ultimately on-screen.

Of course there's also whatever uncredited stuff was also lifted from the comics.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 07 June, 2017, 02:18:19 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 07 June, 2017, 07:32:32 AM
Then, I discovered a couple of months ago, that Boam's screenplay was the subject of an extensive, uncredited re-write (https://creativescreenwriting.com/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade-learning-from-stoppard/) by Tom-frickin'-Stoppard. Baffling...


...and then Stoppard and Carrie Fisher did some doctoring on the prequels. A good wage, I'd say.

The arbitration on the 1995 Judge Dredd film went back as far as 1985 to the very first writer to have worked on it, comic writer Jan Strnad:

Roger Ebert's Questions to the Answer Man – Reno Gazette, 20th July 1995

(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff248/burlearth/DREDDJAN%20STRNAD_zpsapkooli1.jpg)




Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 07 June, 2017, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 07 June, 2017, 02:18:19 PM
...and then Stoppard and Carrie Fisher did some doctoring on the prequels. A good wage, I'd say.

That article I linked above on Stoppard's re-write is an essential read for writers in any medium, BTW.

QuoteThe arbitration on the 1995 Judge Dredd film went back as far as 1985 to the very first writer to have worked on it, comic writer Jan Strnad:

That's excellent!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:10:16 PM
Would it be fair to say that I sense a strong anti-Zack Snyder under current?

Truth is, we don't have the first clue who wrote what, so it isn't even remotely fair or even to suggest that he probably had no hand in "the good bits".
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 07 June, 2017, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:10:16 PM
Would it be fair to say that I sense a strong anti-Zack Snyder under current?

It's no secret that I detest the values he's instilled in every superhero movie he's made (that I've seen). There's a consistent theme running through them that Wonder Woman doesn't share. I've already said that if it was Snyder's decision to eschew his previous Rand-ian grimness, he deserves credit for that.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 07 June, 2017, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:10:16 PM
Would it be fair to say that I sense a strong anti-Zack Snyder under current?

On my part, I wouldn't call a discussion on the arcane and often unfair nature of Hollywood accreditation that. I'm really suggesting it's more a Patty Jenkins film than Zack Snyder's and it's the film it is mostly because of how the director managed to turn it around in the long process from script to screen. If you feel a need to defend Zack's honour in this regard, so be it, but I'm not a 'DC universe' fan, so I don't really have a dog in this race – though I like both Dawn of the Dead and 300.


Quote from: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 06:10:16 PM
Truth is, we don't have the first clue who wrote what, so it isn't even remotely fair or even to suggest that he probably had no hand in "the good bits".

No, we don't, but it's more a matter of proportional credit for me. We know he didn't write the screenplay, so what might've been early ideas for a story hashed-out between Snyder, Fuchs and Heinberg, weren't actually scenes until Heinberg wrote them and Jenkin's rewrote and directed them – so I don't think it's fair to suggest Snyder might've 'wrote all the best bits', either, when others knocked it into something that could work as a shootable script. At the end of the day the person most responsible for the film's success is the director and apart from mimicking Snyderesque speed-ramping in the action scenes, the storytelling doesn't feel particularly 'Zack Snyder' to me – so take from that what you will.

Paraphrasing what veteran Producer Charles Roven has said – of all the films he's ever worked on, it's the one with the most writers.

http://collider.com/wonder-woman-script-changes-writers-charles-roven/








Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JayzusB.Christ on 07 June, 2017, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
It's certainly nothing like the tone of the Nolan Batman films. I think if you after more of that then you won't find it in Wonder Woman.


Didn't really expect to - I just meant a good film about a DC character I know a bit about.  Like I say, I know feck-all about the Marvel Universe.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 07:56:24 PM
It's okay, I have no intention of "defending" Zack Snyder, that all comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end. BVS did well enough at the box office to demonstrate enough of a fan base. I'm sure Wonder Woman will do equally well.

I was just offering the point that we do not definitely know who had what degree of input into the films story, regardless of the theorising going on here.

People are quick to insult Zack Snyder when he has his name on a film that they don't like, but equally quick to excuse his involvement entirely from a film that they do like. And that's not directed at anyone here, just a general vibe that I get from the broader comics community.

We can all put an argument forward, but it doesn't make it so!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 07 June, 2017, 07:57:14 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 June, 2017, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 June, 2017, 09:33:29 PM
It's certainly nothing like the tone of the Nolan Batman films. I think if you after more of that then you won't find it in Wonder Woman.


Didn't really expect to - I just meant a good film about a DC character I know a bit about.  Like I say, I know feck-all about the Marvel Universe.

In that case - absolutely go, it was good fun. I'm off to see it again on Saturday with the kids.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Eamonn Clarke on 08 June, 2017, 08:16:20 AM
Nice to see Ewen Bremner getting a good part, and that he gets to carry his Spud gun.  :lol:

My coat? How kind



He'd make a great Middenface btw,
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: positronic on 08 June, 2017, 09:50:06 AM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 June, 2017, 10:48:15 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2017, 10:29:27 PMGadot is definitely the DC movie universe's Chris Evans, just absolutely embodying clear-eyed heroic decency and a fierce moral centre.


Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
Now the world is ready for you,
and the wonders you can do.

Make a hawk a dove,
Stop a war with love,
Make a liar tell the truth.


"Make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love"... That was essentially my biggest problem with the script. I didn't see any of Diana as the ambassador of the Amazonian philosophy of love and peace in this movie. I guess because I didn't even see that the Amazons in this movie even had any sort of philosophy like that.
[spoiler]
I think Gal Gadot was very charismatic (and convincing in the action scenes) and tried to show some glimpses of a sensibility of social justice, but that was about it. In the film Diana believes she's a living weapon, "the Godkiller", and joins the war effort with the express purpose of seeking out Ares to kill him, thinking that this will bring about an immediate cessation of hostilities -- but it doesn't, even after she finds the real Ares. Then there's a tragicomic bit where she mentions "I don't understand why they didn't stop fighting." There's a bit of lip service given in the framing sequences where she comments on her naivete, but the script seems to miss the heart of the character's message of love and peace. As with the prior Man of Steel film, I don't think it's ever a good idea to begin your movie franchise by having your superhero KILL the villain, no matter how evil he might be. The hero might be shown to be more powerful than the villain, but might doesn't make right. Characters like Superman or Wonder Woman should aspire to higher ideals, and find a better way.[/spoiler]

I guess it's not surprising that the Amazons aren't really portrayed as espousing a philosophy of love & peace, since none of the usual matron goddesses are even mentioned -- Athena, Hera, Aphrodite, Demeter, or Diana. In fact the film reduces the complexity of the Greek mythological pantheon to a very simplistic sort of black & white; Zeus = good/creator, Ares = evil/destroyer.

The movie is certainly satisfying as a pure action vehicle, but I was hoping for a little more.

Spoilers added
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 08 June, 2017, 11:31:56 AM
SERIOUS SPOILERS ABOVE!!!!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 10 June, 2017, 08:38:45 PM
Positronic saw a different film than I did: [spoiler]Diana thought the sword was the godkiller; Hippolyta explains that the whole purpose of the Amazons was to foster harmony between mankind, hence the languages; everybody did get all peace-and-lovey the instant Ares was killed, hence the Howling Commandos hugging the Jerries[/spoiler]. But there you go.

However I did think it was a right mess of a thing, even though Gadot's stellar presence and Diana's naivety turning to belief completely saved it for me.

I loved the Thermysicra bit: the look, the montages, the balletic combat, and especially the wonderful General Buttercup. Unfortunately I couldn't make head nor tail of what was supposed to be happening in the Western Front/Veld sequences (starving enslaved villages in ruins, but with beer, unbroken windows and a working gas supply, and no German reinforcements available?) and I thought maybe they could have spent five whole minutes on Ares' design, including a total transformation from [spoiler]Thewlis[/spoiler], and maybe something clarifying his powers (did he absorb the other gods' powers?) cause Magneto-[spoiler]Lupin[/spoiler]-Sauron should never have been a thing. Ugh.

The looming flying (?) Diana at the very end was also "huh?".

But: positive message, an occasionally sharp and funny script, very prettily designed in places (ugly as crap in others), and a truly luminous lead.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: sheridan on 11 June, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 06 June, 2017, 09:52:07 PM
Seeing this on the weekend weather permitting. Glad to see people are actually going to see this, I was starting to think it could be another Ghostbusters...

How does weather affect whether you see it?  Unless you have a picnic or barbecue if it's sunny and only go to the cinema if it isn't?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 11 June, 2017, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 11 June, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
How does weather affect whether you see it?  Unless you have a picnic or barbecue if it's sunny and only go to the cinema if it isn't?

Monsoon season starts this week, need to make the most of the sunshine and get all the outdoor jobs finished. If I miss a film at the cinema I can always buy the bluray. The weather isn't really within my control.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Greg M. on 11 June, 2017, 04:28:41 PM
Saw this today. It killed a couple of hours. Gal Gadot herself is very charming and suits the part well, but the film itself was oddly charmless, and I didn't feel Gadot and Pine had any chemistry. Pretty poor overall - at times generic, at times confused.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: dweezil2 on 11 June, 2017, 06:49:59 PM
Quote from: Greg M. on 11 June, 2017, 04:28:41 PM
Saw this today. It killed a couple of hours. Gal Gadot herself is very charming and suits the part well, but the film itself was oddly charmless, and I didn't feel Gadot and Pine had any chemistry. Pretty poor overall - at times generic, at times confused.

Pretty much my feelings exactly.

If it wasn't the fiirst female fronted superhero movie of recent times and arguably better than recent DC adaptations, I question whether it would be garnering all the accolades it has.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 11 June, 2017, 10:13:13 PM
Surprised at the negative opinions to be honest. Saw it once, really liked it. Saw it a second time and liked it even more. Not a mess at all, good humoured and two excellent leads. Not to mention some standout action sequences. Looking forward to the blu ray.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 12:10:53 AM
Ah it is a bit of a mess. Starting with the [spoiler]unexplained sinking(?) ships at Themyscira, the way Diana is injured by a bullet but then heals but thereafter takes not one scratch, moving on to the self-sailing boat that arrives at a distinctly Hollywood London from (presumably) the Dodecanese after 'catching a lift', the bizarre no-man's land sequence where Our Heroes break through the lines to rescue some enslaved (?) villagers, massacre the troops stationed in this village just a few miles from German HQ, and stay for drinking and dancing because literally no-one seems bothered that they are behind enemy lines,, the truly terrible Ares design (and concept), Diana's ill-defined powers that seem to include flight and lightning by the end.[/spoiler].. It is indeed a bit of a mess.

BUT it is fun, positive, Wonder Woman and her purpose are awesome, action sequences may be the first slo-mo superhero fighting I've enjoyed, Robin Wright is brill, Chris Pine takes a passenger seat very nicely, Spud finds his mojo, so it all sums to a fine superhero flick.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 12 June, 2017, 08:14:22 AM
I liked it and Mrs Tips liked it even more. Not brilliant, and apart from the titular character lacking a penis, I can't think of anything new it brought to the table.

I thought Gadot/Pine were both suitably swoony and did in fact show some chemistry.

Mrs Tips liked the speed up/ slow down bits because, and she's not a comic reader, she imagined it slows down on what would be the image on the page.

So back to basics seems to have given us the best of the DC bunch so far.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Greg M. on 12 June, 2017, 10:30:26 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 12 June, 2017, 08:14:22 AM
I can't think of anything new it brought to the table.

To me, this is a big part of the problem: it felt like a missed opportunity. The stuff that might have set it apart from other, similar movies, was only briefly touched on, and effectively sidelined for the less-interesting mythological stuff. Wonder Woman in the era of the Suffragettes – there's surely more mileage in that? I get that they wanted to create a contrast between Themyscira and "Man's World" but how about giving Diana some more women to interact with and inspire in the latter? How about the charisma-free Steve Trevor doesn't spend most of the film grabbing Diana and dragging her about everywhere? (I did like the bit where she makes it clear he doesn't get to tell her what to do, but I wanted more of that, and much earlier.) What about giving us a woman's take on men and their petty testosterone-fuelled bickering and need for war? (It's implicit, but it could have been delivered more powerfully.) If Diana had been a man from a secret island of men, would the film really have been that much different? Probably not, and more's the pity.

