dc Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[DocM]

You also have to consider where the Amazon legends came from. Scythian women would take up arms and protect their lands in their mens absense, and about 30% of their warrior graves contain the remains of females.

[Jamushroom Veteran]

Batman? Outfit covers the entire body. Superman? Outfit covers the entire body? Wonder Woman? Barely covers anything. Sexism is alive and kicking.

You also have to remember the source material for all of these suits, they're from the comics. And as many have said before, WW's suit is based off of actual real history. Amazon warriors used to wear such clothes in battle.

Also, it's a bit too easy to play the sexism here. I understand the woman's point of view, I do. But plenty of women enjoy the comics aren't offended by the looks that the original creators gave Wonder Woman. These suits are based off of that, the comic books. It's not about sexism at all, it's about staying authentic to the source material so that the characters are familiar.

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

You also have to remember the source material for all of these suits, they're from the comics. And as many have said before, WW's suit is based off of actual real history. Amazon warriors used to wear such clothes in battle.

Yes, but how many times have we seen characters reinvented for the modern era? Perry White was historically white yet is black in the DCCU; Johnny Storm was historically white yet is black in the upcoming film; Thor was male in the comics but has been invented as a female character. Characters evolve to represent the era they're in, yet the DCCU is perpetuating outdated stereotypes with its main characters (lesser characters aren't treated with the same reverence).

 

Also, it's a bit too easy to play the sexism here. I understand the woman's point of view, I do. But plenty of women enjoy the comics aren't offended by the looks that the original creators gave Wonder Woman. These suits are based off of that, the comic books. It's not about sexism at all, it's about staying authentic to the source material so that the characters are familiar.

I never suggested that women

[Circaflex]

thats excactly how superman vs batman scene would end.

actually, it wouldn't.

[Dashel]

You're missing the point, which is that it is sexualised in comparison to the male characters. The men wear armour and bulky clothes - the women wear skimpy clothes. This is a classic example of how women are objectified for commercial gain.

Or simply a classic archetype of what is considered feminine vs masculine.  I don't think the male physiques are any less over the top aesthetically than female ones - isn't that the issue.

 

Skin or skin tight, really makes little difference.  I thought the issue was idealized beauty?  Female Thor, while gender-bending, is still hot. (Unlike say, MKX, that did intentionally diversify their female toons).

[simplezz]

Characters evolve to represent the era they're in

Except they aren't evolving. It's just Hollywood playing identity politics as usual. Neither the era nor the story necessitates a race change. Still, I don't mind in the case of Laurence Fishburne because he's a great actor. That's more important to me than Hollywood meeting its internal race/gender quotas.

You just don't see the same hypersexualisation of male characters - if you see male characters scantily clad it's to show their strength, their muscles.

On many occasions it's also to provide eye candy for women. The two motivations aren't mutually exclusive after all. I mean look at troy/fight club, or basically any film featuring a male pin-up. Sooner or later he's going shirtless. Is that really essential for the plot, or just eye candy?

Traditionally I think females were sexualised more, but these days? Both genders are sexualised on screen a lot. Fighting over which group or minority is the most exploited is inane.

I'm not suggesting there isn't a place for characters like this but we've seen very few female superheroes and for DC to pander to outdated gender stereotypes is disappointing, especially when you consider that Gal Gadot isn't even a credible actress - she was originally an underwear model and has little acting experience. The comics tend to be quite progressive, making astute political and social observations, yet we don't see that as much in the movies.

There are plenty of female characters. Just because they might not be the primary protaganist/antagonist doesn't mean it needs to be altered. Casting Will Smith as Deadshot was clearly done to provide a token black man. I hate that kind of politics infecting film. He's a horrible actor as well.

[Jamushroom Veteran]

Yes, but how many times have we seen characters reinvented for the modern era? Perry White was historically white yet is black in the DCCU; Johnny Storm was historically white yet is black in the upcoming film; Thor was male in the comics but has been invented as a female character. Characters evolve to represent the era they're in, yet the DCCU is perpetuating outdated stereotypes with its main characters (lesser characters aren't treated with the same reverence).

I never suggested that women

[DocM]

>

I do understand the whole sexism topic, but in this case it's a bit too easy to use that card.

