Follow TV Tropes
She wasn't a feminazi.
She was an unstable psychopath in shiny pants.
I'm so glad that Adriane Palicki is playing Mockingbird on AOS now, because she deserved so much more than that horrible pilot.
I didn't realize that feminazi now redirects to Straw Feminist, but the term feminazi is about describing feminists who are out to either prove female superiority or prove that men are responsible for all of society's ills. The 2011 pilot didn't go that far, but it certainly wasn't a flattering portrayal of feminism either.
I think by now, the term "feminazi" has devolved into just a generic slur against any woman who wants the same rights as men.
It depends on the context we're using it in. I will agree I usually see it ascribed to people when it's "This person disagrees with me on a social issue so I'm gonna call her something equating her leftist views with Nazism" BUT the whole militant irrational man-hating feminist thing is still very much a trope in the media.
Anything can be made into a slur when used incorrectly. A good number of "industry used" tropes on this site are used incorrectly (like MacGuffin). Some use the term "feminist" interchangeably with the feminazi definition.
Something about that sequence of words is just.....
This is pretty much what happened to the Amazons post Flashpoint. Prior to that, they were a group of women who overcame their (justified) anger over the injustices they'd faced from men to become part of the outside world. With Amazons Attack being the exception, they were mostly portrayed as people who had faults but could still be sympathized with. Which is why I'm worried about just how much of the New 52 series this movie will use.
Nicole Kidman Reportedly in Talks to Join "Wonder Woman"
I had it posted on the last page but everybody got a little preoccupied with the talk of feminazis.
More info on what the film may be about
Wonder Woman apparently started production yesterday November 10th
edited 11th Nov '15 5:17:12 AM by Halberdier17
Yeah! No way back now....
josh whedon's wonder woman script gets played out this satduary http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/11/11/watch-joss-whedons-wonder-woman-on-manhattan-beach-this-saturday/
Joss. His name is Joss Whedon. Heck, it's in the link you just posted.
edited 11th Nov '15 1:49:11 PM by alliterator
Yeah, it annoys me that people assume that because Joss Whedon worked on a Wonder Woman script that it would have been a massive blockbuster because "look at Avengers." At the time Whedon worked on Wonder Woman, it would have been a standalone film in a standalone universe. At the time the only real experience Whedon had with directing features was Serenity and despite good reviews was only mildly successful. He came in to do The Avengers after five films leading the way, and even then a lot of people agree that all it needed to be was competently done (and it was, maybe a little on the side of pretty good), which plenty of other directors could have accomplished.
I don't think it's that simple. There were plenty of parts of The Avengers' success that came from Whedon. Hulk smashing Loki. Coulson's arc. Black Widow's red ledger. It still would've made a it of money, but coming after five films still wouldn't give it staying power. So with this script it'll be interesting to see what ideas in it are distinctly Whedon's and what he did differently from the upcoming Wonder Woman film.
The point is that the movie was not dependent on Whedon's vision. Another director would have included their own personal touches that people would laud as "needed" for the movie to work. What Whedon DID bring, though, was more his name attached to the project than any of his personal touches. The headline worked really well, Avengers (again, a movie five movies in the making) will be directed by the creator of Buffy. Without that earlier legwork Whedon's Wonder Woman would probably fare about the same as Serenity.
The only reason NOW that Wonder Woman is getting the go-ahead is because it has several other movies (namely ones including Batman and Superman) before it in the pipeline. The same can be said of Guardians of the Galaxy, Suicide Squad and Ant Man.
No, Joss wasn't hired because of his name. He was hired for a variety of reasons: 1) he knew the people in charge and was able to pitch directly to them, 2) having only directed one movie beforehand (that wasn't a success), he was relatively cheap (he has stated that he earned more money from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog than he did the first Avengers), and 3) he knew how to direct a lot of people doing a lot of things.
This was, essentially, the problem with The Avengers: there were so many characters, they needed a writer and director who could make sure that none of them got lost in the shuffle. And Joss had experience with that - hell, Serenity had a total of nine characters and each one got their moment. And even with his experience, he still wasn't able to do that with The Avengers - he expressed regret that Hawkeye spent most of the film brainwashed. But he made sure that every character had a moment and it all worked out well, which isn't easy. There are plenty of directors who couldn't do that.
I think you are trying to downplay Whedon's involvement in all this for some reason. "Oh, if anyone had directed the movie, it still would have been great." There's no way of knowing that or knowing how much input he had in the film unless you somehow found a way into an alternate universe where Whedon didn't direct it and it was instead directed by, say, Uwe Boll.
edited 11th Nov '15 9:53:01 PM by alliterator
And Jon Favreau was also an early candidate to direct Avengers, are you saying he would have completely botched it?
Everything about this is theoretical. Not everything Whedon touches is a rousing success, but he has just enough clout to get things done. Serenity more or less broke even, but that was a completely original work riding off the devoted fanbase of an Acclaimed Flop. You take that existing reputation and put him in charge of a big name brand movie, you're getting maximum audience appeal.
It's a similar topic on a lot of projects. Is Michael Keaton responsible for the success of '89 Batman, or even Tim Burton? Do you honestly believe there was no one else capable of making a decent Batman film in that time and place? In fact that entire series of Batman films kind of shows that if you had a big enough brand name your lead actor is almost irrelevant.
It's really depressing the more you think about it but it is the truth. It's extremely rare when everything is lightning in a bottle, where you mess with any part of the puzzle and everything collapses.
As moviebob rightly pointed out, Whedon gave the movie some cred in the geek community, but one shouldn't forget how good Whedon is in balancing a large cast and in writing character interaction. The latter is his biggest strength.
And I think a Wonder Woman movie would have found an audience no matter who did it and when it had been released, as long as it was any good. It is Wonder Woman! She is one of the best known heroes (not just heroines, heroes) around. A movie about her had exactly the same chance to be successful as the first Superman and the first Batman movie did.
edited 12th Nov '15 12:14:14 AM by alliterator
Especially since the geek community isn't enough to make a movie a hit. You always need to reach the mainstream audience. I have a bunch of friends who are all movie fans. We are meeting from time to time for a nice little evening just watching movies on a beamer. But if I would mention the name "joss Whedon" most of them would most likely say "who? Oh, this guy who directed the Avengers?"
I actually have a funny story where I asked a (then) new friend if she had heard of Joss Whedon and she dope slapped me for asking that question. Her family has a picture of them with Nathan Fillion at a convention among their family collage.
Would Joss Whedon make Wonder Woman a hit on the same level as Avengers? That's my point, people saying "This guy made the Avengers, WB must hate themselves for not keeping him on for Wonder Woman." Whedon brought a lot to the table, being an exceptional writer and having a pre-built fanbase, but how well the hype momentum builds up to a movie is often more important than the quality of the movie itself. Both Tim Burton and Michael Keaton have had to deal with the fact their non-Batman works will never be as popular, which is sort of the point behind Birdman.
Right now Wonder Woman has some pre-built hype, which DOES make it the most optimal time for her to have her own movie. You've both already argued that Whedon's fanbase alone can't make make a movie popular.
I actually think that it is a bigger risk now than beforehand. If Dawn of Justice doesn't deliver it will impact Wonder Woman. Beforehand there would have been hype on her own merit, provided that the movie had been good, naturally.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?