|
Post by damngumby on Nov 20, 2017 15:41:53 GMT
Female characters are always going to be sexually exploited in movies. It is one of those things that is never going to change which is why male characters should be equally sexually exploited in movies. Do you want to know what is more offensive? How many characters Marvel has hetero-normalized in their movies. DC gave us a lesbian Batwoman in Batman Bad Blood that had a female love interest but Marvel can't give us one and has had 3 characters that identify as LGBTI in the comic books in their movies but they scrubbed any sign of their sexuality away. It is not just offensive it is fucking homophobic and makes me sick. If you are resigned to the prospect of women forever being sexually exploited in film, then you should also resign to the fact that the “hetero-normal” population really doesn’t want to see a superhero version of Brokeback Mountain. ... unless its with two attractive female superheroes. Then, it’s ok.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 20, 2017 15:48:11 GMT
How is that any different than focusing on Black Widow's ass after she takes a whole gang of thugs down? It's different because Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman and the Black Widow is, well, the Black Widow. One is a feminist icon and the other is morally ambiguous spy and assassin who wouldn't object to using sex as a part of her trade-craft.
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Nov 20, 2017 15:56:54 GMT
So are you saying Tessa Thompson is not attractive? Marvel is the only company that has this problem. Blue Is The Warmest Colour was a comic book and had a movie and Batman Bad Blood with Batwoman was a comic book too. There is a movie of Strangers In Paradise on the way and Batwoman could be in the Batman. We also have a gay Mr Terrific in Arrow and Supergirl's sister is a lesbian and had an on screen relationship with Maggie Sawyer that was very popular but Marvel can't have one and heteronormalizes the LGBTI characters they do use.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 20, 2017 16:45:56 GMT
Female characters are always going to be sexually exploited in movies. It is one of those things that is never going to change which is why male characters should be equally sexually exploited in movies. Do you want to know what is more offensive? How many characters Marvel has hetero-normalized in their movies. DC gave us a lesbian Batwoman in Batman Bad Blood that had a female love interest but Marvel can't give us one and has had 3 characters that identify as LGBTI in the comic books in their movies but they scrubbed any sign of their sexuality away. It is not just offensive it is fucking homophobic and makes me sick. While I don't mind LGBT characters in these cbm's, insisting that they need to have one is ridiculous. And no, there's nothing homophobic about it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 20, 2017 16:51:42 GMT
That's gratuitous costume, not gratuitous shots. Splitting hairs? The indestructible unitard? Not splitting hairs at all. I'm just contradicting the OP which was stating that the camera angles were being specifically gratuitous. I'm pointing out that the camera angles are no different than the standard camera angles done for pretty much every superhero. If we want to talk about the costume then that can be a separate discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 20, 2017 18:57:24 GMT
But isn't that one journalists interpretation. Valkyrie is bi-sexual and Tessa Thompson says that is part of the character - when you enter the Marvel universe you are given a dossier that gives the history and background of that character...it may well informed her in constructing Valkyrie on screen...but really is it necessary to explicitly show her as bi-sexual? I'm not saying it is wrong if they did, but having seen the film how exactly do they shoehorn that in.? And to what end? She is not the main character, she is a strong female support character, what does it matter what her sexual prefernce is? She has been in one film...her character is explored in many issues of a comic. There is more room in the comic to explore that aspect of her, and even so, it is not something that is in every issue..so why should it be in one film. As for Ayo. A character with one line in one film and some brief footage shown in a not yet completed film. Who knows the size of her role in Black Panther. It says there is a flirtatious scene, but they are not exploring her lesbian romance. What is wrong with that. The film is not about her. They have said they are not following World Of Wakanda storyline. What if they said nothing...expectation would be that they were, and when it doesn't appear there would be criticism. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The film is not primarily about her and we know nothing of the size of her role. Why is it needed? To confirm it to those that already know? In both cases their sexuality it seems may not be explicity addressed, but neither is it denied or even changed. As I said earlier, there is no reason why they shouldn't show this, but neither is there a reason they have to if it has no bearing on the story or character arc. I can understand concerns if one of these characters, or any other, was gay or bi, and had a major role and their sexuality was changed or totally ignored. But in the real world do you always know who gay, bi, straight...well maybe that is reflected in a fantasy universe as well. On one hand it can be seen as inclusion, but also, if shoehorned in and not handled well, some would see it as unecessary tokenism.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 20, 2017 19:39:10 GMT
Not splitting hairs at all. I'm just contradicting the OP which was stating that the camera angles were being specifically gratuitous. I'm pointing out that the camera angles are no different than the standard camera angles done for pretty much every superhero. If we want to talk about the costume then that can be a separate discussion. Take the same camera angle ... two women, one wearing a micro-mini skirt, the other wearing a one piece jump suit. In one case the camera angle can be sexually gratuitous ... in the other case, it is not.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 20, 2017 20:07:05 GMT
Not splitting hairs at all. I'm just contradicting the OP which was stating that the camera angles were being specifically gratuitous. I'm pointing out that the camera angles are no different than the standard camera angles done for pretty much every superhero. If we want to talk about the costume then that can be a separate discussion. Take the same camera angle ... two women, one wearing a micro-mini skirt, the other wearing a one piece jump suit. In one case the camera angle can be sexually gratuitous ... in the other case, it is not. Except it's not the camera angle itself that's gratuitous. Take for example a female gymnast who wear nothing more than almost 1-piece swimsuits. Do you consider it gratuitous when the camera closes up on them and takes shots of them from all different angles?
