BvS Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman! - Part 3

[TheFlamingCoco]

Actually, I think a "battleskirt" would do just fine. The point is that bare legs are only sexualized if that is the context given to them. I hope the film avoids such a context.

They should have Dick Grayson wear his classic green trunks, so that WW is given some company.

Exactly.

 

[DChero]

i think if we are having this discussion than execs at WB are having it too.

No executives have these discussions. This falls on the writing and production teams. Typically it's part of the story pitch, so it's typically one person's call and WB either accepts it all or declines it.

 

[charl_huntress]

It's also important to note, that across the board in comics books, they all have idealized figures and skin-tight outfits. It's apparently 'important' to have a shirtless scene in a superhero movies specifically to show their physique. Couldn't they just show their physique using a tank-top/ vest? Yeah probably. But does it make it sexier (not sexual) to have them completely topless? Yes it does. And is this for the female/ gay man gaze? I would imagine so, yes.

I agree that both men and women are idealized in the comics. I also agree that men can be made into sexual objects too. Please join us in the HC Appreciation thread...

The difference lies in the person who is objectifying or not objectifying. I'll give you an example I witnessed in real life. One attractive woman was walking down the hall and passed two men. One man nodded politely and kept it moving. The other man leered at her, and then waited until her back was turned so he could ogle her ass. One man objectified the woman, and the other didn't. So a woman can be seen as a sex object no matter what she's wearing if that is the intent on how you wish to view her.

Diana is a beautiful Amazonian, so she is supposed to be sexy, but she doesn't need to wear a bustier and bikini briefs to be made to look sexy. And arguing she could keep her "traditional" uniform because it's more historically accurate in a superhero film is...likely just another way of saying you too want ogle her ass.

Nuff said on the topic for me.

 

[roach]

No executives have these discussions. This falls on the writing and production teams. Typically it's part of the story pitch, so it's typically one persons call and WB either accepts it all or declines it.

This would be true if it was just a movie…like Pacific Rim where del Toro is the end all be all. But we are talking about a movie that is attached to a cinematic universe. Look at Marvel…Kevin Feige and the execs control the universe more than the writers and production team. It's that way to keep the tone and make sure all the moving parts link up.

 

[charl_huntress]

i think if we are having this discussion than execs at WB are having it too.

I think that is possible. I do believe there has to be some talk of how to brand Wondy as different from Superman. There has to be that talk because they've been having it about Wondy for 50 years.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I agree that both men and women are idealized in the comics. I also agree that men can be made into sexual objects too. Please join us in the HC Appreciation thread...

The difference lies in the person who is objectifying or not objectifying. I'll give you an example I witnessed in real life. One attractive woman was walking down the hall and passed two men. One man nodded politely and kept it moving. The other man leered at her, and then waited until her back was turned so he could ogle her ass. One man objectified the woman, and the other didn't. So a woman can be seen as a sex object no matter what she's wearing if that is the intent on how you wish to view her.

Diana is a beautiful Amazonian, so she is supposed to be sexy, but she doesn't need to wear a bustier and bikini briefs to be made to look sexy. And arguing she could keep her "traditional" uniform because it's more historically accurate in a superhero film is...likely just another way of saying you too want ogle her ass.

Nuff said on the topic for me.

Not necessarily. There are purists who want the briefs on Superman and Batman's costumes. There are people who want the original Wolverine outfit (okay, that isn't that bad).

So I can see people arguing for the costume she wears for most of her 70+ year run.

Though, there is historical precedent for the skirt, gladiator style or not

 

[charl_huntress]

Not necessarily. There are purists who want the briefs on Superman and Batman's costumes. There are people who want the original Wolverine outfit (okay, that isn't that bad).

So I can see people arguing for the costume she wears for most of her 70+ year run.

Though, there is historical precedent for the skirt, gladiator style or not

That's understandable. Can I ask you a question. Do you want her to fly?

 

[WarriorDreamer]

I agree that both men and women are idealized in the comics. I also agree that men can be made into sexual objects too. Please join us in the HC Appreciation thread...

The difference lies in the person who is objectifying or not objectifying. I'll give you an example I witnessed in real life. One attractive woman was walking down the hall and passed two men. One man nodded politely and kept it moving. The other man leered at her, and then waited until her back was turned so he could ogle her ass. One man objectified the woman, and the other didn't. So a woman can be seen as a sex object no matter what she's wearing if that is the intent on how you wish to view her.

Diana is a beautiful Amazonian, so she is supposed to be sexy, but she doesn't need to wear a bustier and bikini briefs to be made to look sexy. And arguing she could keep her "traditional" uniform because it's more historically accurate in a superhero film is...likely just another way of saying you too want ogle her ass.

Nuff said on the topic for me.