I'm not saying movies about female heroes have to be about the fact they're women, and not men, but for Wonder Woman, this is pretty much her raison d'etre - she is the archetypal female superhero. And in Gadot, they had a great bit of casting: someone I feel could have done justice to better material.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 10:59:23 AM
Not getting the allegations of a charisma-free Chris Pine. I feel like I must have seen a different film than some of the good people here. He was great in this!

Each to their own i appreciate, critical and, far more importantly, actual film goers opinion appears to be almost universally positive and I've yet to actually meet someone who didn't really enjoy it.

It was an entertaining, often exciting, often humorous, well cast, well directed, positive film. Just struggling to get on board with the majority of negatives highlighted here. I didn't find plot holes at all, I didn't find absurdity, and it all looked gorgeous.

It was a really good film, and I'll sign off on that.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Vicsage on 12 June, 2017, 12:52:59 PM
A good move, but not great.  A great movie needs a great villain.  Ares was a very weak villain. 
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 01:06:37 PM
I would argue that a great movie certainly does not require a great villain. In fact there are a wealth of great movies with no villains at all. The real "villain" of the film was human nature where Ares played the role of the devil, whispering suggestions.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 12 June, 2017, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 01:06:37 PM
I would argue that a great movie certainly does not require a great villain. In fact there are a wealth of great movies with no villains at all.

Usual Suspects
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 10:59:23 AM
Not getting the allegations of a charisma-free Chris Pine. I feel like I must have seen a different film than some of the good people here. He was great in this!

Agree with you there, I thought Pine (and Trevor) walked a fine line very nicely - he was an active, forceful, sympathetic hero, but ultimately he knew when and how to let the lady lead, and without too much prompting either.  Pine has been a solid (and generally improving) actor in everything I've seen him in, and I'm impressed that he was prepared to take the sidekick role here and do such a good job of it. 

I have to strongly disagree about one thing: Ares looked absolutely awful, a poorly designed CGI abomination with a Dr Robotnik face: after the stylishly-done account of his destruction of the Olympians, I was expecting something more... classical, or at least more subtle than just another Sauron. While I knew [spoiler]Thewlis[/spoiler] was the big baddie from the moment I saw him, I was actually pretty happy with the moment [spoiler]when Diana kills 'Ares' and nothing changes: the idea of Ares as a corrupting influence rather than a muscled bruiser was fine by me[/spoiler]. 

The seque from that concept into an ill-defined punch-up with a bargain-basement Magneto was the only real disappointment in the movie.  And what happened there anyway? What changed that Diana could [spoiler]suddenly fly and throw lightning about?  Was it just that she realised she was actually Ares' sister and thus not an Amazon but both goddess and god-killer and could 'access' these powers, or was it that she spared Dr Poison and thus grew into her role as an emissary of love and harmony?  Was she invulnerable to conventional harm all along?  If so, how come she was injured on Themiscyra? [/spoiler] I ask in a spirit of genuine enquiry, 'cos I didn't get it.

To pick up on one of Greg's points, I thought there was about as much 'Wonder Woman in the era of Suffragettes' as a superhero flick could carry - Diana's snappy interactions with Etta and the various men sold that quite well in a show-don't-tell way, I thought, their impact maybe slightly lessened by over-exposure in the trailers. 

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 02:00:11 PM
Agree on Pine, i can't think of anything he's been in where he wasn't good.

Difficult to call on her powers towards the end, though she appeared to be harnessing the lightning that Ares shot at her. She is revealed as the daughter of zeus though so if they are making that character change, it stands to reason that if Zeus's son can harness lightning, then perhaps she could too.

She was becoming more powerful throughout the film, with the emergence of her powers during the training battle on themyscira. The end of the film may have been her hitting her full stride. Would need to see Justice League or Wonder Woman 2 to find out. Either way I don't think that the development of her powers caused any great plot hiccups. She is never portrayed as being invulnerable, only showing that she could heal quickly. She didn't get hit by any projectiles after that wound during the beach battle though.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 12 June, 2017, 04:00:36 PM
I really enjoyed the film, as did my girlfriend. Great casting, with Gal Gadot really standing out as a charismatic, sympathetic hero. Chris Pine was also really good.

I didn't find the fight at the end confusing. When Ares fires the lighting bolts (or evil energy or whatever it is) Diana's bracelets hold the energy until she re-directs it back at Ares.
I'm not sure about the flying - I thought she just did one of her big leaps and then the film went to slow motion when she was at the crest of her leap, shooting out the energy?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 04:31:49 PM
So are the vambraces/bracelets themselves special? I may have missed that bit early on, my daughter lost her Pringles during the growing-up montage...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 12 June, 2017, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 01:37:14 PM
While I knew [spoiler]Thewlis[/spoiler] was the big baddie from the moment I saw him, I was actually pretty happy with the moment [spoiler]when Diana kills 'Ares' and nothing changes: the idea of Ares as a corrupting influence rather than a muscled bruiser was fine by me[/spoiler]. 



The point of 'the evil in all men' would've hit harder and more truthfully had she realised it after [spoiler]defeating actual Ares[/spoiler] – or, yes, even just left with the [spoiler]death of the General[/spoiler]. It's a backward decision that undercuts the point purely in the service of some lesser plot twist of [spoiler]Thewlis as Ares[/spoiler] and an escalation in action.

[spoiler]When the speechifyin' Ares is finally brought in after Diana's recognition of false victory he's reduced to being an obligatory and superfluous monster to fight – his introduction is anticlimactic when it should've been Diana's belief in her singular quest that is left feeling anticlimactic: that simply defeating the big baddie would end the war. Diana's disillusionment and restoration of faith would be more powerful as a post battle realisation that Steve's sacrifice (strong shades of Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter's goodbye date) helped save the fate of the Armistice.[/spoiler]

It's a strange, unnecessary blunder that leaves the point of the end blurred, and possibly because of some over cautious decision to prevent the idea that the audience might be left with the feeling WW is not be the ultimate hero in her own film.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 06:37:06 PM
I was at one point hoping that the [spoiler]scrawny Thewlis-Ares would be defeated simply by Diana convincing both sides that the gas and perpetuation of the war was a step too far, and that peace was achievable - perhaps even involving Spud giving us a tune, with Dr Poison and Steve (the redeemed sidekicks, essentially) working together and both sacrificing themselves to destroy the bombs.   There are maybe traces of this direction in the reconciliation of krauts and commandos on the airstrip.   There really was no need for Ares to hulk-out to escalate the action, Ludendorf's capsules could have given us some superpowered goons to fight while he remained a manipulative force[/spoiler].

BUT, the fact that we are discussing 'better' directions for the end rather than despairing of another misguided DC endeavour shows that this is the superior effort of this franchise.  It certainly puts Gadot's Wonder Woman up there with Lynda Carter's in a way that Cavill's Superman is never going to compare to Reeves' (no fault of Cavill's).
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: dweezil2 on 12 June, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
When the climax descended into the protagonist and antagonist just lobbing things at each other, I rather switched off.

Generic comicbook movie third act 101 sadly.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 12 June, 2017, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 04:31:49 PM
So are the vambraces/bracelets themselves special? I may have missed that bit early on, my daughter lost her Pringles during the growing-up montage...

I think the bracelets are magical - a gift from the gods similar to the golden lasso. They didn't really go into that but they showed how they have special defective power - particularly when held up together - which caused the concussive blast which injured her aunt and made all the Amazons stand in awe.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 12 June, 2017, 08:54:47 PM
See I thought that bit where she floors Antiobe was the first sign of her divine abilities, but then thought maybe I'd missed the vambraces being mentioned in the 'treasures of the gods' bit.  It occurs to me that in a preNu52 Wonder Woman collection I read the bracelets were gifts from Zeus, maybe that's what's going on there?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 12 June, 2017, 09:01:58 PM
That is the first time she realises that she has powers. The end sequence does play out like she has caught ares lightning and holds it with the bracelets, then fires it back at ares. Can't recall if she pulls more lightning out of the sky......didn't think she did.......but I look forward to viewing 3.

As for the generic big cgi battle, the whole thing takes no more than 2 minutes and is interspersed with the Steve Trevor bits. This is not the drawn out massive fight of BvS or man of steel. It's short and to the point. It worked much better as a result.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 12 June, 2017, 09:16:56 PM
To be honest I was just relieved that there wasn't a giant doomsday device shooting a beam of light into the sky.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: sheridan on 15 June, 2017, 11:22:48 AM
Quote from: JamesC on 12 June, 2017, 08:26:52 PM
I think the bracelets are magical - a gift from the gods similar to the golden lasso. They didn't really go into that but they showed how they have special defective power - particularly when held up together - which caused the concussive blast which injured her aunt and made all the Amazons stand in awe.

I'm guessing that's deflective power - though if it injures her aunt then maybe it's defective anyway?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 04 July, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
I haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts.
How come Germans are the villains? Not from the Nazi era, just ordinary soldiers doing their duty. WW could have been fighting for a good cause, like, say, against the slave owners of the Confederacy in the civil war. Actually, that would be to sensitive for Hollywood, 'safe' villains were needed, so German's got the role. For a film whose makers claim it's progressive, that's a bad start!
And why are all the bad guys WW batters guys? That is, male. It'd be interesting to see the reviews, especially of feminists, if female characters were the victims of the violence of WW, or any heroine. I've written a story of just that, which I'm in the process of illustrating. The text version is already online, and reactions show it is making some who've read it think about the gender bias in how violence is presented in entertainment. That is, if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: I, Cosh on 05 July, 2017, 01:45:03 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 04 July, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
I haven't seen WW
If you'd stopped there, your post might have seemed sensible.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 05 July, 2017, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 04 July, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
I haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts.
How come Germans are the villains? Not from the Nazi era, just ordinary soldiers doing their duty. WW could have been fighting for a good cause, like, say, against the slave owners of the Confederacy in the civil war. Actually, that would be to sensitive for Hollywood, 'safe' villains were needed, so German's got the role. For a film whose makers claim it's progressive, that's a bad start!
And why are all the bad guys WW batters guys? That is, male. It'd be interesting to see the reviews, especially of feminists, if female characters were the victims of the violence of WW, or any heroine. I've written a story of just that, which I'm in the process of illustrating. The text version is already online, and reactions show it is making some who've read it think about the gender bias in how violence is presented in entertainment. That is, if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?

Aren't you trying to pass meaningful comment on something that, by your own admission, you have no knowledge of?  That's a very hard sell in the credibility stakes!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 05 July, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
I mean, I'd go with Gal. But I'd be thinking about Chris.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 05 July, 2017, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 05 July, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
But I'd be thinking about Chris.

Just the one? You could have all three. Triple deluxe man-crush with extra sprinkles.

Watch the movie, Rogue Earthlet, it's a good'un. Spoiler: [spoiler]the Germans aren't the baddies, and not all the baddies are men[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 05 July, 2017, 11:38:17 PM
Quote from: SIP on 05 July, 2017, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 04 July, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
I haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts.
How come Germans are the villains? Not from the Nazi era, just ordinary soldiers doing their duty. WW could have been fighting for a good cause, like, say, against the slave owners of the Confederacy in the civil war. Actually, that would be to sensitive for Hollywood, 'safe' villains were needed, so German's got the role. For a film whose makers claim it's progressive, that's a bad start!
And why are all the bad guys WW batters guys? That is, male. It'd be interesting to see the reviews, especially of feminists, if female characters were the victims of the violence of WW, or any heroine. I've written a story of just that, which I'm in the process of illustrating. The text version is already online, and reactions show it is making some who've read it think about the gender bias in how violence is presented in entertainment. That is, if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?

Aren't you trying to pass meaningful comment on something that, by your own admission, you have no knowledge of?  That's a very hard sell in the credibility stakes!

I don't have 'no knowledge' the media has been saturated with coverage of WW.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 06 July, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
New York Times review,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/movies/wonder-woman-review-gal-gadot.html

Diana is erudite but unworldly, witty but never ironic, supremely self-confident and utterly mystified by the modern world. Its capacity for cruelty is a perpetual shock to her, even though she herself is a prodigy of violence. Her sacred duty is to bring peace to the world. Accomplishing it requires a lot of killing, but that's always the superhero paradox.

comicbook review,

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/06/02/who-dies-in-wonder-woman-/#4

Since she hasn't fully grasped how powerful she truly is yet, Ares is able to overpower her, knocking her around with his energy blasts and using telekinesis-like powers to wrap metal around her, pinning her to the ground and crushing her as she watches the bomber, with Steve inside, explode.
His death erupts a mighty surge of rage within her. She then goes hurtling toward the rest of the German soldiers on the runway and takes them out viciously. 

