Messages

gender 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.

[other then making money.]

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.

[the actual villain]

Hi
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.

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.

if 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.

if 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

If 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.

[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]

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?

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

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.

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.

[You now appear to be arguing that it's a bad thing to judge a film without having seen it.]

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.

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. 

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.

[shot dead by German soldiers.]

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?

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?