You know I'm surprised when I see how many times Henry has been objectified. It's a little creepy IMO. At least when I went on Imdb, on his page, women going on about what they would do to him, etc. That is seeing him as merely a tool for their satisfaction. Going off topic a little but men are just as capable of being objectified. I don't think Wondy's costume should be any sexier than Superman's or Batman's as in, it shouldn't particularity remind anyone of sex. After-all, the character of WW was never overtly sexual, she was never defined by the man she was sleeping with. Unlike many other lead female heroines.

No, I don't want her in a tiny, tight outfit to ogle her ass. I want her in an outfit which is appropriate to who she is. An empowered woman. Who is strong and 100% confident with herself physically.

Her outfit should also be appropriate for fighting too.

 

[charl_huntress]

You know I'm surprised when I see how many times Henry has been objectified. It's a little creepy IMO. At least when I went on Imdb, on his page, women going on about what they would do to him, etc. That is seeing him as merely a tool for their satisfaction. Going off topic a little but men are just as capable of being objectified. I don't think Wondy's costume should be any sexier than Superman's or Batman's as in, it shouldn't particularity remind anyone of sex. After-all, the character of WW was never overtly sexual, she was never defined by the man she was sleeping with. Unlike many other lead female heroines.

No, I don't want her in a tiny, tight outfit to ogle her ass. I want her in an outfit which is appropriate to who she is. An empowered woman. Who is strong and 100% confident with herself physically.

Her outfit should also be appropriate for fighting too.

I think I stated that quite clearly in my post, which is why I pointed out the Cavill thread because women objectify men too. Sexism can also be directed at men. We woman only have a lock on child birth, and someday that may change too...lol

However here is the thing...Wondy was drawn by men for the "pleasure" of little boys. She was not really drawn with an appropriate historical costume in mind, but with one designed in mind for the titillation of little boys. She started out being objectified; so you can scream about canon all you want, but it really doesn't hold weight. Carry on though.

 

[MrsKent26]

Respectfully, you're not "women", either. At times you seem somewhat patronising towards others of your gender. I wouldn't presume to speak for "men" on an equivalent issue. Let's just agree that we are two human beings with opposing views.

I did not say all women. I said WOMEN. I AM A WOMAN AND I THINK ITS SEXIST. Stop trying to misdirect and avoid addressing the actual issue. "Respectfully?" You aren't being respectful. At all. The only one who is patronizing is you. And yes we have opposing views. I oppose this act of sexist and you simply focus on this perception you have that I speak for all women. I am sure some women have no issue with this, but I know many that do. And being a man, you do not know what it's like to be a female that feels this way, so never mind this two humans thing.

Is this really a response to my post? What I said was that bare legs are only sexualized if they are presented as such. I agree that WW is sometimes presented as a sex object but, as I said, this happens regardless of her legwear. I certainly wouldn't want the character to be sexualized in this movie, but feel that she could be presented quite respectfully in her traditional costume.

She would not be presented "respectfully" in her traditional costume because that costume was invented for men to stare and ogle. That is its function and as long as it exists that will be its function. And I never said she needed pants. She just needs to be less naked. The same warrior vibe could be achieved with more clothes, so why not have them? Oh, because the menz needs their boobiez!

...huh? Is any of this real? WW's mythic origin is one of the core aspects of her character. It is a bit disingenuous to write it off merely because it facilitates certain types of legwear.

Did I say to write it off completely? NO. Again, you're twisting what I said so you have an excuse to write me off as a hysterical idiot. She can have her origin and culture and even still dress like a warrior. There are many examples in this thread of costumes that fit her culture but aren't so skimpy.

?

I had to read your post and discover what you considered sexist in order to apply some gentle mockery to it. I don't entirely disagree with your position, but feel you often misdirect your indignation.

There is no need for gentle mockery in this discussion because that mockery itself indicates that you either didn't read what I said or didn't understand it. As you probably noticed, I get upset about this because although it seems like a small thing to some, to me it's a larger cultural issue. I don't misdirect anything because I live life as a female daily and know what things like this cost me in the end. Did you know that this Halloween, for example, I thought I was gonna dress up for once, for old times sake. I went to the store (a major drug store chain) and looked for a costume. And all the female costumes there were "sexy angel" and "sexy devil" and "sexy fairy," etc. Then male costumes? Superman, Batman, alien, zombie...etc. And before you go on about how I'm speaking for other people AGAIN, please note that I'm aware this isn't always the case and I don't look down on women who wear these things if they please. But there should be choice for crying out loud!

 

[MrsKent26]

Exactly.

Wow, where is that bottom one from? I think that's beautiful. And it fits her origins. And I think it's still sexy and alluring, but not offensive. I would be ok with a battle skirt or pants or even something like this. And this would look great next to other warriors, as shown here.

