Wonder Woman Thread Reborn! - - - - - - - - Part 17

[DrCosmic]

How does this picture not resolve this argument? Does being in love suddenly alter your clothing so that your battle armor works like a bikini top? Seriously? And we're not calling it bad drawing, we're calling it... what? I call it Getouttahere.

And do we run it the opposite way? Does superman's physique and costume change when he's in love? lol!! Do we get shots of his butt and a bulging codpeice for dramatic emphasis... ever? So how do we compare men having idealized physiques with women's also idealized physiques being exposed and positioned to sell sex? Because when the Basuit got nipples and we got butt shots of Batman, everyone lost their fracking minds, but they did it on Batgirl's suit and everyone's like 'hmmm... maybe it was worth it.' Tis not the same.

This is why I stopped liking the classic costume and now they're doing it with her new one. I almost had respect for DC on this issue. If the Gadot's WW keeps up this trend, then all her movie will be good for is porn spoofs and superheroine fetishists.

 

[jaymes_e06]

So, just drop a character in randomly who has a vast chunk of fantasy world-building connected with them? You *really* think that would work for the GA?

Even if you skipped over the tournament ( which you shouldn't, its one of the better origin stories ), you more or less have to spend a movie introducing Themiscyra, the Amazons, and the Greek Gods. If your going to do that, might as well have the tournament, too.

And yes, its the tournament that is her "origin story", not the "made from clay and magic." An origin story is not "how someone gets their powers", its "how someone becomes a hero."

No it is all of the above just like Superman's origin is not just him showing up at the crystal cave and training with Zod. It is also when he is first crash landed on Earth.

 

[The Guard]

I said that because you always seem to show up to discredit any issues related to sexism, rape culture, "the friend zone" etc. You're often somewhat blunt about it too. I wasn't just remarking on your post today. It seems like you have something against women's issues. That's why I said it's a hot button for you. You seem to rush in to discredit it whenever it's brought up and not just by me. However, if you're denying that, fine. I'll take your word for it. I apologize for that remark only. I guess I misjudged you.

Always what now? I honestly have no idea why you would think this. I think maybe you have me confused with someone else, or else are completely misinterpreting my arguments/statements about said topics. While it's true that I often play devil's advocate, I have never, to the best of my knowledge, sought to outright "discredit" any of the issues that you speak of, at least in the general sense. Perhaps in a specific context.

The comparison is apt. She's drawn to have the generic "sexy" physique, like what porn stars try to have. All CB women are. It's not cheap or saying any more than what it says. She's drawn with huge boobs, tiny waist, round butt. Many porn stars either do look that way or try to because many folks find that sexy. You can dislike that comparison, but it is accurate.

I dislike it because instead of saying "She is drawn to look sexy" you say "Drawn like a porn star", which tends to have a negative connotation. Implying that it is somehow negative to have this physique by rote.

There are plenty of women with big breasts, "tiny" waists and round butts who are not porn stars. Who are everyday women. Athletes, or otherwise. And porn stars don't all look like you describe, either.

Which is part of the reason why I said I found it a cheap generalization.

Sure other women have that physique that aren't porn stars. But porn stars do too and are known for it. CB women are also known for this. Hence: appropriate comparison. Was it meant to be a positive association? No. But that's only because I think everything has it's place. I don't think porn is always bad and seedy or that people involved in it are. I just don't think CB women need to be drawn like that all the time. That's why I used it in a negative way. Main stream comics aren't the place for this type of imagery, or least they shouldn't be anymore. It's time to realize that maybe people would still read comics if the "sexy" factor in these female characters was toned down a bit.

Fair enough.

Interestingly enough, I think it runs both ways.

It's not just female characters. Male characters, while not showing quite as much skin (Hawkman, J'onn J'onnz and the Golden Age Robin aside), largely suffer from the same thing.

Would you say that male heroes should stop being depicted as muscular and handsome, with ribbed abs and big chest muscles, etc, simply because a lot of male porn stars are also in that vein, or because this is what is considered a "sexy" portrayal of a man?

Of course it's a hot button issue for me. I've never denied it. It's frustrating to be a female comic fan because of these issues. It's even more frustrating when men try to brush it away. I won't quit bringing it up either, because I believe it is wrong and it doesn't help when people just take it and be silent.

I'm not brushing it away, but when you post a picture of two people flying together in a romantic scene and try to use that image to suit an argument about oversexualized characters because she has decent-sized breasts and is showing some skin...I think that's reaching a bit. There are plenty of actually highly sexualized images you could have chosen. Images where her chest and butt are thrust out, where she's in prone positions, etc.