Whether you share my opinion or not, it's fact that overwhelmingly it's violence against men that's presented as entertainment, just as women are presented as sex objects in movies. And WW maybe an empowered woman, but she's also a hot piece of eye candy for us fella's! Hollywood makes films to make money, and their statement that there's some sort of moral good motivating them is just part of the sales pitch.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 06 July, 2017, 02:57:26 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 06 July, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Whether you share my opinion or not, it's fact that overwhelmingly it's violence against men that's presented as entertainment, just as women are presented as sex objects in movies. And WW maybe an empowered woman, but she's also a hot piece of eye candy for us fella's! Hollywood makes films to make money, and their statement that there's some sort of moral good motivating them is just part of the sales pitch.


Regardless of the amoral business aspect, for the past century action/war films and films in general have predominantly been written by men*, so the tendency for certain stories and genres to concentrate mostly on violence against males, by males, is not in the least surprising, nor is it surprising that violence against women is often of a sexual nature.

The violence in superhero films is mostly that of a stylised cartoon so it's a little more tame but hypothetically –under a different regime than the current one at Marvel– it would still be more likely to see a sexual assault on Scarlet Witch than it would be of Captain America.

With Wonder Woman being both the only female BIG2 superhero film to have gone into production since Elektra 12 years ago, and the only one to have managed box-office success, I'm not so quick to judge it to a higher degree than the plethora of male superhero films we've had in the last decade.


*Wonder Woman had a staff of mostly male writers.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 06 July, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
Soldiers involved in violence during a war. Shocking.  :lol:
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 06 July, 2017, 11:05:09 AM
Such an odd conversation.

You haven't seen the film, hence "no knowledge". You can't appreciate the tone by reading reviews.

It's set during the first world war, I don't think there were many female German foot soldiers about.

And as you have already heavily spoiled the film above, the Germans aren't the "baddies" at all, the film centres on human nature and the corrupting suggestions of a God.

But you would know this if you had actual first hand experience of the subject you are passing opinion on.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 06 July, 2017, 11:31:36 AM
'I haven't seen this film but would like to venture an opinion anyway' is a bit odd, but fair enough.

But 'I don't need to have seen this film to criticise it, thank you very much, because here are the reviews I have read' is downright weird, fella!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 July, 2017, 01:58:04 PM
Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 06 July, 2017, 11:31:36 AM
But 'I don't need to have seen this film to criticise it, thank you very much, because here are the reviews I have read' is downright weird, fella!

Or... an entirely legitimate way of carrying out debate  :o

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/832008849003597824/K6PPGxk1.jpg)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 06 July, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 July, 2017, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 05 July, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
But I'd be thinking about Chris.

Just the one? You could have all three. Triple deluxe man-crush with extra sprinkles.
[/spoiler].

Pine and Evans (I.e. Captain America)? Yes. Pratt? Not really.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 06 July, 2017, 09:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 06 July, 2017, 09:46:11 PMPine and Evans (I.e. Captain America)? Yes. Pratt? Not really.

I think you have a type.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 07 July, 2017, 12:00:42 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 06 July, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 July, 2017, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 05 July, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
But I'd be thinking about Chris.

Just the one? You could have all three. Triple deluxe man-crush with extra sprinkles.
[/spoiler].

Pine and Evans (I.e. Captain America)? Yes. Pratt? Not really.

Hemsworth, darling. Pratt is strictly second rank.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Definitely Not Mister Pops on 07 July, 2017, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 July, 2017, 12:00:42 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 06 July, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 July, 2017, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 05 July, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
But I'd be thinking about Chris.

Just the one? You could have all three. Triple deluxe man-crush with extra sprinkles.
[/spoiler].

Pine and Evans (I.e. Captain America)? Yes. Pratt? Not really.

Hemsworth, darling. Pratt is strictly second rank.

Second rank? Not a fan of scallywags so? If anyone is second rank it's Pine, the value brand Kirk that he is. Shitener if you will.

Compare Parks and Rec Pratt with MCU Pratt. He gives hope to big flabby guys like me. With a bit of hard work and discipline*, I could have a superhero physique.


*BAHAHAHA!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 07 July, 2017, 01:34:22 AM
Quote from: SIP on 06 July, 2017, 11:05:09 AM
Such an odd conversation.

You haven't seen the film, hence "no knowledge". You can't appreciate the tone by reading reviews.

It's set during the first world war, I don't think there were many female German foot soldiers about.

And as you have already heavily spoiled the film above, the Germans aren't the "baddies" at all, the film centres on human nature and the corrupting suggestions of a God.

But you would know this if you had actual first hand experience of the subject you are passing opinion on.

Reading interviews with the films director, one of the writers and several actors tells you what the tone is intended to be. As for the German's not being 'baddies' it's a bit of a pity so many get killed. That is my point. No film in mainstream (note the word 'mainstream') cinema is likely to show a group of women lined up for slaughter, presenting it a justified. Know of any that have?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 07 July, 2017, 06:43:27 AM
How about the Amazonian warrior women in the first battle scene of the recent blockbuster movie 'Wonder Woman'?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 07 July, 2017, 07:06:21 AM
Yup, lots of them, shot dead by German soldiers.

Also, as stated, it's a film set in world war 1. People (men and women) are shown dying from both sides.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 07 July, 2017, 08:04:55 AM
QuoteNo film in mainstream (note the word 'mainstream') cinema is likely to show a group of women lined up for slaughter, presenting it a justified. Know of any that have?

That's not really the issue though, is it?  You're not complaining about violence against men, you're complaining about violence against men perpetrated by women - in pretty much the only superhero film where it exists.  If it was just violence against men you were unhappy about, you'd be dismissing pretty much every war based film in existence before you had seen it, rather than just this one.  The source of your unhappiness seems to be that a female character is able to perpetrate violence against men (who are Nazis, in wartime), but men are not able to equally perpetrate violence against women (who have historically been disenfranchised, and victims of male perpetrated violence), in a film which is alone in ots gemte as being mainly about a strong female character.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 07 July, 2017, 08:13:43 AM
Oh, for an edit button...
That's not really the issue though, is it?  You're not complaining about violence against men, you're complaining about violence against men perpetrated by women - in pretty much the only superhero film where it exists.  If it was just violence against men you were unhappy about, you'd be dismissing pretty much every war based film in existence before you had seen it, rather than just this one.  The source of your unhappiness seems to be that a female character is able to perpetrate violence against men (during wartime), but men are not able to equally perpetrate violence against women (who have historically been disenfranchised, and victims of male perpetrated violence), without negative connotations, in a film which is alone in its genre as being mainly focussed on a strong, female character.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JLC on 07 July, 2017, 09:40:02 AM
Rubbish film
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 07 July, 2017, 03:54:33 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 07 July, 2017, 06:43:27 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 07 July, 2017, 01:34:22 AM
No film in mainstream (note the word 'mainstream') cinema is likely to show a group of women lined up for slaughter, presenting it a justified. Know of any that have?

How about the Amazonian warrior women in the first battle scene of the recent blockbuster movie 'Wonder Woman'?

:lol: :lol:  :lol:

It's almost as though he ought to have seen the film in question...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 08 July, 2017, 01:18:52 AM
How could I forget Hemsworth; especially in George Kirk mode. I can't think of a better  recent example of an actor making such an impact with so little screen time.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 08 July, 2017, 02:43:37 AM
Quote from: SIP on 07 July, 2017, 07:06:21 AM
Yup, lots of them, shot dead by German soldiers.

Also, as stated, it's a film set in world war 1. People (men and women) are shown dying from both sides.

Presented as justified? Or as male savagery?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 08 July, 2017, 03:03:16 AM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 07 July, 2017, 08:13:43 AM
Oh, for an edit button...
That's not really the issue though, is it?  You're not complaining about violence against men, you're complaining about violence against men perpetrated by women - in pretty much the only superhero film where it exists.  If it was just violence against men you were unhappy about, you'd be dismissing pretty much every war based film in existence before you had seen it, rather than just this one.  The source of your unhappiness seems to be that a female character is able to perpetrate violence against men (during wartime), but men are not able to equally perpetrate violence against women (who have historically been disenfranchised, and victims of male perpetrated violence), without negative connotations, in a film which is alone in its genre as being mainly focussed on a strong, female character.

Firstly, I don't like violence, against anyone, being presented as entertainment. In a serious drama, sure, they reflect real life, and show violence as it is, nasty. A Bond movie, as an example of what I don't like, makes violence exciting, fun. I like 2000AD as it has good stories, and the violence is either grim reality or satire.
If you think WW is alone in being focused on a strong female character you haven't seen many films! Red Sonja, Xena (okay, I'm including tv) Dark Angel, Buffy, Agent Carter, that movie, forget the name, with Pamela Anderson, Mulan and more. And a classic is the Kick-Ass films, and yes, I have seen them. This is violence at a gruesome level, and almost entirely directed at males. Even the fight between Hit-Girl and Mother Russia is a confrontation between capable fighters, all those lined up for casual slaughter are male. When Mother Russia slaughters a group of cops they all male. Aren't there any women in the American police?
You can disgree with my opinion, sure, but if disagree with the facts I've pointed out regarding how violence is portrayed in the media you delude yourself.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 08 July, 2017, 10:18:52 AM
That's a pretty poss poor list stretching back thirty years to back up your point. You could fill a bigger list of male on female violence from probably just this year. So I don't understand why you have such a downer on a film you haven't seen. I don't understand  how you can reconcile your stance when the facts you use to back it up are so selective.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 08 July, 2017, 10:52:52 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 08 July, 2017, 03:03:16 AMFirstly, I don't like violence, against anyone, being presented as entertainment. In a serious drama, sure, they reflect real life, and show violence as it is, nasty. A Bond movie, as an example of what I don't like, makes violence exciting, fun. I like 2000AD as it has good stories, and the violence is either grim reality or satire.

2000AD has featured and revelled in stylised violence as visceral entertainment throughout its existence and often with a completely irreverent attitude to 'responsibility' or being 'real' - and it mostly involved males. There are myriad examples in Judge Dredd, D.R. & Quinch, Slaine, Nemesis the Warlock of action and violence exploited for the pure thrill of watching/reading it. Rogue Trooper may have made the point that 'war is hell and in the future it might be worse' but kids weren't reading it because they needed a profound statement reiterated to them every week; they were reading it for entertainment and the imaginative phantasmagoria of a bizarre future tech-war set on a nuked-out planet of talking weapons, biowire and giant tanks blowing things and people up. You might like to use 'satire' or 'gritty' as social pretexts but 2000AD has always been a case of having its cake and eating it.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 18 July, 2017, 02:30:47 AM
I'm aware, Joe Soap, that some read 2000AD because they get off on the violence.
As for those who mock me because I haven't seen Wonder Woman, I'm sure they all form an opinion of a film before they see it, and that forms their judgement on whether they will see it. If you want an example of people taking a firm, even extreme view of a film they haven't seen, Google 'The Red Pill'. It's a film made by documentary maker Cassie Jaye about the men's rights groups, that explores that issue in a questioning manner. But the protests, the attempts to stop it being screened, not forgetting the decision by Netflix not to show it, is a bad case of mob censorship. By people who've not seen it. 
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 18 July, 2017, 02:38:43 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 18 July, 2017, 02:30:47 AM
I'm aware, Joe Soap, that some read 2000AD because they get off on the violence.

That's not the gist of the point I was making or responding to.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 18 July, 2017, 06:24:18 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 18 July, 2017, 02:30:47 AM
I'm aware, Joe Soap, that some read 2000AD because they get off on the violence.
As for those who mock me because I haven't seen Wonder Woman, I'm sure they all form an opinion of a film before they see it, and that forms their judgement on whether they will see it. If you want an example of people taking a firm, even extreme view of a film they haven't seen, Google 'The Red Pill'. It's a film made by documentary maker Cassie Jaye about the men's rights groups, that explores that issue in a questioning manner. But the protests, the attempts to stop it being screened, not forgetting the decision by Netflix not to show it, is a bad case of mob censorship. By people who've not seen it.

You now appear to be arguing that it's a bad thing to judge a film without having seen it. So you would agree that it's not a good idea to pass comment on Wonder Woman before you've seen it then?