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 20, 2017 21:25:54 GMT
How is that any different than focusing on Black Widow's ass after she takes a whole gang of thugs down? It's different because Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman and the Black Widow is, well, the Black Widow. One is a feminist icon and the other is morally ambiguous spy and assassin who wouldn't object to using sex as a part of her trade-craft. Have you seen Justice League yet? There's nothing even close to what they do with Black Widow (which isn't bad either). It's just the usual outcry over nothing. And I still don't see how that's any different. That's how Wonder Woman dressed in the comics and TV show.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 20, 2017 22:15:52 GMT
It's different because Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman and the Black Widow is, well, the Black Widow. One is a feminist icon and the other is a morally ambiguous spy and assassin who wouldn't object to using sex as a part of her trade-craft. Have you seen Justice League yet? There's nothing even close to what they do with Black Widow (which isn't bad either). It's just the usual outcry over nothing. And I still don't see how that's any different. That's how Wonder Woman dressed in the comics and TV show. I haven't seen it yet but, from what I'm hearing, people are being somewhat frivolous with their comments. A part of Wonder Woman's identity as a superhero is that she is also a beautiful woman. I don't think it's realistic for five of her male colleagues to simply ignore that. As for lingering butt shots or holding too long on cleavage, that's a more systemic issue in Hollywood movies and I don't know if comic book films are the proper venue or opportunity to demand change.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 20, 2017 22:43:13 GMT
Have you seen Justice League yet? There's nothing even close to what they do with Black Widow (which isn't bad either). It's just the usual outcry over nothing. And I still don't see how that's any different. That's how Wonder Woman dressed in the comics and TV show. I haven't seen it yet but, from what I'm hearing, people are being somewhat frivolous with their comments. A part of Wonder Woman's identity as a superhero is that she is also a beautiful woman. I don't think it's realistic for five of her male colleagues to simply ignore that. As for lingering butt shots or holding too long on cleavage, that's a more systemic issue in Hollywood movies and I don't know if comic book films are the proper venue or opportunity to demand change. Oh, I'm not demanding change. No way. I just wanted to know why people were angry at her depiction in JL but not in BvS or Margot Robbie's shameless ass shots in SS or any of the others comic book movies that do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 20, 2017 22:49:10 GMT
I haven't seen it yet but, from what I'm hearing, people are being somewhat frivolous with their comments. A part of Wonder Woman's identity as a superhero is that she is also a beautiful woman. I don't think it's realistic for five of her male colleagues to simply ignore that. As for lingering butt shots or holding too long on cleavage, that's a more systemic issue in Hollywood movies and I don't know if comic book films are the proper venue or opportunity to demand change. Oh, I'm not demanding change. No way. I just wanted to know why people were angry at her depiction in JL but not in BvS or Margot Robbie's shameless ass shots in SS or any of the others comic book movies that do the same. People are sensitive to this because it's Wonder Woman. They hold her to a higher standard and Jenkin's camera never lingered on cleavage or derrières. I get it but, nothing is going to change overnight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 5:55:03 GMT
So are you saying Tessa Thompson is not attractive? Marvel is the only company that has this problem. Blue Is The Warmest Colour was a comic book and had a movie and Batman Bad Blood with Batwoman was a comic book too. There is a movie of Strangers In Paradise on the way and Batwoman could be in the Batman. We also have a gay Mr Terrific in Arrow and Supergirl's sister is a lesbian and had an on screen relationship with Maggie Sawyer that was very popular but Marvel can't have one and heteronormalizes the LGBTI characters they do use. Don't forget we are also getting 'Painkiller Jane' which Jessica Chastain confirmed won't be 'straightwashed' this time like the TV show was, 'Razor' (who is also Bi) and an animated TV show of 'The Ray' who is going to make his official debut in the 'Arrowverse' in the crossover event next week. Then we have Sara in 'DC's Legends of Tomorrow' who is one of the main stars of the show and DC confirmed one of the main stars in 'Titans' is going to be an LGBT character too. 'Hetero-Normalizing' or 'Straightwashing' which is the more popular term is offensive to all of us and has been done in hundreds of movies and TV shows based on comic books and novels. There have been movies based on Lesbian Romance novels which have been turned into friendship movies where one of the characters pined over the other's dead brother and the biggest joke of all, movies based on people's REAL LIVES where the person has been given a partner of the opposite sex or made into a hermit all so they didn't have to acknowledge they were homosexual 'cause God knows we can't be portrayed in a positive light.