Something like this seems pretty innocent.

Women in comics are drawn in various overtly sexy outfits with very similar exaggerated and idealized physiques. The combination of the two leads them to have very sexualized appearances that are designed to sell comics. The goal of selling sex and the combination of "sexy" physiques and "sexy" outfits is similar to what is used for porn stars. And if you don't like the porn star comparison, fine. That doesn't change the fact that women in comics are overly sexualized at all.

I never said they weren't. Only implied that this picture wasn't the best example of it.

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm not brushing it away, but when you post a picture of two people flying together in a romantic scene and try to use that image to suit an argument about oversexualized characters because she has decent-sized breasts and is showing some skin...I think that's reaching a bit. There are plenty of actually highly sexualized images you could have chosen. Images where her chest and butt are thrust out, where she's in prone positions, etc.

Something like this seems pretty innocent.



I never said they weren't. Only implied that this picture wasn't the best example of it.

You are attempting to minimize an issue that should not be minimized. Look at how cliff Chiang draws wonder woman and how that artist drew her. Actually look and realize there are key differences. If this is your version of "showing some skin," I'd hate to see what your version of "scantily clad" is. Another poster said it very well (Thank you DrCosmic for seeing what is obvious):

How does this picture not resolve this argument? Does being in love suddenly alter your clothing so that your battle armor works like a bikini top? Seriously? And we're not calling it bad drawing, we're calling it... what? I call it Getouttahere.

And do we run it the opposite way? Does superman's physique and costume change when he's in love? lol!! Do we get shots of his butt and a bulging codpeice for dramatic emphasis... ever? So how do we compare men having idealized physiques with women's also idealized physiques being exposed and positioned to sell sex? Because when the Basuit got nipples and we got butt shots of Batman, everyone lost their fracking minds, but they did it on Batgirl's suit and everyone's like 'hmmm... maybe it was worth it.' Tis not the same.

This is why I stopped liking the classic costume and now they're doing it with her new one. I almost had respect for DC on this issue. If the Gadot's WW keeps up this trend, then all her movie will be good for is porn spoofs and superheroine fetishists.

 

[Mad Ones]

Every time I see The Guard post it's in some kind of heated debate. You only take the side that comic books don't portray women problematically unless you're seeking out an argument for the sake of arguing.

 

[Invader34]

The one thing that intrigues me about these two upcoming movies is how to they explain these new characters. How will they be introduced.

I've been thinking the same thing. For BvS I don't see Batman being a problem but WW might get shorted a bit character wise if they don't show any Themyscira stuff, at least some quick flashbacks hopefully. The JL movie is the big question for me, how do you intro 3 or 4 big name characters and maybe even a major villain without properly showing who, what, and why they are who they are? Then there's the question of what were they all doing during the Zod invasion. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

[MrsKent26]

Every time I see The Guard post it's in some kind of heated debate. You only take the side that comic books don't portray women problematically unless you're seeking out an argument for the same of arguing.

Exactly. Women in comics are clearly portrayed problematically and WW is included in that. "She's only showing some skin." Oh come on now. Can anyone really say that about a character that runs around in a (very low cut, strapless) swimsuit all the time?

 

[The Guard]

Every time I see The Guard post it's in some kind of heated debate. You only take the side that comic books don't portray women problematically unless you're seeking out an argument for the same of arguing.

I never said that comic books don't portray women problematically.

I believe comics portray BOTH sexes problematically in some fashion.

 

[The Guard]

You are attempting to minimize an issue that should not be minimized. Look at how cliff Chiang draws wonder woman and how that artist drew her. Actually look and realize there are key differences. If this is your version of "showing some skin," I'd hate to see what your version of "scantily clad" is. Another poster said it very well (Thank you DrCosmic for seeing what is obvious):

How is my statement about a single picture not being remotely as bad a "sexualization" of a character as another image might be somehow me actually minimizing the overall issue itself?

I am well aware that there are different portrayals of Wonder Woman, and that some artists draw a more reserved female figure than others do.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdbyfdLwjx1qbujox.jpg

Cliff Chiang tends to draw less exaggerated figures period, both men and women, than many artists do. So naturally, his Diana is going to be less exaggerated, and "comic booky", for lack of a better term.

But Cliff Chiang still draws Diana as an attractive, athletic woman. She is trim, muscular, has mostly exposed legs, shoulders, arms, and yes, the bustier is still there. And her breasts aren't as big, but they're still there in the bustier, and you can still see them and their outline. She's arguably showing almost as much skin as many other interpretations. She still has a quasi hourglass type figure, with a trim waist and curves. She still "poses" quite often, and there are views of her butt, legs, etc, albeit not as obvious as some artists have done.