And I don't think anyone has been mocking you, it was certainly not my attention, just questioning the validity of a comment made on a film that you haven't seen.

Ps. The film was great, you should see it if you enjoy fun superhero films.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 18 July, 2017, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 July, 2017, 01:18:52 AM
How could I forget Hemsworth; especially in George Kirk mode. I can't think of a better  recent example of an actor making such an impact with so little screen time.

My daughter has demanded a giant poster of Hemsworth for a birthday present, with the explicit stipulation that he must have his shirt off.

This would be her 8th birthday.

Rogue Earthlet is right, women are objectifying monsters and we should fear their dominion.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Richard on 18 July, 2017, 11:22:43 AM
QuoteI'm sure they all form an opinion of a film before they see it, and that forms their judgement on whether they will see it.

That's not the same thing as writing about it on a forum before you've seen it, and you know it.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 20 July, 2017, 05:10:23 PM
Oh dear, I got all excited when I saw this thread as I loved WW only to see it veered drastically off topic.

I get what Rogue Earthlet is saying about the normalization of violence against men by women in the media but I just don't think this is the right movie to illustrate the point.

I actually started reading the comic reboot and iirc when she is originally brought to Earth she is placed in a detention cell where animals bring her gifts from the other Gods including fast healing / invincibility. That might explain why she can't be hurt in our world.

Her bracelets are technically known as the Bracelets of Submission (ooh err!) and they also have an evolving history (More here if you're interested: http://www.cbr.com/wonder-womans-bracelets-15-things-you-need-to-know/)

Do we all know about her creators interest in polyamory and BDSM?

I loved the movie, although I thought it fell apart towards the end. It was so refreshing to see a DC movie with a coherent plot that didn't end in a huge CGI battle with some city or other getting destroyed.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 20 July, 2017, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 20 July, 2017, 05:10:23 PM
I get what Rogue Earthlet is saying about the normalization of violence against men by women in the media but I just don't think this is the right movie to illustrate the point.

As he would know if he'd seen it!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 20 July, 2017, 06:19:00 PM
His impassioned stance on the subject would have greatly benefited from a viewing of the movie in question.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 20 July, 2017, 11:55:26 PM
Quote from: SIP on 18 July, 2017, 06:24:18 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 18 July, 2017, 02:30:47 AM
I'm aware, Joe Soap, that some read 2000AD because they get off on the violence.
As for those who mock me because I haven't seen Wonder Woman, I'm sure they all form an opinion of a film before they see it, and that forms their judgement on whether they will see it. If you want an example of people taking a firm, even extreme view of a film they haven't seen, Google 'The Red Pill'. It's a film made by documentary maker Cassie Jaye about the men's rights groups, that explores that issue in a questioning manner. But the protests, the attempts to stop it being screened, not forgetting the decision by Netflix not to show it, is a bad case of mob censorship. By people who've not seen it.

You now appear to be arguing that it's a bad thing to judge a film without having seen it. So you would agree that it's not a good idea to pass comment on Wonder Woman before you've seen it then?

And I don't think anyone has been mocking you, it was certainly not my attention, just questioning the validity of a comment made on a film that you haven't seen.

Ps. The film was great, you should see it if you enjoy fun superhero films.

The protesters I refer to didn't just judge The Red Pill, they physically tried to prevent anyone seeing it. Whatever my thoughts on WW I'm not saying it shouldn't be screened.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 20 July, 2017, 11:57:56 PM
Quote from: Richard on 18 July, 2017, 11:22:43 AM
QuoteI'm sure they all form an opinion of a film before they see it, and that forms their judgement on whether they will see it.

That's not the same thing as writing about it on a forum before you've seen it, and you know it.

I also know that the publicity for WW has been substantial.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 23 July, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
With what is probably my last post on this subject (will the person who said 'hooray' please leave the room lol) my point can be summed up like this. If WW killing men is entertainment, if those being killed are women is it still entertaining? It's as simple as that. I've started a Facebook page about it, here,

https://www.facebook.com/PetalPopsy-and-Pepsy-258408847972872/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 24 July, 2017, 12:22:15 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 23 July, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
If WW killing men is entertainment, if those being killed are women is it still entertaining? It's as simple as that.


Both situations take place in Wonder Woman. Watch it and decide for yourself – otherwise you'll never know.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 07:30:14 AM
I'm trying to follow the logic here: some cinemas bowed to pressure groups and didn't screen a documentary celebrating the whining of the most pathetic movement humanity has yet to devise, and that justifies Rogue Earthlet making things up about a fantasy movie he hasn't even seen, or apparently even read the Wikipedia summary of? The phrase that keeps popping into my head is 'seek professional help', but I doubt there's any available that would answer.

No-one is denying the problems facing men and boys in a society that is just beginning to think about offering a level playing field to all its members, but systematically and (worse) ignorantly knocking each of the tiny handful of female-led genre movies is an absurd reaction.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 24 July, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
Strictly in tv-land terms,mowing down some mooks is bad because?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: Smith on 24 July, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
Strictly in tv-land terms,mowing down some mooks is bad because?

Not satirical enough. 2000ad's okay, according to Rogue Earthlet, because the violence is satire.

Like when Rogue Trooper shouts 'DIE, NORT SCUM' and murders a platoon. Or when Sinister Dexter whack someone they've been paid to kill by shooting them dead fancy and making a pun.

Great satire.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 24 July, 2017, 05:30:41 PM
QuoteIf WW killing men is entertainment, if those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

Yes.  Although for that to work as a narrative, it would need to be set during an international conflict during which the vast majority of participants were women, during an age where men were largely disenfranchised.  And for it to really work as entertainment, you'd have to market to men who continue to be underrepresented in the medium.   If you can find one of those, you should absolutely unknot your panties and write a screenplay about it.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:07:56 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3C8Slzx-Gpc


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:16:32 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJ2bZGuiaI


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

See also: every horror film since Hallowe'en and the dozens of TV shows with morgue scenes that devote 20 minutes of screen time to the blue lips and nipples of a gorgeous, naked, teenage corpse:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atjhOhH-V3E


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 25 July, 2017, 07:16:16 AM
Which again brings the question,why is this different then every other action movie?
As for why not WW2...well,Captain America did that already,and WB/DC didnt want to be too obvious.
American civil war?To be fair,North didnt need help there,so it would be pointless.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 25 July, 2017, 10:51:49 AM
Made me think of these scenes:

Woman on Woman:  https://youtu.be/mClOxgyWLs8

Man on Woman: https://youtu.be/Ccmava-4KnY

I have not seen that movie in quite some time so I hope these are contextually accurate.

Quote from: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
See also: every horror film since Hallowe'en and the dozens of TV shows with morgue scenes that devote 20 minutes of screen time to the blue lips and nipples of a gorgeous, naked, teenage corpse:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atjhOhH-V3E
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:24:50 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 07:30:14 AM
I'm trying to follow the logic here: some cinemas bowed to pressure groups and didn't screen a documentary celebrating the whining of the most pathetic movement humanity has yet to devise, and that justifies Rogue Earthlet making things up about a fantasy movie he hasn't even seen, or apparently even read the Wikipedia summary of? The phrase that keeps popping into my head is 'seek professional help', but I doubt there's any available that would answer.

No-one is denying the problems facing men and boys in a society that is just beginning to think about offering a level playing field to all its members, but systematically and (worse) ignorantly knocking each of the tiny handful of female-led genre movies is an absurd reaction.

Have you seen The Red Pill? Or any of the interviews with the director, Cassie Jaye, a many award winning film maker?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:30:59 PM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 July, 2017, 05:30:41 PM
QuoteIf WW killing men is entertainment, if those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

Yes.  Although for that to work as a narrative, it would need to be set during an international conflict during which the vast majority of participants were women, during an age where men were largely disenfranchised.  And for it to really work as entertainment, you'd have to market to men who continue to be underrepresented in the medium.   If you can find one of those, you should absolutely unknot your panties and write a screenplay about it.

I don't have the option of making a film, so I've written a story and drawn some pictures.
I don't deny that women have grounds for complaint, just making the point that gender bias is not totally one-sided. In cinema, since its beginning, women have been sex objects and men targets for violence, and both situations still apply.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 25 July, 2017, 11:45:56 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:30:59 PMIn cinema, since its beginning, women have been sex objects and men targets for violence, and both situations still apply.

Men are rarely sex objects, and women are also targets for violence. In case you hadn't noticed.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
Quote from: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:16:32 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJ2bZGuiaI

Martial arts fights between a heroine and a villainess occur in films every now and then. But with mass killing it's always men on the receiving end, as can be seen in this clip from the same film,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3aFv8IQb4s
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:54:07 PM
Quote from: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

See also: every horror film since Hallowe'en and the dozens of TV shows with morgue scenes that devote 20 minutes of screen time to the blue lips and nipples of a gorgeous, naked, teenage corpse:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atjhOhH-V3E

These killings aren't presented as justified.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
Quote from: Smith on 25 July, 2017, 07:16:16 AM
Which again brings the question,why is this different then every other action movie?
As for why not WW2...well,Captain America did that already,and WB/DC didnt want to be too obvious.
American civil war?To be fair,North didnt need help there,so it would be pointless.

Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings. The reason I mentioned another scenario, like the American Civil War, and I think I made this clear, is that the money to make WW would never have been made available unless there were 'safe', in Hollywood terms, villains. Germans got the role.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 26 July, 2017, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:54:07 PM
Quote from: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

See also: every horror film since Hallowe'en and the dozens of TV shows with morgue scenes that devote 20 minutes of screen time to the blue lips and nipples of a gorgeous, naked, teenage corpse:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atjhOhH-V3E

These killings aren't presented as justified.


Your original criticism concerns the killing of women as 'entertainment' which is what Frank gave you a clear example of – and the notion of 'justification' doesn't even come into most horror films. It's purely to exploit, shock and titillate.

Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 04 July, 2017, 11:36:48 PM...if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 26 July, 2017, 01:18:56 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PMHi
Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings. The reason I mentioned another scenario, like the American Civil War, and I think I made this clear, is that the money to make WW would never have been made available unless there were 'safe', in Hollywood terms, villains. Germans got the role.

Watch the film, you muppet: the Germans aren't the villains in WW.  I'm going to spoil the shit out of it here because I'm sick of your wilful ignorance: [spoiler]the war is almost over when WW arrives in England, as in the real world Germany is almost bankrupt and the Armstice is imminent. Ares, the actual villain, in the person of British War Council member Sir Patrick Morgan, works to perpetuate the war by influencing a woman, Dr Maru, aka Dr Poison, to create a lethal gas and essentially restart the war. Because of the nature of her meeting with Trevor, Diana initially believes the allies to be the goodies she should support, but a chat with a Native American commando makes her realise that the US is just as capable of evil as the Germans: freed from Ares' influence in the end, German soldiers embrace Trevor's commandos.  The conflict WW is involved in is between the Amazons and Ares, not the Allies and Germany: Diana is the 'god killer', created to stop Ares and his War, not fight Germans: that's just Ares' distraction.[/spoiler]

And I watched as much of The Red Pill as I could stomach. It's intellectually dishonest propaganda masquerading as a documentary, lacking only the visual flair of Triumph of the Will. MRA is a stain on manhood and humanity in general.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: M.I.K. on 26 July, 2017, 02:37:58 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 23 July, 2017, 11:59:45 PMI've started a Facebook page about it, here,

https://www.facebook.com/PetalPopsy-and-Pepsy-258408847972872/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

That's like a horrifying glimpse into a parallel universe in which Buttonman is Robert Crumb.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 26 July, 2017, 04:37:24 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
Quote from: Smith on 25 July, 2017, 07:16:16 AM
Which again brings the question,why is this different then every other action movie?
As for why not WW2...well,Captain America did that already,and WB/DC didnt want to be too obvious.
American civil war?To be fair,North didnt need help there,so it would be pointless.

Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings. The reason I mentioned another scenario, like the American Civil War, and I think I made this clear, is that the money to make WW would never have been made available unless there were 'safe', in Hollywood terms, villains. Germans got the role.
Im sure there were a few other countries that deserve some credit there,but thats another story...
You might have figured it out by now,but its not a documentary.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 26 July, 2017, 08:34:50 AM
Hey, its tough being a straight white male in the 21st century.  Things used to be all about me.  Now they're only 98% about me. 
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 26 July, 2017, 08:48:34 AM
It's set in "the war to end all wars" because that's central to the theme of the movie. Which again, you would know if you watched it.