>

>

Now, I also think that we've derailed this topic by talking about a whole other subject.

>

We need a SJW Alert emoticon.

[Rappy Veteran]

[Draconian Guppy]

can't say I quite feel Gal as WW yet

[George P Global Moderator]

can't say I quite feel Gal as WW yet

 

You'll feel it when they show her kicking butt, I say she's got the princess part of the character down, looks wise. 

[Draconian Guppy]

You'll feel it when they show her kicking butt, I say she's got the princess part of the character down, looks wise. 

I can agree to that at least for now  

[Draconian Guppy]

http://comicbook.com/2015/07/03/ben-affleck-explains-how-dc-movies-are-different-than-marvel-mov/

[Jamushroom Veteran]

http://comicbook.com/2015/07/03/ben-affleck-explains-how-dc-movies-are-different-than-marvel-mov/

I agree with him. It's the vibe I'm getting so far from what we've seen from DC Comic's movies. And I think it's a good thing as well. Their comics already feel different than what Marvel is doing, and why copy what has already been done. DC Comics shouldn't rely on what Marvel has already done, so it's a good thing that DC is taking their own route with these movies. I love the fact that they feel more grounded to reality, and seem to be gritty.

[jakem1]

I agree with him. It's the vibe I'm getting so far from what we've seen from DC Comic's movies. And I think it's a good thing as well. Their comics already feel different than what Marvel is doing, and why copy what has already been done. DC Comics shouldn't rely on what Marvel has already done, so it's a good thing that DC is taking their own route with these movies. I love the fact that they feel more grounded to reality, and seem to be gritty.

 

That's true but:

• DC haven't managed to create a joined up universe like Marvel have.  There's no coherence to their approach.
• Marvel have proven, with Daredevil, that they can also do a superhero show that's grounded in reality and I'd argue that they did a better job of that than DC have done with anything (with the possible exception of the last few Batman movies).

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

DC make some really good dots, they just suck at joining them together for the big picture.

[George P Global Moderator]

DC never tried to join it's stuff together till now, all these years with batman and superman movies but they never thought to combine the universe together till now.   We'll have to wait and see what sort of job they do, but I think they'll do well with it, I don't have any worries about the next movie, I think BvS will turn out great, for me anyways.

[Jamushroom Veteran]

That's true but:

• DC haven't managed to create a joined up universe like Marvel have.  There's no coherence to their approach.
• Marvel have proven, with Daredevil, that they can also do a superhero show that's grounded in reality and I'd argue that they did a better job of that than DC have done with anything (with the possible exception of the last few Batman movies).

Like George P said, they didn't start doing that till now. Also, DC Comics chose not to incorporate the series into the movies. If that happened, we'd have movies like Arrow, which would basically be drama and soap movies, and no one wants that. Joining the TV-verse and movie-verse together would've been hard to begin with, because Arrow aired before Man of Steel. Man of Steel isn't exactly a story that's believable in Arrow's-verse.

Also, the cinematic universe of DC Comics only just started with Man of Steel, so it's too early to tell anything about that. I'm just glad that both studios are doing their own thing with their movies. And that DC doesn't feel forced to make a whole huge joined TV/Movie cinematic universe.

[Rappy Veteran]

Ben Affleck Confirms 'Superman' Destroyed One Of 'Bruce Wayne''s Buildings

 

"One of the things I liked was Zack

[trag3dy]

Like George P said, they didn't start doing that till now. Also, DC Comics chose not to incorporate the series into the movies. If that happened, we'd have movies like Arrow, which would basically be drama and soap movies, and no one wants that. Joining the TV-verse and movie-verse together would've been hard to begin with, because Arrow aired before Man of Steel. Man of Steel isn't exactly a story that's believable in Arrow's-verse.

Also, the cinematic universe of DC Comics only just started with Man of Steel, so it's too early to tell anything about that. I'm just glad that both studios are doing their own thing with their movies. And that DC doesn't feel forced to make a whole huge joined TV/Movie cinematic universe.

 

Well if Marvel can make it worth with Daredevil then they could make it work with Arrow, as some examples and comparisons.

 

Of course Daredevil has the benefit of coming out later so I guess there is that.