 

[DChero]

Wow, where is that bottom one from? I think that's beautiful. And it fits her origins. And I think it's still sexy and alluring, but not offensive. I would be ok with a battle skirt or pants or even something like this. And this would look great next to other warriors, as shown here.

I like it too. It's pretty close to Sif, but with a traditional Wonder Woman color scheme I can see it working well.

 

[MrsKent26]

Yeah, they could give it a blue and red color scheme and it would be fantastic. I even kinda like her having a shield, although she probably doesn't need one.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Yep someone here made adjustments to the sif suit.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Issues I see...
1) Origin is convoluted…clay statue brought to life, amazon, demi god?
2) Mission is not clear…she's here to spread love by punching people?
3) No one can agree on powers…should she fly or shouldn't she?
4) Costume…put her in the classic costume and it appears sexist…change the costume and fans will cry of disrespect of character.

If those are the only issues then half these superheroes never shouldve been adapted. How many times has Krypton changed? Clark lose a parent?

She is an amazon, no matter what her origin is, clay or demi god.

Her mission they can go into further if they want, but it is easier to have her come to mans world to save it from itself.

To fly or not to fly isnt that hard of an issue, just choose one. I doubt they sit around pondering if Superman should have super breath or no super breath?

And the costume is laughable, they are not worried about no backlash. Batmans outfit changed from the comics, they changed Supermans outfit from the comics, those did not stop anyone from not pursuing the character.

It is just excuse after excuse when other heroes have gone through just as many if not more extreme changes than WW.

 

[badgrammar]

I would prefer if Gadot didn't get that big.

If you're an adult male... then your body probably produces 0 percent testosterone. She doesn't even look that big in that manip

 

[jaymes_e06]

If you're an adult male... then your body probably produces 0 percent testosterone. She doesn't even look that big in that manip

What was the use in insulting teagone?

 

[MrsKent26]

You know I'm surprised when I see how many times Henry has been objectified. It's a little creepy IMO. At least when I went on Imdb, on his page, women going on about what they would do to him, etc. That is seeing him as merely a tool for their satisfaction. Going off topic a little but men are just as capable of being objectified. I don't think Wondy's costume should be any sexier than Superman's or Batman's as in, it shouldn't particularity remind anyone of sex. After-all, the character of WW was never overtly sexual, she was never defined by the man she was sleeping with. Unlike many other lead female heroines.

No, I don't want her in a tiny, tight outfit to ogle her ass. I want her in an outfit which is appropriate to who she is. An empowered woman. Who is strong and 100% confident with herself physically.

Her outfit should also be appropriate for fighting too.

Good Grief. First of all, yes, women look at and ogle Henry. But neither him, nor his character is being specifically designed for women to ogle. Snyder said himself that his shirtless scene was put in there so people (fanboys who complained he wasn't big enough) could see that his muscles were real. Watch the special features on the blu-ray. He says exactly that. Sure, women still enjoy it though. But it's not comparable to what women go through. Women still make less money, on average, then men do. In some countries, they can't even drive. Women are called ****s and ****es and things like that. There isn't even a male equivalent for the word "****." Do men get groped on the bus/subway as often as women? Are they raped as often? And if they are, how many times is the perpetrator another male? It's all part of what's called "rape culture."

And what are the implications for Henry with all this ogling the poor lad gets? Nothing. That's the answer. He gets more money and more fame. He can still portray an actual character and not an object. There are implications for women portrayed like this. One of the major ones is that they are sexual objects in most roles. And that female viewers have to see this over and over. And some males think this is the norm and ok. So yes, both males and females can be objectified, but the implications are very, very different. There is the act of looking at and enjoying an attractive person from a distance and then there is the act of creating a female character for men to ogle in a society that often treats women as objects and victimizes them as a result of this culture.

 

[TheBat812]

To me her costume is 100% contingent on the background of her kind in the film. Do they live in very warm climates? Then probably won't wear pants. Does she fly? Is she impervious to cold? Etc

What kind of culture they have will dictate her attire. Even if it isn't discussed in the film, I guarantee the costume designer will want th answers to there questions and they will be explored.

As to the sexism, I totally see mrskents point that it was originally conceived in a more or less male oriented society. But it's probably not as black and white as anybody's saying. The original design likely had pieces taken from historical design and modern (at the time) sensibilities where sexism and objectification of women WAS rampant. Context is important.

I don't find the use of showing more skin as automatically objectifying her tho, as many ancient rural and tribal cultures from warm areas like the amazon wore very little clothing. In fact if that were the actual basis, her traditional costume might be too much clothing!

As long as it seems warranted for the culture she seems to come from, I'm fine with whatever they do. I have no personal attachment to WWs classic costume.