Not only is your thinking backwards, your arguments are ill-informed and, most importantly, none of this will help you get laid.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 26 July, 2017, 08:52:15 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ujoyd.jpg)
Burn Heal,now sold in every Pokemart.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 26 July, 2017, 09:06:01 AM
Okay,seriously now-I don't usually feel the need to point this out but-its just a movie.No grand conspiracy behind it,other then making money.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 26 July, 2017, 09:41:09 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:54:07 PM
Quote from: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quoteif those being killed are women is it still entertaining?

See every horror film since Hallowe'en

These killings aren't presented as justified.

Neither are the killings in Wonder Woman*. Thank you for your time.


* see Tordelback's spoiler post.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 26 July, 2017, 10:24:08 AM
Quotegender bias is not totally one-sided.

No, it is not, but let's face it, you're just annoyed that Superman didn't punch more women in the face. 

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 26 July, 2017, 09:24:20 PM
I can't believe that Rogue Earthlet *still* hasn't watched this movie, this is just trolling.

However in other news, WoWo2 has been confirmed. Huzzah!


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 26 July, 2017, 01:18:56 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PMHi
Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings. The reason I mentioned another scenario, like the American Civil War, and I think I made this clear, is that the money to make WW would never have been made available unless there were 'safe', in Hollywood terms, villains. Germans got the role.

Watch the film, you muppet: the Germans aren't the villains in WW.  I'm going to spoil the shit out of it here because I'm sick of your wilful ignorance: [spoiler]the war is almost over when WW arrives in England, as in the real world Germany is almost bankrupt and the Armstice is imminent. Ares, the actual villain, in the person of British War Council member Sir Patrick Morgan, works to perpetuate the war by influencing a woman, Dr Maru, aka Dr Poison, to create a lethal gas and essentially restart the war. Because of the nature of her meeting with Trevor, Diana initially believes the allies to be the goodies she should support, but a chat with a Native American commando makes her realise that the US is just as capable of evil as the Germans: freed from Ares' influence in the end, German soldiers embrace Trevor's commandos.  The conflict WW is involved in is between the Amazons and Ares, not the Allies and Germany: Diana is the 'god killer', created to stop Ares and his War, not fight Germans: that's just Ares' distraction.[/spoiler]

And I watched as much of The Red Pill as I could stomach. It's intellectually dishonest propaganda masquerading as a documentary, lacking only the visual flair of Triumph of the Will. MRA is a stain on manhood and humanity in general.

I don't know where your comment comes from, but every review I've read, and that's many, has been totally different.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:11:15 PM
Quote from: Smith on 26 July, 2017, 09:06:01 AM
Okay,seriously now-I don't usually feel the need to point this out but-its just a movie.No grand conspiracy behind it,other then making money.

You've a good point there. All the talk from Ms Jenkins and co about it empowering girls and giving them a role model is just hype, what's called selling the sizzle not the sausage.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:12:36 PM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 26 July, 2017, 10:24:08 AM
Quotegender bias is not totally one-sided.

No, it is not, but let's face it, you're just annoyed that Superman didn't punch more women in the face.

No need for sarcasm.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 26 July, 2017, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:07:25 PM
I don't know where your comment comes from, but every review I've read, and that's many, has been totally different.

At least he tried to watch it before commenting, a lesson you might do well to learn.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 27 July, 2017, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:07:25 PM
I don't know where your comment comes from, but every review I've read, and that's many, has been totally different.

If you're referring to Wonder Woman, my comment comes from watching the film[spoiler]: the realisation that it isn't Wonder Woman + Allies=goodies Vs Germans=baddies, but rather Diana Vs War (personified in Ares, as a British toff)  is the central (if obvious) twist of the film - maybe reviewers were respecting that twist[/spoiler].

If you're referring to The Red Pill, also from watching the film, but if you want supporting comment,  the very first search result I get  on You Tube is an interview with Jaye which highlights the gormless disnigenuous crap at its heart: https://youtu.be/4vFpbjTaEYs (https://youtu.be/4vFpbjTaEYs). Apparently because victims of parental abuse can equally be male children, we need to stop blaming adult men for the (roughly) 85% of domestic violence they are responsible for, or the 50% of murdered women killed  by a current or former male partner. And on it goes.

Men are victims too, no argument, but they are still  overwhelmingly the perpetrators. Grow up and shove this contrarian bollocks.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 27 July, 2017, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:11:15 PM
Quote from: Smith on 26 July, 2017, 09:06:01 AM
Okay,seriously now-I don't usually feel the need to point this out but-its just a movie.No grand conspiracy behind it,other then making money.

You've a good point there. All the talk from Ms Jenkins and co about it empowering girls and giving them a role model is just hype, what's called selling the sizzle not the sausage.
You have failed the self awarness check.Do you wish to reroll?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 27 July, 2017, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:11:15 PMI haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts...

Watch the film instead. Much more exciting than watching trailers or reading reviews. Also much easier to form an opinion. Wether you like it or not.

I thought the film showed a war without sides. I can also add that I'm of (some) german origin, and I took no offence what so ever to the portrayal of germans in the film.

Your post got me thinking, what's your take on Indiana Jones then? That one must be quite bothersome.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 27 July, 2017, 09:25:13 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 20 July, 2017, 05:10:23 PM
I actually started reading the comic reboot and iirc when she is originally brought to Earth she is placed in a detention cell where animals bring her gifts from the other Gods including fast healing / invincibility. That might explain why she can't be hurt in our world.

Her bracelets are technically known as the Bracelets of Submission (ooh err!) and they also have an evolving history (More here if you're interested: http://www.cbr.com/wonder-womans-bracelets-15-things-you-need-to-know/)

Do we all know about her creators interest in polyamory and BDSM?

Read the N52 one by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang? Has a similar tone as the movie. More than it borrowing it's Zeus-infusion. Has some really interesting stuff on gender: Nurture vs nature stuff. The gods are great in it. Especially Ares. I like to think of it as if Jack Kirby wrote Wonder Woman.  Feels like equal parts Star Wars epic and Dark Knight Returns, with the greek pantheon written as pulpy poetry.

Another good one is Jill Thompson's Wonder Woman: The true amazon. A beautiful water painted fairytale. Great take on her origin story. There's a reason why it was recently awarded with an Eisner award.

If you want to read kink stuff, I'd suggest either Marston's or the recent Morrison stuff.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 09:58:15 AM
Actually they are the DC Universe Rebirth ones..

(http://comicsalliance.com/files/2016/08/WW-Cv4_ds.jpg?w=630&h=968&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89)

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51IQZjvtboL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

What's the difference? I'm just getting into some of the DC stuff now so I'm not sure what the story is with canon, N52 and rebirth.

Can you elaborate on your Marston / Morrison comment please? I know a Marston biography came out a year or so ago that looked into this in great detail. Is that what you meant? Also the Morrison kinky origins story sounds very similar to the history in the rebirth comics.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 27 July, 2017, 01:48:39 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 09:58:15 AM
Actually they are the DC Universe Rebirth ones..

What's the difference? I'm just getting into some of the DC stuff now so I'm not sure what the story is with canon, N52 and rebirth.

Can you elaborate on your Marston / Morrison comment please? I know a Marston biography came out a year or so ago that looked into this in great detail. Is that what you meant? Also the Morrison kinky origins story sounds very similar to the history in the rebirth comics.

New 52 where the reboot that followed the "Flashpoint" event. Takes place before "Rebirth" (which seems to be an event to merge N52 with the old time line)

Brian Azzarello redid Wonder Woman's origin by making her the daughter of Hippolyta and Zeus. In order to get her closer to the greek gods, which he put some really nice twists to. His and Cliff Chiang's run is very much a stand alone story, and can be found in Wonder Woman Volumes 1 to 6. They're also releasing it in two ABSOLUTE format books (first one is out, next one early next year).

Here's a recap of almost the whole series. I suggest you don't watch beyond 1:40 for some MAJOR spoilers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70tPEH_p0MU

Here's a write up on why it's so good
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/10/why-brian-azzarello-just-wrote-the-definitive-wond.html

Personally I think it's up there (and often above) with Morrison's Allstar Superman and Miller's Batman: Dark Knight.

Regarding kinks.

Marston had alot of things akin to this, roping and chaining up women, in his initial run of the character.

(https://robotxing.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ww_spank_wall.jpg)

Where Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang goes more into the reformation message of the character, Grant Morrison's Wonder Woman: Earth 1 goes more into the kink stuff.

(http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5774/75/original/640.jpg)
(yes, some of those amazons have been dressed up as deers and then gotten tied up.)

A good write up
http://www.avclub.com/article/wonder-woman-earth-one-returns-heroine-her-radical-234960
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
These sound amazing and right up my street, I will definitely add them to my 'to read' list.

Thanks Apestrife.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 27 July, 2017, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
These sound amazing and right up my street, I will definitely add them to my 'to read' list.

Thanks Apestrife.

No problem. Enjoy!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonder-Woman-Golden-Age-Omnibus-x/dp/1401264964/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1501165002&sr=8-8&keywords=wonder+woman+golden+age

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Wonder-Woman-Azzarello-Chiang/dp/140126848X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1501165034&sr=8-2&keywords=wonder+woman+absolute

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonder-Woman-Earth-OneTP-Vol/dp/1401268633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501165021&sr=8-1&keywords=wonder+woman+earth+1

I think it's great that she get's to have all sorts of stories recently. She can be everything from a warrior to va-va-voom. What also makes Batman work so great in my opinion, everything from darkness to dorkiness. And also Dredd when to come to think of it.

Also if you got a young one interested in the character there's "THE LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN". Basically a Disney-esque take on the character. Also Jill Thompsons "True amazon", which even has some lgbt elements and a good lesson thrown in for good measure.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 04:54:06 PM
Thank you again!

I've no kids myself but I have a niece who might be into these in a few years, maybe my nephew too. I must ask him!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 06:39:28 PM
This is the book I was referring to btw:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/11/william_moulton_marston_biography_jill_lepore_s_secret_history_of_wonder.html

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 27 July, 2017, 06:51:59 PM
Rogue Earthlet now has 2 Wonder Woman films to catch up on.

This one has a male lead who doesn't get murdered by a woman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r991pr4Fohk) for our pleasure – there may be a bit of whipping though.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 12:11:39 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 27 July, 2017, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:07:25 PM
I don't know where your comment comes from, but every review I've read, and that's many, has been totally different.

If you're referring to Wonder Woman, my comment comes from watching the film[spoiler]: the realisation that it isn't Wonder Woman + Allies=goodies Vs Germans=baddies, but rather Diana Vs War (personified in Ares, as a British toff)  is the central (if obvious) twist of the film - maybe reviewers were respecting that twist[/spoiler].

If you're referring to The Red Pill, also from watching the film, but if you want supporting comment,  the very first search result I get  on You Tube is an interview with Jaye which highlights the gormless disnigenuous crap at its heart: https://youtu.be/4vFpbjTaEYs (https://youtu.be/4vFpbjTaEYs). Apparently because victims of parental abuse can equally be male children, we need to stop blaming adult men for the (roughly) 85% of domestic violence they are responsible for, or the 50% of murdered women killed  by a current or former male partner. And on it goes.

Men are victims too, no argument, but they are still  overwhelmingly the perpetrators. Grow up and shove this contrarian bollocks.

Cassie Jaye is multiple award winning documentary maker,
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1787884/awards
She talks about what she learnt from making the Red Pill here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LqbqUMXinQ

If you watch that you'll see that, like myself, she doesn't insult others with words like 'bollocks'. Perhaps you can learn from that.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Apestrife on 27 July, 2017, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 26 July, 2017, 11:11:15 PMI haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts...

Watch the film instead. Much more exciting than watching trailers or reading reviews. Also much easier to form an opinion. Wether you like it or not.

I thought the film showed a war without sides. I can also add that I'm of (some) german origin, and I took no offence what so ever to the portrayal of germans in the film.

Your post got me thinking, what's your take on Indiana Jones then? That one must be quite bothersome.

