Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 25, 2017 5:49:50 GMT
A little harsh, but I think a fair point.
I think he is being a little harsh and is a bit misguided himself. Sure Wonder Woman is an objectified icon. I mean the original concept behind her character was based on bondage. But I think every female action hero is objectified to some extent, including Sarah Connor. I thought she was hot in Terminator 2. Fit and badass! What's not sexy about that? But even Sigourney Weaver as Ripley from the Alien films, Uma Thurman as the Bride in Kill Bill to modern female action heroes like Kate Beckinsale as Selene in the Underworld series and Emily Blunt in Edge of Tomorrow, even Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. Sex sells, so filmmakers obviously aren't going to not objectify their female heroes to some extent. Some films are just better at being subtle about it. That said, I do understand where he's coming from with "step backwards" comment. There's certainly nothing wrong with having female superheros and Gal delivered a great performance that can be aspiring to young female audience to be strong and determined, but she is a superhero tho. I know Sarah Connor and Ripley and even the Bride are fictional, but they can aspire female audience on the same level but also more because they are human characters with struggles, and they're a bit more relatable than Wonder Woman is.
All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood's been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided. She's an objectified icon, and it's just male Hollywood doing the same old thing! I'm not saying I didn't like the movie but, to me, it's a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!