 

[DChero]

To me her costume is 100% contingent on the background of her kind in the film. Do they live in very warm climates? Then probably won't wear pants. Does she fly? Is she impervious to cold? Etc

What kind of culture they have will dictate her attire. Even if it isn't discussed in the film, I guarantee the costume designer will want th answers to there questions and they will be explored.

As to the sexism, I totally see mrskents point that it was originally conceived in a more or less male oriented society. But it's probably not as black and white as anybody's saying. The original design likely had pieces taken from historical design and modern (at the time) sensibilities where sexism and objectification of women WAS rampant. Context is important.

I don't find the use of showing more skin as automatically objectifying her tho, as many ancient rural and tribal cultures from warm areas like the amazon wore very little clothing. In fact if that were the actual basis, her traditional costume might be too much clothing!

As long as it seems warranted for the culture she seems to come from, I'm fine with whatever they do. I have no personal attachment to WWs classic costume.

I think that you're right. WB has been pushing for more gritty and grounded movies for their DC characters and that usually means that they encourage explanations for things like this. The exceptions being flight and heat-vision, heh.

 

[WarriorDreamer]

Good Grief. First of all, yes, women look at and ogle Henry. But neither him, nor his character is being specifically designed for women to ogle. Snyder said himself that his shirtless scene was put in there so people (fanboys who complained he wasn't big enough) could see that his muscles were real. Watch the special features on the blu-ray. He says exactly that. Sure, women still enjoy it though. But it's not comparable to what women go through. Women still make less money, on average, then men do. In some countries, they can't even drive. Women are called ****s and ****es and things like that. There isn't even a male equivalent for the word "****." Do men get groped on the bus/subway as often as women? Are they raped as often? And if they are, how many times is the perpetrator another male? It's all part of what's called "rape culture."

And what are the implications for Henry with all this ogling the poor lad gets? Nothing. That's the answer. He gets more money and more fame. He can still portray an actual character and not an object. There are implications for women portrayed like this. One of the major ones is that they are sexual objects in most roles. And that female viewers have to see this over and over. And some males think this is the norm and ok. So yes, both males and females can be objectified, but the implications are very, very different. There is the act of looking at and enjoying an attractive person from a distance and then there is the act of creating a female character for men to ogle in a society that often treats women as objects and victimizes them as a result of this culture.

Well in my experience apparently men are more visual or sexual creatures, as in, they are attracted to, or pleased by, a very attractive woman or a woman showing some skin. It's just the way they're built. No-one can mess with biology. Women on the other hand, are attracted or pleased by how a man is, decent, funny, etc as well as money. It's interesting that many male led films are about how a man can get money or mans struggle for it and there's almost always a funny male sidekick. But with female lead films it's normally about how to be beautiful and romantically available for a man. So it's interesting that Hollywood as a whole in general basically teaches people how to be attractive to the opposite sex.

I love it whenever there's a film or an idea which basically opposes that. Wonder Woman is a very domineering woman, she is very in charge and physically strong. She is an icon for female physical strength and female fitness. Just like men who pose on Men's fitness magazines topless, she shows her fitness in her outfit. She isn't about how to be romantically available, but how to be physically strong and in control of your environment.

But she is not attractive in the traditional sense, in terms of a romantically available. Men don't want to be domineered. But she still has to be appealing.

I think this outfit is perfectly fine for WW. No more, no less.

 

[MrsKent26]

^^^ I like that outfit too. There are a number of ways they could make a less revealing, but still sexy outfit for her that is also in line with her origins. There is a way to make her appeal to men and women. And a character that appeals to both sexes makes money.

 

[regwec]

You don't find the skin-tight leggings to be sexist?

 

[jaymes_e06]

Well in my experience apparently men are more visual or sexual creatures, as in, they are attracted to, or pleased by, a very attractive woman or a woman showing some skin. It's just the way they're built. No-one can mess with biology. Women on the other hand, are attracted or pleased by how a man is, decent, funny, etc as well as money. It's interesting that many male led films are about how a man can get money or mans struggle for it and there's almost always a funny male sidekick. But with female lead films it's normally about how to be beautiful and romantically available for a man. So it's interesting that Hollywood as a whole in general basically teaches people how to be attractive to the opposite sex.

I love it whenever there's a film or an idea which basically opposes that. Wonder Woman is a very domineering woman, she is very in charge and physically strong. She is an icon for female physical strength and female fitness. Just like men who pose on Men's fitness magazines topless, she shows her fitness in her outfit. She isn't about how to be romantically available, but how to be physically strong and in control of your environment.

But she is not attractive in the traditional sense, in terms of a romantically available. Men don't want to be domineered. But she still has to be appealing.

I think this outfit is perfectly fine for WW. No more, no less.

A combo of these two would be nice.

 

[DChero]

You don't find the skin-tight leggings to be sexist?

About as sexist as Cavill's cod piece. t: