Wonder Woman Movie

Yeah. Pretty much all critics of the character would have preferred it if the explanation had just been "she runs around half-naked because she likes it." While I still wouldn't have been a fan (because broadly speaking, I'm usually not a fan of that kind of blatant hypersexualization), it would at least have been more intellectually honest than the explanation we got. Kojima tells us "once you learn of the reason you will feel ashamed of your words and deeds." Then we learned the reason, and the reason was BS.^note Come on - if she just needs to have skin exposed, why is she wearing ripped mesh tights and a shoulder-length glove?

Especially when that explanation isn't even consistent within the in-universe lore of the setting. Like Julep said, there was (so I hear) another character with a similar made-up condition, yet he was practically wearing a snuggie instead of walking around in a G-string.

edited 9th Sep '16 8:21:08 AM by RBluefish

You are correct. That's what I meant. She is a good example of character design and sexualization gone horribly wrong.

I doubt Kojima made up the skin respiration as a half-assed excuse for Tn A, since he's had no trouble before showing it off before without any wonky, sci-fi explanaition (Eva, Sniper Wolf, Vamp, nude Raiden, and "Naked" Snake).......Oh, and lest we forget Ishmael's asscrack.

edited 9th Sep '16 2:33:14 PM by nervmeister

Probably because back then nobody criticized him for that.

Kojima reacting with the maturity of a 7-yo would very much be in-character. Which does not make him any less of a giant when it comes to VG creation, btw.

Well, something tells me no one's going to complain about nude-as-balls NormanReedus.

In the BVS special features they made a specific point talking about the Lynda Carter version and what made her performance work is that she is wandering around in basically a bedazzled swimsuit and acts as though it is natural for her. Basically she walked around in the costume like she was dressed like anyone else. She wasn't constantly posing for the camera, sticking out her chest, butt, etc. and neither did she seem self-conscious. In fact she was trying to look strong and tough. It probably is no coincidence that both Carter and Gadot were beauty pageant winners, accustomed to walking around in skimpy attire in front of a large crowd.

If a woman is dressed in a bikini just for the posing, as happens in many comic books and video games, then it stands out as impractical. If there is genuine story or character reason for it then it feels less exploitative. I remember a debate long ago where someone was adamant that Go-Go Enslavement is fundamentally sexist and any work that uses it should be ashamed (it got bad enough that the person was labeling me as "part of the problem" for opposing their view). The truth is that when it comes to Leia in Return of the Jedi, the outfit is a humiliation factor and she gets the opportunity to take revenge on her captor. It can be seen as some degree of unironic girl power.

edited 9th Sep '16 3:10:15 PM by KJMackley

Maybe, but there is more than this which rubs me the wrong way when it comes to Leia in this movie. In the first two she mostly reads as a fighter, in fact, the first movie kind of subverts the whole "princess in the castle" idea. But in the third movie she is suddenly defining herself only over her romance and her role as leader of the rebels is very played down. Also, after two movies with her being covered up, it feels kind of gracious that they found an excuse to put her in the slave outfit, even if she strangles her capturer in the end. That she is actually Luke's sister doesn't help either, since the only reason why Luke is the one who becomes the superjedi seems to be that he is male.

The only reason Luke becomes a Jedi is because he was trained by two Jedi Masters and Leia was not. It is implied that if Luke fails, Leia could have picked up the slack anyway.

In now non-canon EU stuff Leia more or less becomes a full-fledged Jedi. I think the main reason it wasn't explored more is that it would take away from Luke-being a Jedi is his niche. If Leia could do everything he can and everything she already can, Luke becomes superfluous.

There is the fact that it feels natural, but also the fact that Gadot wears Lady Legionnaire Wear, and while it does not cover much skin, it still is a roughly functional warrior attire - a dated one, but considering WW's origins, it is entirely justified for her to wear something looking "ancient greek"

In contrast, I don't think that chainmail bikinis, catsuits, stockings, miniskirts or leotards have ever been used as functional battle outfits in history.

Also, she clearly doesn't wear stilettos. I will go one step further and say that her footwear might be the most badass part of her costume.

edited 9th Sep '16 3:35:09 PM by Julep

x5

Kind of? Context is more or less everything. As far as I recall, I don't remember the trailer oogling his body any more than the shots would naturally do (In other words, he wasn't sexualized by the camera) and we don't have much context as to WHY he'd be naked so we can't really comment on exactly what's going on.

Until the game comes out, its hard to argue anything.

Regarding Leia, those other elements are separate issues altogether. In truth they only slightly diminish a consistently active and badass female character. It's about the idea that a woman can't wear a revealing outfit at any point of the story and also be well written and badass, which is nonsense.

I would actually say that Diana's high society outfits are more revealing and distracting than her official Wonder Woman costume, because they are a Sexy Backless Outfit, shows Absolute Cleavage and are held together by thin straps. The actual Wonder Woman costume has a rather high neckline showing no cleavage, has footwear that extends to her knees, her bracelets look more like gauntlets, has a skirt of leather straps and is typically holding a sword and shield instead of being a regular ole fist fighter. Basically the only skin being shown is her shoulders, upper arms and thighs.

edited 9th Sep '16 4:09:20 PM by KJMackley

That could be on purpose though, since you're not supposed to see Diana Prince as Wonder Woman.

I'm still wondering whose going to be the villain in this movie, though. Ares?

This was kind of my point...the different issues are piling up in the third movie. On its own you can handwave them, put them together and the whole picture becomes really screwed.

edited 9th Sep '16 4:40:13 PM by Swanpride

Eh, fair enough.

edited 9th Sep '16 5:06:49 PM by nervmeister

I understand, but I'm saying I was trying to parse it down to individual elements and not the movie as a whole. Since we're talking about what women wear affecting the way they are written, I'm not sure you are opposed to Leia wearing the exact same outfit as the rest of the Endor strike team, or the long braids and burlap sack she had at the Ewok camp.

So to put it in simplest terms from what KJ Mackley is explaining: make Wonder Woman as though she was in Kill la Kill. Will she get a revealing costume? Maybe. Will she be doing some Crazy Awesome shit in every scene she is given where the amount of fanservice she has pales in comparisson to the number of Badass moments she achieced? I may have summed up the appeal to the character in that question.

And I am not speaking out of my ass here. Remember that Panty Shot she gave in Batman v. Superman? Yeah, kind of hard to miss when that moment is said to occur during the time she was kicking ass during the fight against Doomsday! But seriously, did that even happen? Cause that feels like a weirdly missed momentmoment that made me question if that really happend in the movie.

It wasn't even really a panty shot. She was knocked on her side and the camera swiveled around her as she got up on her elbows. The position she was in made the skirt hike up and her legs were slightly sprawled, which makes it seem a little provocative but it's already a fairly short skirt to start with. The focus was supposed to be on her little smirk, excited to have an enemy that actually CAN knock her on her ass.

But other than that you got my point exactly. A lot of complaints about women's wardrobe in films feel off to me because I see women wearing that kind of stuff all the time. Short shorts, belly shirts, tank tops, etc. And if movies aren't trying to be fashion trend setters then they are trying to evoke current fashion trends. That's why the most important thing is less what they wear and more if they are interesting characters and if they contribute to the story. I don't say "strong" character because that has certain connotations and it's perfectly okay if they aren't badass. And that's also why I think any complaints about Leia's portrayal in ROTJ is more minor quibbles than anything that actually breaks the film. Same with Padme in ROTS, she's a pregnant senator so having any action time would seem reckless and being helpless in the face of everything that is going on is part of the point. Giving her an action scene shooting a blaster would break that film for me.

Kevin Smith was saying there is also a certain awesome absurdity of Wonder Woman fighting with a halter top and heels and that he never understood why they made it WWI until the trailer showed her climbing out of the trench and dealing with mortar fire. It's very much like "I never knew I wanted that until you gave it to me." I think that's the mark of an innovative film.

World War I is interesting because Wonder Woman had her World War II-based origin story right around the same time as Captain America did, but Marvel beat them to the punch on that depiction in film.

World War I fits more with the tone of the DCCU, though, more brutal and with a greater feeling of futility of struggle (although this sense of futility is part of the reason why DCCU has sucked so far, but that's a separate issue. Judged by what they're going for, it's the right choice).

Well, of course the prequal has to be dark because Wonder Woman becomes jaded about humanity.

Where does the film actually state that? I assumed it was the case since people keep bringing it up, but she doesn't really seem "jaded" in BVS. As HISHE put it, she basically checked her email and fought a monster.

She says, "A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind — from a century of horrors. Man made a world where standing together is impossible."

Until a certain "red and blue bird" shows up? And they fight a monster together along with a guy dressed up like a bat?

Except the red/blue guy is not a human and he was also super jaded about mankind.

Meanwhile, the other guy dressed like a bat... LOL

Okay Batman NOW currently has his head on straight again, so there's that.

It's honestly amazing, the all loving heroine who left her home to prove that mankind is not all bad... comes to the conclusion that mankind is all bad. Especially weird since she's a warrior and should know what war does to people.

At this rate, it's only gonna be the Flash who's gonna have any form of hope. lol

edited 14th Sep '16 7:57:29 AM by NoName999

The Flash can't ever turn evil or become cynical. That's why the DCAU episode about the Justice Lords had a dead Flash be the catalyst. If Barry/Wally ever becomes evil, the world is doomed.

A) War is not all she does and B) the war she got involved with was considered to be the most pointless conflict in all of human history. In addition, some WW origins have her as being more wide-eyed about Man's World due to not experiencing it the way her mother and her people did. For instance, she wasn't born when Heracles enslaved the Amazons.

edited 14th Sep '16 8:32:03 AM by windleopard