Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)


Recommended Posts

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.

 

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 Characters evolve to represent the era they're in, yet the DCCU is perpetuating outdated stereotypes with its main characters (lesser characters aren't treated with the same reverence).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

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).

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.

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

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...

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. 

  • Like 1

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

^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.

^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.

^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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!