Are going to argue that drawing a female character with slightly bigger breasts than average and more curves is a bad thing just...because?

Because the only thing separating Chang's Wonder Woman from many other interpretations of the character is pretty much that. The height of the bustier and the overall art style. I think that's a slippery slope if you're going to try to make that argument.

I dunno, the exposed skin thing just doesn't bother me that much. Partially because of traditional comics depictions and partially because I've gone to a prom or a fancy dress ball, or to the beach, or to the theatre, and I often see women showing just as much skin. Wonder Woman dresses a little scantily in her classic costume, absolutely. She's in a superhero outfit that was more or less designed for a female superhero circa 1940. Is it dated? Absolutely. Is it the kind of thing that looks practical? Nope. Can it be improved upon? Sure? Does it's very existence equal "oversexualized"? I don't think so.

 

[MrsKent26]

How is my statement about a single picture not being remotely as bad a "sexualization" of a character as another image might be somehow me actually minimizing the overall issue itself?

I am well aware that there are different portrayals of Wonder Woman, and that some artists draw a more reserved female figure than others do.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdbyfdLwjx1qbujox.jpg

Cliff Chiang tends to draw less exaggerated figures period, both men and women, than many artists do. So naturally, his Diana is going to be less exaggerated, and "comic booky", for lack of a better term.

But Cliff Chiang still draws Diana as an attractive, athletic woman. She is trim, muscular, has mostly exposed legs, shoulders, arms, and yes, the bustier is still there. And her breasts aren't as big, but they're still there in the bustier, and you can still see them and their outline. She's arguably showing almost as much skin as many other interpretations. She still has a quasi hourglass type figure, with a trim waist and curves. She still "poses" quite often, and there are views of her butt, legs, etc, albeit not as obvious as some artists have done.

Are you seriously going to argue that drawing a female character with slightly bigger breasts than average and more curves is a bad thing just...because?

Because the only thing separating Chang's Wonder Woman from many other interpretations of the character is pretty much that. The height of the bustier and the overall art style. I think that's a slippery slope if you're going to try to make that argument.

I dunno, the skin thing just doesn't bother me. I go to a prom or a fancy dress ball, or to the beach, and I see women showing just as much skin. Wonder Woman dresses a little scantily in her classic costume. But let's not act like she's in a thong and lingerie. She's in a superhero outfit that was more or less designed for a female superhero circa 1940. Is it dated? Absolutely. Is it the kind of thing that looks practical? Nope. Can it be improved upon? Sure? Does it's very existence equal "oversexualized"? I don't think so.

I will try one more time:

NO, it is not just about bust size.

What leads to an "over-sexualized" image are factors such as:

"sexy" outfit: this could be something small (like WW's swimsuit), something tight, something that shows key "sexy" body parts, or a combo of all of these.

Exaggerated physique: I've already discussed what this is.

Poses: Bend over, pin-up poses. Poses designed to show off the body

The way some artists draw WW involves all of these (But it doesn't have to involve all of them). The image of WW with superman I posted features the first two of these things. It could be argued that it features the third as well because that lean over pose she's doing is pretty optimal for cleavage viewing, but I'd say it features the first two for sure.

It's not as simple as big boobs = over-sexualized. It's big boobs, tiny costume, pin-up pose.

Also, an image doesn't have to be "as bad" as some images to be part of the problem.

This is a clear post. If you still don't get it, you must just be wanting to argue and I won't be bothering with it anymore. Other posters understand the problem clearly (thanks again DrCosmic). It's almost like you're playing ignorant on purpose.

 

[Boy Scout]

After just skimming through the last two pages, I can understand why the studio wants to take their time with a Wonder Woman movie. Some of you are going to over analyze the **** out of it. Perhaps rightfully so, but damn.

 

[MrsKent26]

The costume issue isn't that hard to fix.

I wouldn't have her in sandals, but otherwise, this is perfection. This image gets bonus points for no sexy poses either.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

That is a great design, and one that variations no have been drawn by fanartists for ages. Wonder Woman's design is not that hard to get right. Have her wear a Greek inspired costume that is reflective of both her superheroism, as well as her origin. Yet DC always, always redesign her in the oddest ways which don't represent her character the way Batman and Superman's designs do.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

The majority of creators and readers of comic books are male. We are pigs. Everyone should know that by now. t:

 

[MrsKent26]

I don't think all men are pigs.

In fact, I do think companies like DC comics should give men more credit. I refuse to believe that most men would quit buying Wonder woman comics if she was drawn reasonably (in a style like Chiang's) with a costume like the one I posted just a couple posts above this one.

As Two-Face=Badass said above, most redesigns for her costume haven't been that good. They mess it up by adding a jacket that doesn't match or something. It seems that if people don't embrace costume changes, they automatically assume it's because people won't accept her in anything but the swimsuit. "Oh, folks didn't take to our pants and leather jacket look, it must mean she needs her bustier and panty look back!" Ummm, no. It means they don't like that particular look. I wouldn't put it past them to blame a costume change for a dip in sales without considering other factors, like the writing and story-lines.

I find it hard to believe that people would riot against a look like the one I just posted. I refuse to believe that the majority of men wouldn't read WW unless she's scantily clad and sexed-up, but apparently DC thinks this is the case.

 

[Loki882]

I think that it's more about "tradition." Yes, a lot of fans do whine and complain like mad if WW wears anything other than her "traditional" costume. Or "iconic" that word is thrown around a lot to describe the "bustier and panties" look. I've witnessed this phenomenon first-hand, an it isn't pretty.

 

[Steamteck]

The costume issue isn't that hard to fix.

I wouldn't have her in sandals, but otherwise, this is perfection. This image gets bonus points for no sexy poses either.

If that counts as not sexy. I'm good with not sexy from a guy who likes beautiful women sort of way. I could definitely go with something like that. ( Although I actually like the sandals) It adds to the hint of classic Greek mythology tie ins


In fact , if that's good for you. I'm not sure why you're getting so much flack. Following this thread, one could get the impression people wanted Diana in a Burka or something. This even seems to be close enough to traditional to not be a problem. Certainly easily as close as other Superhero outfits we've seen.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't think all men are pigs.

In fact, I do think companies like DC comics should give men more credit. I refuse to believe that most men would quit buying Wonder woman comics if she was drawn reasonably (in a style like Chiang's) with a costume like the one I posted just a couple posts above this one.

As Two-Face=Badass said above, most redesigns for her costume haven't been that good. They mess it up by adding a jacket that doesn't match or something. It seems that if people don't embrace costume changes, they automatically assume it's because people won't accept her in anything but the swimsuit. "Oh, folks didn't take to our pants and leather jacket look, it must mean she needs her bustier and panty look back!" Ummm, no. It means they don't like that particular look. I wouldn't put it past them to blame a costume change for a dip in sales without considering other factors, like the writing and story-lines.

I find it hard to believe that people would riot against a look like the one I just posted. I refuse to believe that the majority of men wouldn't read WW unless she's scantily clad and sexed-up, but apparently DC thinks this is the case.

Sadly, I suspect there would be a drop in sales if they down-sexed the artwork. Its not that all men are pigs, so much that years and years of often pretty dire creative decision-making have filtered the comic reading audience heavily. Its not just a matter of artwork; look how comics that actually used to get fairly strong female readership got treated.

So, I would not be surprised that sexist pigs leering at half-naked superheroines are a non-trivial percentage of the remaining comic readership. . . because so much of everyone else has left already.

 

[DrCosmic]

While they are a significant part of the remaining leadership, guys who prefer their women scantily clad don't tend to be the type to identify with women and enjoy them as lead characters. That's why WW's best solo book sales have been when there was a de-emphasis of her breasts and an emphasis on her character.

 

[mace1]

It's truely shocking. Shazam before WW shocking.

Well Shazam has been around longer and had some tv shows too and his own cartoon series.

 

[DrCosmic]

And still nowhere near the recognition that Wondy has. Shazam is all that mystical neo-Hellenistic stuff too. It seems like the only thing that separates Wondy from characters who are getting films is that she's a female character. That's more than a bit sad.

 

[metaphysician]

And still nowhere near the recognition that Wondy has. Shazam is all that mystical neo-Hellenistic stuff too. It seems like the only thing that separates Wondy from characters who are getting films is that she's a female character. That's more than a bit sad.

I'd argue with you, but honestly, I believe the same thing. Its WB's deeply fearful nature of their DC stable + Hollywood distrust of female-led movies.

 

[mace1]

Looks like DC/WB WILL BE GOING THIS WAY TOO,so i don't think there will be a wonder woman solo movie.
If wb/dc makes one, wonder woman might be the only one or at least the only one for along time for along time, but i think they will go the marvel way,like it or not.