It is.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 28 July, 2017, 08:29:16 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 12:11:39 AM
Cassie Jaye is multiple award winning documentary maker,
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1787884/awards
She talks about what she learnt from making the Red Pill here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LqbqUMXinQ

Did she learn why casualties in films depicting historical battles are overwhelmingly male? That one's a real head scratcher.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 28 July, 2017, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 12:11:39 AM
Cassie Jaye is multiple award winning documentary maker,
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1787884/awards

Yes, but none of those actually means that anything her films say is right (factually or morally). Disgraced banker Fred Goodwin got a knighthood along with many other awards.  Does that make you think he was right or good for the world?

Your argument for the film seems to be no more than "Some other people who I think are cleverer than me gave this person an award so it must be right" and you have no answer to the facts that Tordels presents.

I think it's you that needs to go off and learn something. 

If I was you, I'd start with learning what "contrarian bollocks" means because people will keep saying it about your arguments.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread so I don't understand why you keep engaging with this person.



Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 28 July, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread so I don't understand why you keep engaging with this person.

Good point. I 'm out.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 28 July, 2017, 12:22:15 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 28 July, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread so I don't understand why you keep engaging with this person.

Good point. I 'm out.

Yup.

Seems to me everyone in this thread is well aware on problems lots of men are facing. Luckily, not everyone thinks it must be debated because of an action movie that happens to have woman in the title.

Btw. If anyone's interested. Since the cat is out of the bag. I think this is a good article on the topic. Helped me help my dad get someone to talk to. https://www.vice.com/sv/article/jmbnp7/a-stiff-upper-lip-is-killing-british-men-344
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 28 July, 2017, 12:36:31 PM
One thing I'm really looking forward to is watching Man of steel : Batman v Superman Dir. Cut : Wonder Woman (Yes, I know one or two of those movies aren't everyone's favorite) in succession, in time for Justice League.

I felt Wonder Woman picked up really well where BM v SM ended. Especially the way she stole the show for me. But also some themes and the shift in tone.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 01:40:06 PM
One of the things I loved about WW was that the film did not [spoiler]depict the Germans as the bad guys[/spoiler]. They are seen as the victims of war (Ares) as much as anyone. This in a way can stand as a metaphor for the patriarchy which is equally damaging to men and women. This is something that everyone on this forum has acknowledged despite coming to that conclusion in different ways. This is a good thing because I think men have been left out of the gender discussion for too long.

WW is important because she is a strong female role model for women and men. She is represented as idealistic and flawed which both humanises and empowers her. In this regard she is treated like any other comic book hero. I love how she was depicted in BM v SM - as soon as she appears on screen they recognise her as an equal and show her the respect she deserves as an equal. Her gender is irrelevant only her ability to contribute to the group goal is important. If this is slightly more impressive because she is a woman it's only because there aren't enough women doing this on screen. We can't say that's true for comics in general because in general most comics have recurring strong female characters. Comics do, books do but tv and movies don't. Why is this?

Violence against men (which is on the rise) and men's health issues are things I feel strongly about. I'm not trying to kill any discussion here but trying to discuss in within the context of a movie that goes out of it's way to [spoiler]show men as being equally harmed by aggression and violence [/spoiler] especially with someone who hasn't seen it is derailing this thread.

That article reminded me of  this video. I'm not sure of the context of it - the who's, why's and where's but I always felt it summarised the key issues facing men in a humorous yet poignant way.

https://youtu.be/zZuL_2hUaoI
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: sheridan on 28 July, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings.


Just because it comes hot on the heels of an article about the woeful lack of credit given to Indian soldiers (not conscripts) at Dunkirk, I should point out that Britain, France and the USA were joined by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Soviet Union, China, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Korea and Yugoslavia.  No super beings though.  (and to illustrate the point about lack of credit where it's due, in my fact-checking for this reply I found a few of those who I had no idea had been involved).
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 28 July, 2017, 06:09:40 PM
Well,Serbia-Yugoslavia only came to be after WW1,but we get the point.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 28 July, 2017, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread

You've got that the wrong way round.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread so I don't understand why you keep engaging with this person.

I previously stated I'd stop posting here, but as others reply to my posts, I reply to them. Anything wrong with that?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:09:19 AM
Quote from: Apestrife on 28 July, 2017, 12:22:15 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 28 July, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
It seems clear to me that Rogue Earthlet is trolling this thread so I don't understand why you keep engaging with this person.

Good point. I 'm out.

Yup.

Seems to me everyone in this thread is well aware on problems lots of men are facing. Luckily, not everyone thinks it must be debated because of an action movie that happens to have woman in the title.

Btw. If anyone's interested. Since the cat is out of the bag. I think this is a good article on the topic. Helped me help my dad get someone to talk to. https://www.vice.com/sv/article/jmbnp7/a-stiff-upper-lip-is-killing-british-men-344

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jul/27/violent-femmes-atomic-blonde-and-hollywoods-new-wave-of-killer-women
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:20:35 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 01:40:06 PM
One of the things I loved about WW was that the film did not [spoiler]depict the Germans as the bad guys[/spoiler]. They are seen as the victims of war (Ares) as much as anyone. This in a way can stand as a metaphor for the patriarchy which is equally damaging to men and women. This is something that everyone on this forum has acknowledged despite coming to that conclusion in different ways. This is a good thing because I think men have been left out of the gender discussion for too long.


Not everyone agrees with you,

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/166119

 Wonder Woman, the Amazon warrior with the golden lasso, bullet reflecting wristbands, magical headdress, non-stop bravery, lightning-quick reflexes, enormous power and good looks, is out on the battle field again, this time in World War I. She fights for the allies against the very, very evil Germans and the God of War, too, and does it in dramatic and thrilling fashion.


That's not the only person who sees Germans as being depicted as baddies. It maybe that different people interpret this differently, but one things sure. Lots of Germans die.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:23:12 AM
Quote from: sheridan on 28 July, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings.


Just because it comes hot on the heels of an article about the woeful lack of credit given to Indian soldiers (not conscripts) at Dunkirk, I should point out that Britain, France and the USA were joined by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Soviet Union, China, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Korea and Yugoslavia.  No super beings though.  (and to illustrate the point about lack of credit where it's due, in my fact-checking for this reply I found a few of those who I had no idea had been involved).

Agreed. Soldiers from many countries who fought in WW1 and WW2 are often ignored by the media.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 29 July, 2017, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: sheridan on 28 July, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 25 July, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
Britain, France and the USA won WW1 without any help from super beings.

...I should point out that Britain, France and the USA were joined by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Soviet Union, China, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Korea and Yugoslavia.

You forgot Japan!  Shoddy.  ;)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 29 July, 2017, 12:37:51 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:20:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 29 July, 2017, 07:45:25 AM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 01:40:06 PM
One of the things I loved about WW was that the film did not [spoiler]depict the Germans as the bad guys[/spoiler]. They are seen as the victims of war (Ares) as much as anyone. This in a way can stand as a metaphor for the patriarchy which is equally damaging to men and women. This is something that everyone on this forum has acknowledged despite coming to that conclusion in different ways. This is a good thing because I think men have been left out of the gender discussion for too long.

WW is important because she is a strong female role model for women and men. She is represented as idealistic and flawed which both humanises and empowers her. In this regard she is treated like any other comic book hero. I love how she was depicted in BM v SM - as soon as she appears on screen they recognise her as an equal and show her the respect she deserves as an equal. Her gender is irrelevant only her ability to contribute to the group goal is important. If this is slightly more impressive because she is a woman it's only because there aren't enough women doing this on screen. We can't say that's true for comics in general because in general most comics have recurring strong female characters. Comics do, books do but tv and movies don't. Why is this?

If you pick up the n52 run of Wonder Woman I was talking about, I think you'll find Ares very interesting.

As for the movies. I agree. I think they did a really good job on her. Perhaps even helped thanks to the low scores of the cinema cut of Bm v Sm. She stood out more, and there weren't much coverage of the film (outside click bait negativity). Thus I think there was a lot of buzz that spread word to mouth instead. 

And as you say. In her film she earned it. I was real worried WW1 was too complex for the film maker to pull off, but I think they did a great job. There's something for anyone. Those who who want a good message or two, just wants to see a female kick ass, or how complex a conflict can be. I think alot of character stood out that way, showing how hard it was to find common ground in a war like WW1.

What I really I liked is Diana didn't only inspire, but also knew how to take a step back when needed. Which I think is quite admirable, for someone as her who was brought up as a princess and is strong like no one else. Shows that she's her own person. Also interesting when put together with Batman's battle with his trauma or Superman with his Kansas upbringing. I really like it how there are up and downs to all three of them.

Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 July, 2017, 01:40:06 PM
Violence against men (which is on the rise) and men's health issues are things I feel strongly about. I'm not trying to kill any discussion here but trying to discuss in within the context of a movie that goes out of it's way to [spoiler]show men as being equally harmed by aggression and violence [/spoiler] especially with someone who hasn't seen it is derailing this thread.

That article reminded me of  this video. I'm not sure of the context of it - the who's, why's and where's but I always felt it summarised the key issues facing men in a humorous yet poignant way.

https://youtu.be/zZuL_2hUaoI

Haha. Good one. Thoughtful as well.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 08:49:23 AM
QuoteNot everyone agrees with you,

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/166119

Wonder Woman, the Amazon warrior with the golden lasso, bullet reflecting wristbands, magical headdress, non-stop bravery, lightning-quick reflexes, enormous power and good looks, is out on the battle field again, this time in World War I. She fights for the allies against the very, very evil Germans and the God of War, too, and does it in dramatic and thrilling fashion.


That's not the only person who sees Germans as being depicted as baddies. It maybe that different people interpret this differently, but one things sure. Lots of Germans die.

Umm...irony?  A polite attempt at concealing the big twist?  The strange idea that death in war are not always justified and maybe the dead are victims here? I am impressed that you've searched so desperatly for a film review that you think agrees with your shallow views that you reached the Columbia Art College website. Same reviewer says a few paragraphs later...

QuoteScreenwriter Allan Heinberg went out of his way to have Trevor explain to Wonder Woman that wars are not all caused by one country but, over the centuries, by all countries. Somehow, some way, everybody is a villain. Politics bring out the worst in people and millions die for that, he said.

The reviewer, Mr Chadwick, a lecturer in film and history, also recommends the movie.

Watch films before you review them, read articles before you decide what they say.  Whiny red pillism plays well in plenty of dank corners of the internet, but the people here tend to not be complete wankers.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 09:28:30 AM
This may well be the most irritating thread ever.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 29 July, 2017, 09:32:41 AM
I assume you didnt see the Doctor Who thread before?   :|
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
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
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 09:53:07 AM

QuoteI assume you didnt see the Doctor Who thread before?   :|

No, but I've heard about it and am therefore an expert. 
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 29 July, 2017, 10:09:51 AM
Quote from: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 09:28:30 AM
This may well be the most irritating thread ever.

It's a microcosm of the modern world: "I have no direct knowledge of a subject, but I've found some people on the internet who say that everyone who does is part of a conspiracy to take away all the things that make me special, so I'm going to uncritically parrot their drivel until I get my way'.

See: Brexit, Trump, climate denialism, MRA, anti-vaxxers, Doctor Who...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 29 July, 2017, 12:07:37 PM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 09:53:07 AM
No, but I've heard about it and am therefore an expert.

I think we've all had enough of experts. :-)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 01:20:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 29 July, 2017, 01:27:00 PM
That would make for a very boring movie. :)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 29 July, 2017, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:20:35 AMNot everyone agrees with you


(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/615/060/058.jpg)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 29 July, 2017, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 01:20:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:34:16 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 29 July, 2017, 12:37:51 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:20:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:36:35 AM
Quote from: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:38:33 AM
Quote from: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 29 July, 2017, 01:20:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 30 July, 2017, 12:51:26 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:36:35 AMGoodness, 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.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 30 July, 2017, 08:38:17 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:38:33 AM
Quote from: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
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?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 30 July, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
QuoteIs 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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 30 July, 2017, 10:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:34:16 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 29 July, 2017, 12:37:51 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 29 July, 2017, 12:20:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 30 July, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:34:16 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 30 July, 2017, 01:33:33 PM
I imagine Rogue Earthlet must have hated Kill Bill.  ::)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Tiplodocus on 30 July, 2017, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:38:33 AM
Quote from: SIP on 29 July, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 30 July, 2017, 03:28:59 PM
And since we are on the topic of women and violence:
http://lby3.com/wir/ (http://lby3.com/wir/)
Thou,keep in mind it was several reboots ago,so some characters came back to life.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 04:11:19 PM
On the above, it's interesting having finally delved into some properly old Marvel phone books. My god, early Spider-Man is a festering pool of sexist slime. I'm about half-way through the second book and I don't think I've yet come across any women with any real agency. There are very frequent references to 'silly females' who are 'crazy'. It's just horrible.

Naturally, this comes from it being written by a bloke who grew up in the 1940s, and who by this time was, what, in his early 40s? But then once you scout around, you see the same old tropes keep on happening. John Wick: propelled back into action because his wife is killed. It's just so bloody lazy. And such attitudes infect media all over the place. Any parents who've watched Paw Patrol might recall how sole female pup Skye is small, pink, 'support', and mooned over by the other (all male) pups.

To my mind, all changes to shift the balance are a good thing, even if they sometimes don't work out creativity or financially (the latter being the case for the recent Ghostbusters, for example).

As for Wonder Woman, I haven't seen it yet, and I have little interest in DC as a whole. I tired of the previous Batman trilogy, and the Superman stuff looked dull as anything. Wonder Woman, though, at least looks a bit different, and so should make for at worst an interesting rental once it shows up. (If it wasn't for mini-IP, we'd probably have seen it at the cinema. Mrs IP was certainly very interested.)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Smith on 30 July, 2017, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 04:11:19 PM
On the above, it's interesting having finally delved into some properly old Marvel phone books. My god, early Spider-Man is a festering pool of sexist slime. I'm about half-way through the second book and I don't think I've yet come across any women with any real agency. There are very frequent references to 'silly females' who are 'crazy'. It's just horrible.

Naturally, this comes from it being written by a bloke who grew up in the 1940s, and who by this time was, what, in his early 40s? But then once you scout around, you see the same old tropes keep on happening. John Wick: propelled back into action because his wife is killed. It's just so bloody lazy. And such attitudes infect media all over the place. Any parents who've watched Paw Patrol might recall how sole female pup Skye is small, pink, 'support', and mooned over by the other (all male) pups.

To my mind, all changes to shift the balance are a good thing, even if they sometimes don't work out creativity or financially (the latter being the case for the recent Ghostbusters, for example).

As for Wonder Woman, I haven't seen it yet, and I have little interest in DC as a whole. I tired of the previous Batman trilogy, and the Superman stuff looked dull as anything. Wonder Woman, though, at least looks a bit different, and so should make for at worst an interesting rental once it shows up. (If it wasn't for mini-IP, we'd probably have seen it at the cinema. Mrs IP was certainly very interested.)
It was the 60's...
Now,for the movie,I didnt plan to go,but a friend had an extra ticket so...and honestly a found it a pretty standard origin story.Average,all in all.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 30 July, 2017, 04:38:16 PM
I think John Wick's wife died of an illness. It was the killing of his puppy that drove him over the edge.

We're definitely seeing more decent roles for women in the action genre than ever before I think.
Off the top of my head - The Hunger Games, Fury Road, Wonder Woman, Atomic Blonde (I haven't seen it but it's been getting pretty good reviews), the new Star Wars films, Valerian, Tomb Raider reboot.
Even Suicide Squad, while featuring an incredibly sexualised Harley Quinn was pretty much sold on the popularity of that character (and if last year's NYCC is anything to go by, she's become one of the most cosplayed characters of the last few years).
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Robin Low on 30 July, 2017, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 04:11:19 PMAny parents who've watched Paw Patrol might recall how sole female pup Skye is small, pink, 'support', and mooned over by the other (all male) pups.

As a parent who has watched Paw Patrol, I'll point out that there is another female pup by the name of Everest, although she is a bit lilac.

As for Skye, she gets to fly a helicopter, has her own wings in her pup pack, and directly rescues a shitload of characters from danger.

I agree that Skye's pink outfit and helicopter is lazy beyond belief, but I've found that some girls gravitate towards it no matter what you do.

The real stereotyping is in the breeds of dogs, of course. The Dalmatian is the silly, gangly twit. The Bulldog operates plant. The German Shepherd is the police dog. The mongrel makes stuff from scrap. The Husky drives a snow plough and the Dingo is a tracker. The only bit of original thinking is with the chocolate lab, but I guess someone had to operate the powerboat.

Regards,

Robin
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 30 July, 2017, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: Smith on 30 July, 2017, 01:33:33 PM
I imagine Rogue Earthlet must have hated Kill Bill.  ::)

Rogue Earthlet, could you perhaps start a new thread where you're enquired and then debate on wether you like a film or not?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 05:15:22 PM
Quote from: Smith on 30 July, 2017, 04:36:07 PMIt was the 60's...
Indeed it was. Hence my ongoing disappointment that things in some ways still haven't changed all that much an entire lifetime later.

Quote from: JamesC on 30 July, 2017, 04:38:16 PMWe're definitely seeing more decent roles for women in the action genre than ever before I think.
I agree – and that's a good thing, which should continue. But in these movies, we must also be careful to not always give them a pass if they have the 'strong female character', but broadly avoid women in other ways. (That happens weirdly often.)

Quote from: Robin Low on 30 July, 2017, 04:55:29 PMAs a parent who has watched Paw Patrol, I'll point out that...
Yes, Everest shows up in season 2, and was mostly used to boost female merchandising (so you get Skye/Everest on pink tops that say BEST FRIENDS with lots of hearts, while the boys get much more fun garb). She's also hardly ever in the show, and – just to 'rebalance' it, they then introduced two more make dogs (well, one's a robot, but referred to as a 'he').

I'd have less ire for that show if at least one of the other main dogs was female (Marshal would have been the obvious candidate, but Rubble would have been a nice one there). But it's the usual bullshit Smurfette syndrome, and as a father of a tiny person, this kind of thing increasingly makes me sick. It's bad enough in adult fare; it shouldn't exist at that age. (Helpful hint to anyone here crafting content for kids: if your gender ratio isn't 50:50, ask yourself why. Frankly, ask yourself much the same when writing for adults, too.)

(EDIT: Amusing that the thing that gets you to post, Robin, is, of all things, Paw Patrol!)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Robin Low on 30 July, 2017, 05:33:17 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 05:15:22 PM
(EDIT: Amusing that the thing that gets you to post, Robin, is, of all things, Paw Patrol!)

Well, I thought you were being a little unfair to Skye.

That said, your point about 50:50 gender ratio is so right it beggars belief that it has to be made at all. And given that gender identity is an issue far more complex than simply M/F, we've a hell of fucking way to go.

Regards,

Robin
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Steve Green on 30 July, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 04:11:19 PM
John Wick: propelled back into action because his wife is killed. It's just so bloody lazy.

His wife dies of a terminal illness and had instructions in her will to give him a puppy, which is then killed by the son of a mobster.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 30 July, 2017, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 05:15:22 PM
It's bad enough in adult fare; it shouldn't exist at that age. (Helpful hint to anyone here crafting content for kids: if your gender ratio isn't 50:50, ask yourself why. Frankly, ask yourself much the same when writing for adults, too.)

FFS IP, there you go again, subjugating creative freedom to your beta-male white knight cuck agenda.

Yes, my red-pill pals, AGENDA. The agenda of MAKING THE WORLD BETTER, the agenda I would hope your parents and education and personal introspection convinced you is your fecking job for your limited time on this earth.  Leave society in a better state than you found it, not some atomized ruin of frustrated entitlement and begrudgery. Please.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 06:22:34 PM

This thread is all about dogs now? Surreal.

Just to give Rogue Earthlet a way back into his thread, how often are Skye and Everest savagely beaten? And is it entertaining?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 08:11:38 PM
Quote from: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 06:22:34 PMJust to give Rogue Earthlet a way back into his thread, how often are Skye and Everest savagely beaten?
Never.

QuoteAnd is it entertaining?
Never. (Assuming you're referring to Paw Patrol in general, which may be the worst show in the history of television. And my wife recently noted there's a movie, just around the time mini-IP could possibly have a first cinema trip. STOP IT, WORLD. NOT FUNNY.)

Robin: Yep. And even more so for children's television. But then I've seen plenty of execs note that girls will watch shows where almost the entire cast is boys, but boys eschew shows with a 50/50 split. Which I'd suggest is a big societal problem. (Shows like Hey Duggee do a lot better. It also helps that Hey Duggee is really bloody good.)

Everyone re John Wick: Yes, I know. I got that one wrong. Probably watching the rubbish sequel recently temporarily made me forget how the much better original played out.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Steve Green on 30 July, 2017, 08:17:05 PM
John Wick 3 involves the massacre of the entire Paw Patrol.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 10:06:45 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 30 July, 2017, 08:11:38 PM
I've seen plenty of execs note that girls will watch shows where almost the entire cast is boys, but boys eschew shows with a 50/50 split.

Spooky echo of my long explanation of why execs don't green light films aimed at adult men which feature female antagonists.

Never seen Paw Patrol, but - like Rogue Earthlet - that isn't going to stop me contributing to this thread's exciting new direction. All I know about it is a friend's occasional reports on her daughter's obsession with the show.

Her infatuation seems less to do with identification and gender than adoration of them as dogs, specifically 'my Marshal'. When pressed further, she offers 'Marshal, Ryder, help Ella'. I hope this develops the discussion further.


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dudley on 30 July, 2017, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 01:10:24 PM
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.

Fast and Furious' most recent outing was with a villainess I think.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 10:40:36 PM
Quote from: Dudley on 30 July, 2017, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 01:10:24 PM
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.

Fast and Furious' most recent outing was with a villainess I think.

Interesting. Did she give The Rock a doing?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 30 July, 2017, 11:11:32 PM
You don't have to have actually seen the movie (Kill Bill) though right?

Quote from: Apestrife on 30 July, 2017, 05:14:37 PM
Rogue Earthlet, could you perhaps start a new thread where you're enquired and then debate on wether you like a film or not?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 30 July, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: Dudley on 30 July, 2017, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: Frank on 30 July, 2017, 01:10:24 PM
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.

Fast and Furious' most recent outing was with a villainess I think.


Which brings us neatly to Dredd (2012), a film where the slaughter is definitely equal-opportunities compliant and nobody went to see it, although I think it still fails the Bechdel test, so probably escapes the worst of the unternet's ire...
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 30 July, 2017, 11:22:44 PM
The movie probably doesn't pass the Bechdel test but I think that there is no argument that Judge Dredd is a feminist icon.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 30 July, 2017, 11:28:48 PM
I stand corrected:

http://bechdeltest.com/view/3532/dredd_3d/

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture/2012/10/why-dredd-3d-gets-women-comics-right

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 30 July, 2017, 11:38:31 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 30 July, 2017, 11:28:48 PM
I stand corrected:

http://bechdeltest.com/view/3532/dredd_3d/

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture/2012/10/why-dredd-3d-gets-women-comics-right

Ah, Kaplan and Ma-Ma talking about Anderson I forgot about. I also forgot that we knew Cathy's name - although we definitely don't know the Chief Judge's, so that one's out. Excuse for a re-watch!

Anyway, Ma-Ma skinning men was clearly entertainment, whereas Dredd executing Ma-Ma was obviously not.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 11:52:34 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 30 July, 2017, 12:51:26 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 12:36:35 AMGoodness, 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.

Dramas that treat violence as bad do for me. Or satire.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 30 July, 2017, 11:54:19 PM
Re: Dredd Bechdel

I just thought about it in terms of the ex prostitute criminal Ma-Ma versus the virginal lawful Anderson so that was why I didn't think it would pass the test. I think I'm due a re-watch as well.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: Modern Panther on 30 July, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
QuoteIs 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.

I think I said WW is an example and mentioned characters like Xena, Red Sonja, Hit-girl etc. Funny, I just looked at the blog of arch MRA critic David Futrelle, in which he slags off the Red Pill, which he tells us he hasn't seen. Does that make him 'whiny'?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rara Avis on 31 July, 2017, 12:06:34 AM
YES!!!!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: JamesC on 30 July, 2017, 04:38:16 PM
I think John Wick's wife died of an illness. It was the killing of his puppy that drove him over the edge.

We're definitely seeing more decent roles for women in the action genre than ever before I think.
Off the top of my head - The Hunger Games, Fury Road, Wonder Woman, Atomic Blonde (I haven't seen it but it's been getting pretty good reviews), the new Star Wars films, Valerian, Tomb Raider reboot.
Even Suicide Squad, while featuring an incredibly sexualised Harley Quinn was pretty much sold on the popularity of that character (and if last year's NYCC is anything to go by, she's become one of the most cosplayed characters of the last few years).

Expect to be told off for making a comment on a film you haven't seen. :)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JOE SOAP on 31 July, 2017, 12:13:59 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 30 July, 2017, 11:52:34 PM
Dramas that treat violence as bad do for me. Or satire.

RoboCop, Starship Troopers, even Kingsman are satires but they are also clearly made to be enjoyed as stylised bits of extreme, violent entertainment, so satire is a weak pretext to hide behind, for a purist. How do you square that?

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 31 July, 2017, 12:16:24 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 12:02:26 AMFunny, I just looked at the blog of arch MRA critic David Futrelle, in which he slags off the Red Pill, which he tells us he hasn't seen. Does that make him 'whiny'?

Yes, it would (although I haven't read the piece so I don't actually know), but Futrelle's site is heavily skewed towards irony and humorous effect, and I do know that his cited objection dates back to the film's Kickstarter and the demonstrable filth (like Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart and MR sub-Redditors) who supported it - so he couldn't possibly be expected to have seen the thing when he started objecting to it.  There's some merit in a 'if they're for it, I'm ag'in it' approach.   
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 31 July, 2017, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
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?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 31 July, 2017, 09:49:21 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 30 July, 2017, 11:38:31 PMAnyway, Ma-Ma skinning men was clearly entertainment, whereas Dredd executing Ma-Ma was obviously not.
The only bit of imbalance I found a bit weird – in the context of a deranged futuristic MC-1 – was that the gang seemed to be composed solely of blokes. (Although one might argue it's a position of power for her, and she feels they're essentially controllable cannon fodder, and doesn't want women in that position, given her own personal history.) But that http://bechdeltest.com thread sensibly discusses the movie as a whole in the context of gender, with only a few people (wrongly, in my opinion) grumbling that the interactions between women weren't meaningful.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 31 July, 2017, 12:16:24 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 12:02:26 AMFunny, I just looked at the blog of arch MRA critic David Futrelle, in which he slags off the Red Pill, which he tells us he hasn't seen. Does that make him 'whiny'?

Yes, it would (although I haven't read the piece so I don't actually know), but Futrelle's site is heavily skewed towards irony and humorous effect, and I do know that his cited objection dates back to the film's Kickstarter and the demonstrable filth (like Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart and MR sub-Redditors) who supported it - so he couldn't possibly be expected to have seen the thing when he started objecting to it.  There's some merit in a 'if they're for it, I'm ag'in it' approach.

So, 'don't comment on a film you haven't seen' is subject to exceptions?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 31 July, 2017, 11:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
So, 'don't comment on a film you haven't seen' is subject to exceptions?

There's a substantial difference between 'comment' and 'build an entirely specious argument on'.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 31 July, 2017, 11:32:38 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
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?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 31 July, 2017, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
So, 'don't comment on a film you haven't seen' is subject to exceptions?

It's not advisable under any circumstances, but much as I would run screaming from the prospect of Shia La Boeuf starring in Michael Bay's production of Michael Fleischer's script for Dredd 2, objecting to a film that hasn't been made yet because its financial backers and cheerleaders are the actual objective scum of the earth is understandable. In the way that punching people is generally wrong, but punching Nazis somehow never is.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 01 August, 2017, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 31 July, 2017, 11:04:07 PM
There's a substantial difference between 'comment' and 'build an entirely specious argument on'.

That.

Also, again. Why not just start a new thread. "Films I haven't seen, and my opinion on them." or something.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Arkwright99 on 01 August, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: JamesC on 30 July, 2017, 04:38:16 PM
...Atomic Blonde (I haven't seen it[/b] but it's been getting pretty good reviews)...
Expect to be told off for making a comment on a film you haven't seen. :)
Atomic Blonde hasn't opened in the UK yet so James can hardly be expected to have seen it already. But then you seem to have missed the vital distinction that, unlike you, James isn't commenting on a film he hasn't seen, merely mentioning that he thinks it's been getting pretty good reviews. Conversely I've seen reviews which say it's good on action (violence) but thin on story; either way that won't put me off seeing it for myself when it opens this month. Charlize Theron beating up East German spies (men) in an '80s West Berlin certainly looks like fun.

This has been a fascinating thread (despite, or because of, the red pill paranoia) and I'd like to expand it out slightly by saying that these days I much prefer to play female protagonists in action/RPG video games - there's not much that beats Jennifer Hale as Commander Shepard kicking ass in the Mass Effect Trilogy - so much so that I can hardly bring myself to play a game where the only gender choice for the protagonist is male (yes, Uncharted 4 I'm looking at you). It's such a boring, uninteresting, trope because its been done to death (because it's the patriarchal norm). Horizon Zero Dawn is a great game in its own right but its also an exceptionally great game for having such an awesome female protagonist in Aloy. Every time I start a new BioWare RPG I will, without fail, play it as a female PC first and then a male PC second time around; and then (depending on the game) alternate genders on subsequent playthroughs. Does it give me any pause for thought or concern when my female PC slaughters a ton of faceless male bandits in Dragon Age II? Nope, not one iota; no more than when my male PC does the same. I'm not sure what it says about me that I prefer to roleplay strong female characters in my video games. I do know however what it says about MRA supporters that they get their knickers in such a twist whenever women are portrayed with any kind of positive agency in media.

I genuinely don't know why (some) men have such an aversion to celebrating strong women in movies, TV, games or comics. Looking at my monthly comic purchases the vast majority feature strong female protagonists: Batwoman, Harley Quinn, Doom Patrol, Shade the Changing Girl, Black Magick, Paper Girls, WicDiv, All-New Wolverine, Gwenpool, Invincble Iron Man, Mighty Thor, Ms Marvel, Unstoppable Wasp, Beautiful Canvas, Freeway Fighter, Red Sonja, Stained, Tank Girl, The Unsound, Empty Zone, The Discipline, The Old Guard, Monstess. I think it's great that there's so many different types of stories out there but apparently it's all this diversity that's killing comics. Go figure.  ::)
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 01 August, 2017, 02:07:56 PM
Quite. And I'd like to add that we need more than just "strong female characters", which is something I've heard from many quarters. We need more female characters, period. We need more of them in crowd scenes, as both name and unnamed characters in movies, on telly, and in comics. I've mentioned here before that so often in Dredd we see only male judges pottering about the place, which seems insane in a world with Hershey as Chief Judge.

As for Marvel's shifts in that direction, the one thing that disappoints me there so far is that they haven't announced a 13-part Ms. Marvel TV show on Netflix.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Apestrife on 01 August, 2017, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 01 August, 2017, 02:07:56 PMWe need more female characters, period.

True that.

Every sort of character between Daisy Domergue to Marge Gunderson.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Rogue Earthlet on 01 August, 2017, 10:32:47 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 31 July, 2017, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 31 July, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
So, 'don't comment on a film you haven't seen' is subject to exceptions?

It's not advisable under any circumstances, but much as I would run screaming from the prospect of Shia La Boeuf starring in Michael Bay's production of Michael Fleischer's script for Dredd 2, objecting to a film that hasn't been made yet because its financial backers and cheerleaders are the actual objective scum of the earth is understandable. In the way that punching people is generally wrong, but punching Nazis somehow never is.

And honest German soldiers doing their duty?
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 01 August, 2017, 10:43:55 PM
Honestly lad, your style of argument is just impenetrable. If you have such a gigantic problem with violence in entertainment as a whole (which is a point of view) why are you picking on a film you haven't even seen, and that as a result you grossly misunderstand the plot and themes of? Why not one you have seen, and thus could speak authoratively about?

And why are you doing it all on the fan forum of a comic that prides itself on depictions of violence as entertainment? Including, I might add, multiple instances of violence against honest German soldiers.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 01 August, 2017, 10:48:20 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 01 August, 2017, 10:43:55 PM
Honestly lad, your style of argument is just impenetrable. If you have such a gigantic problem with violence in entertainment as a whole (which is a point of view) why are you picking on a film you haven't even seen, and that as a result you grossly misunderstand the plot and themes of? Why not one you have seen, and thus could speak authoratively about?

And why are you doing it all on the fan forum of a comic that prides itself on depictions of violence as entertainment? Including, I might add, multiple instances of violence against ordinary German soldiers.

I feel your pain Tordels, though I fear he's really just winding us all up and constantly stoking the fire...... I would be tempted to just let it die out.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 01 August, 2017, 10:51:37 PM
You are of course correct, Mr. P. I will do as you suggest.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: SIP on 01 August, 2017, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 01 August, 2017, 10:51:37 PM
You are of course correct, Mr. P. I will do as you suggest.

There has been so much in depth and excellent discussion and  reasoned argument on this thread that if he's refusing to acknowledge any of it by this point, he's either an immovable object or just plain winding us all up!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 02 August, 2017, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: Rogue Earthlet on 28 July, 2017, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Frank on 29 July, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
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?


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: M.I.K. on 02 August, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure what's going on in Rogue Earthlet's head, but I think these panels from the comic strip he's working on, (easily accessible from the facebook page he posted a link to earlier), may offer an insight... LINK (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO5wUJKnOIHUPXiU-dQO5yo6HzUPCxaw5CTjisrNJyePuuzfsh6nPjTCcDgxk5EWA?key=UnRDRDlUWWo4OWxHX2I0RTh6blkxN3VvcXpickZR)  (WARNING : NSFW)

...and that's why I'm not even attempting to argue with him.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 02 August, 2017, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: M.I.K. on 02 August, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
...and that's why I'm not even attempting to argue with him.

He's the new Fawstin Bosch. Don't google that.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Modern Panther on 02 August, 2017, 09:09:10 PM
Quote...and that's why I'm not even attempting to argue with him.

Well, that answers as many questions as it raises.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JamesC on 02 August, 2017, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: M.I.K. on 02 August, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure what's going on in Rogue Earthlet's head, but I think these panels from the comic strip he's working on, (easily accessible from the facebook page he posted a link to earlier), may offer an insight... LINK (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO5wUJKnOIHUPXiU-dQO5yo6HzUPCxaw5CTjisrNJyePuuzfsh6nPjTCcDgxk5EWA?key=UnRDRDlUWWo4OWxHX2I0RTh6blkxN3VvcXpickZR)  (WARNING : NSFW)

...and that's why I'm not even attempting to argue with him.

:lol: That's made my day! :lol:
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Eric Plumrose on 02 August, 2017, 10:01:54 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 August, 2017, 07:24:21 PM
He's the new Fawstin Bosch. Don't google that.

Did he ever complete THE INFIDEL? No, don't google that, either.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: TordelBack on 02 August, 2017, 10:34:34 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 02 August, 2017, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: M.I.K. on 02 August, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure what's going on in Rogue Earthlet's head, but I think these panels from the comic strip he's working on, (easily accessible from the facebook page he posted a link to earlier), may offer an insight... LINK (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO5wUJKnOIHUPXiU-dQO5yo6HzUPCxaw5CTjisrNJyePuuzfsh6nPjTCcDgxk5EWA?key=UnRDRDlUWWo4OWxHX2I0RTh6blkxN3VvcXpickZR)  (WARNING : NSFW)

...and that's why I'm not even attempting to argue with him.

:lol: That's made my day! :lol:

Mine too.  Almost crying with laughter.  I'm just going to assume that that is the intent, because it will help me sleep at night.

Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 02 August, 2017, 11:43:10 PM
It's been a long and often frustrating thread, but the punchline was totally worth it.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: IndigoPrime on 03 August, 2017, 10:10:26 AM
"6 people like this"
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Frank on 05 June, 2019, 08:57:49 PM

Unless I've misunderstood, Wonder Woman 2020 will be released in 1984:


(https://i.imgur.com/e5eMx31.png)


Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: radiator on 05 June, 2019, 09:11:24 PM
Cool poster! I like it.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Mattofthespurs on 05 June, 2019, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: radiator on 05 June, 2019, 09:11:24 PM
Cool poster! I like it.

As do I.
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: Keef Monkey on 06 June, 2019, 10:04:26 AM
That is quite the poster, I'm in!
Title: Re: Wonder Woman 2017
Post by: JayzusB.Christ on 11 June, 2019, 03:52:33 PM
I missed this thread the first time round.   I still don't know what Rogue Earthlet was trying to argue about,  but the final reveal of his own comic work was comedy gold.

I like the poster; pleasantly different from the usual dark and moody black backgrounds.  I missed the Justice League film, did she get that new costume during that one?