[George P Global Moderator]

Ben Affleck Confirms 'Superman' Destroyed One Of 'Bruce Wayne''s Buildings

 

"One of the things I liked was Zack

[Jamushroom Veteran]

^The destruction in Man of Steel is actually part of the Batman v Superman story. The people standing around Superman, with Superman looking up, are actually the people that died during Man of Steel (or so I've heard).

Well if Marvel can make it worth with Daredevil then they could make it work with Arrow, as some examples and comparisons.

 

Of course Daredevil has the benefit of coming out later so I guess there is that.

Come on, you can't compare Arrow with Daredevil. Arrow is more soap/drama where Daredevil is actually about the superhero and his path towards becoming a superhero. Arrow is more about the drama between all the characters and Olicity. Linking Arrow's-verse into the DC Cinematic Universe just wouldn't be right.

And yeah, Daredevil was made to be part of phase 2 of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, just like anything else that Marvel is making right now. They made the movies first, then had a basis for the spin-off series.

I could list a whole lot more reasons as to why Arrow's verse shouldn't and couldn't be linked anymore at this point. I'm glad that they're doing their own thing with their universe (in which The Flash series is loads better than Arrow).

I'm glad that DC is taking their own route and don't feel forced by Marvel that they have to link all of their live-action stuff together.

[George P Global Moderator]

^The destruction in Man of Steel is actually part of the Batman v Superman story. The people standing around Superman, with Superman looking up, are actually the people that died during Man of Steel (or so I've heard).

Come on, you can't compare Arrow with Daredevil. Arrow is more soap/drama where Daredevil is actually about the superhero and his path towards becoming a superhero. Arrow is more about the drama between all the characters and Olicity. Linking Arrow's-verse into the DC Cinematic Universe just wouldn't be right.

And yeah, Daredevil was made to be part of phase 2 of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, just like anything else that Marvel is making right now. They made the movies first, then had a basis for the spin-off series.

I could list a whole lot more reasons as to why Arrow's verse shouldn't and couldn't be linked anymore at this point. I'm glad that they're doing their own thing with their universe (in which The Flash series is loads better than Arrow).

I'm glad that DC is taking their own route and don't feel forced by Marvel that they have to link all of their live-action stuff together.

 

You're right, those are two different show targets, by the network they're on.  Anything being on the CW targets the teen/young adult side of the soap opera drama line, all about relationships getting in the way of fighting bad guys, please.    If a Arrow show was on Netflix though, it'd be vastly different I'm sure of it.

[trag3dy]

^The destruction in Man of Steel is actually part of the Batman v Superman story. The people standing around Superman, with Superman looking up, are actually the people that died during Man of Steel (or so I've heard).

Come on, you can't compare Arrow with Daredevil. Arrow is more soap/drama where Daredevil is actually about the superhero and his path towards becoming a superhero. Arrow is more about the drama between all the characters and Olicity. Linking Arrow's-verse into the DC Cinematic Universe just wouldn't be right.

And yeah, Daredevil was made to be part of phase 2 of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, just like anything else that Marvel is making right now. They made the movies first, then had a basis for the spin-off series.

I could list a whole lot more reasons as to why Arrow's verse shouldn't and couldn't be linked anymore at this point. I'm glad that they're doing their own thing with their universe (in which The Flash series is loads better than Arrow).

I'm glad that DC is taking their own route and don't feel forced by Marvel that they have to link all of their live-action stuff together.

 

I wasn't comparing them. I was just trying to point out it can be done if they wanted to.

[Jamushroom Veteran]

You're right, those are two different show targets, by the network they're on.  Anything being on the CW targets the teen/young adult side of the soap opera drama line, all about relationships getting in the way of fighting bad guys, please.    If a Arrow show was on Netflix though, it'd be vastly different I'm sure of it.

Darevdevil is everything Arrow so desperately wants to be (and could've been), but can't because it's on the CW network. Can't believe how much better The Flash is compared to Arrow.

I wasn't comparing them. I was just trying to point out it can be done if they wanted to.

I know, I was doing the same by pointing out how it's too little too late for them to be doing that. Arrow just doesn't fit in the universe that they're making with the movies. If they wanted to be able to do that, then Arrow should've been more like the very first trailer they showed for the series, which was more in-line with the grittyness that they're going for in the movie-verse.