Kevin Feige Says Marvel has No Firm Plans for a Female Superhero Movie

Published 1 month ago by H. Shaw-Williams , Updated March 18th, 2014 at 5:36 pm,

While the Marvel movies so far have boasted some diversity among their supporting casts, the standalone titles in the franchise have so far stuck to white male protagonists: Bruce Banner, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor and – coming next year – Hank Pym and Scott Lang in Ant-Man. Marvel’s planned Doctor Strange movie would also introduce another white male superhero (barring any gender- or race-bending casting choices) to the roster, but there are still no standalone superhero movies that break that mold in sight.



It’s somewhat surprising for a studio that’s known for taking bold risks; this summer’s release of Guardians of the Galaxy, for example, will feature a team-up that includes a talking alien raccoon and an anthropomorphic tree. It’s notable, however, that the Guardians’ only white male team member, Star Lord, heavily dominated the movie’s first trailer.



Speaking at a press junket for Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel’s President of Production Kevin Feige was quizzed by Badass Digest on the lack of diversity in the studio’s past and announced standalone titles. Feige recently responded to questions about a standalone Black Widow movie by saying that Marvel has “various outlines and ideas” for such a thing.




However, in his response to a related question posed by Badass Digest, he seems a lot more cautious about the idea:

“I think [Black Widow] has a central leading role in [Captain America: The Winter Soldier]. What people are really saying is “When are you doing a standalone female superhero movie?” The answer is: I don’t know. We only do two a year, we know more or less what’s coming up through ‘16/’17. With Widow what’s great is the interaction with all the team members, and the question is whether we want to pluck her out of that.

“I’m very proud of the way the Marvel movies handle the female characters who are in all the movies we are making, as opposed to feeling the pressure of ‘When are you doing a female movie?’ We’re exploring a lot of Widow, and that’s going to continue with Age of Ultron in a big way.


“Frankly if we do a Black Widow movie after Age of Ultron, when she’s been central in three or four movies I don’t think we’d get the quote unquote credit for it. People would say ‘She’s already a big giant superhero!’ But if we had a great idea, we’d do it.”

To Marvel’s credit, the studio has offered some decent roles for women and non-white characters, even braving the wrath of comic book fans by casting Idris Elba as Heimdall. Based on trailers and early reactions, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is really more of a team-up movie along the lines of The Avengers rather than a straightforward standalone title about Steve Rogers. As with Guardians of the Galaxy, however, Marvel is still able to sell the movie on the central presence of a white male superhero.

It’s understandable that a studio like Marvel, which makes fairly risky properties using pretty massive budgets, might have developed a need for each movie to have at least one white male superhero playing a core role. It offers the opportunity to include great African-American characters like Nick Fury and Sam Wilson, along with strong and capable female characters like Jane Foster and Natasha Romanoff, without the kind of risk that would be involved in marketing a standalone Black Panther or Captain Marvel movie. In an interview with NPR, Orange is the New Black creator Jenji Kohan described this as a kind of “Trojan Horse” approach.

“Piper was my Trojan Horse. You’re not going to go into a network and sell a show on really fascinating tales of black women, and Latina women, and old women and criminals. But if you take this white girl, this sort of fish out of water, and you follow her in, you can then expand your world and tell all of those other stories.”

For now, Feige’s answer to the question of when and if Marvel is going to make a standalone superhero movie with a female protagonist remains a firm, “I don’t know.” When asked whether Captain Marvel – or indeed the new Ms. Marvel, a Pakistani-American teenager called Kamala Khan – could eventually get her own movie, Feige responded with a vague (but promising?), “We’ve talked a lot about [Captain Marvel]. I think that would be very cool.” He also said that he liked the idea of creating an entirely new female superhero for the Marvel movie universe, and writing an origin story for her.


Tell us what you think of this debate in the comments – should Marvel try making a standalone movie with a non-white/non-male protagonist, or is it enough to have diversity in the supporting cast?








http://screenrant.com/ms-marvel-black-widow-movie/

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

If Gal is popular in BvS or JL, if she's the HULK of this DCCU if you will, then she's probably going to get a solo. It's in Gal's contract as we knew when it was announced she had the part in the Hollywood trades. Is this a lock? No. But it's not some confirmation that WB/DCE is too scared to make WW either. Jeez. Have a coke and a smile Wonder Fans. Seriously.

 

[mace1]

Read the comments inside too.
They are interesting.They are talking about race too,the dc movies,shows,marvel shows etc..

OPEN LINK BELOW.

http://screenrant.com/ms-marvel-black-widow-movie/