When you are making movies of comic books which have hundreds of LGBT characters including many which lead their own titles such 'Batwoman', 'Painkiller Jane', 'Hack/Slash', 'Witchblade' (Co-lead, Danielle Baptiste), 'Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose', 'Sunstone', 'Strangers In Paradise, 'Northstar', 'The Ravening', 'Razor', 'Hellina', 'Pandora' etc but the movies have long FAILED to reflect that and they announce they are finally going to use one in a movie a lot of us do get excited over it 'cause we have so little representation in movies and then we are hurt when we see them get 'Straightwashed' over and over again. It is basically Hollywood's way of saying we are not good enough to be in movies or "we'll use the character but we will have to wash away the gayness first." Hollywood wanted to do the same thing to Cassie Hack in 'Hack/Slash' and Tim Seeley stopped them from doing it 'cause apart from the real woman he based Cassie on being a lesbian he knows how important LGBT representation is and how offensive straightwashing is. Marvel definitely should have done the same with Valkyrie but it is more likely they will give her a male love interest in the next movie she is in.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 22, 2017 11:39:13 GMT
Talk about false advertizing. I went in excited to shamelessly get my male gaze on, only for one or two shots where Gal's back happened to be toward the camera. They didn't even have that ridiculously gratuitous shot from the trailers where her skirt flies up during the bank heist. Meanwhile, Henry Cavill and Jason Mamoa were auditioning to play Jacob in Twilight.
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Nov 26, 2017 13:46:22 GMT
Female characters are always going to be sexually exploited in movies. It is one of those things that is never going to change which is why male characters should be equally sexually exploited in movies. Do you want to know what is more offensive? How many characters Marvel has hetero-normalized in their movies. DC gave us a lesbian Batwoman in Batman Bad Blood that had a female love interest but Marvel can't give us one and has had 3 characters that identify as LGBTI in the comic books in their movies but they scrubbed any sign of their sexuality away. It is not just offensive it is fucking homophobic and makes me sick. While I don't mind LGBT characters in these cbm's, insisting that they need to have one is ridiculous. And no, there's nothing homophobic about it. You don’t mind? That’s very kind and generous of you sir. I don’t mind seeing heterosexual characters in movies either but when we have them rammed down our throats 97 percent of the time and we want to see one LGBTI character every once in a blue moon in the movies and they hetero-normalize the two they use it is fucking homophobic no matter what way you try to spin it. How many superhero movies have there been? How many characters that identify as LGBTI can you count in them?
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Nov 26, 2017 13:50:18 GMT
So are you saying Tessa Thompson is not attractive? Marvel is the only company that has this problem. Blue Is The Warmest Colour was a comic book and had a movie and Batman Bad Blood with Batwoman was a comic book too. There is a movie of Strangers In Paradise on the way and Batwoman could be in the Batman. We also have a gay Mr Terrific in Arrow and Supergirl's sister is a lesbian and had an on screen relationship with Maggie Sawyer that was very popular but Marvel can't have one and heteronormalizes the LGBTI characters they do use. Don't forget we are also getting 'Painkiller Jane' which Jessica Chastain confirmed won't be 'straightwashed' this time like the TV show was, 'Razor' (who is also Bi) and an animated TV show of 'The Ray' who is going to make his official debut in the 'Arrowverse' in the crossover event next week. Then we have Sara in 'DC's Legends of Tomorrow' who is one of the main stars of the show and DC confirmed one of the main stars in 'Titans' is going to be an LGBT character too. 'Hetero-Normalizing' or 'Straightwashing' which is the more popular term is offensive to all of us and has been done in hundreds of movies and TV shows based on comic books and novels. There have been movies based on Lesbian Romance novels which have been turned into friendship movies where one of the characters pined over the other's dead brother and the biggest joke of all, movies based on people's REAL LIVES where the person has been given a partner of the opposite sex or made into a hermit all so they didn't have to acknowledge they were homosexual 'cause God knows we can't be portrayed in a positive light.
When you are making movies of comic books which have hundreds of LGBT characters including many which lead their own titles such 'Batwoman', 'Painkiller Jane', 'Hack/Slash', 'Witchblade' (Co-lead, Danielle Baptiste), 'Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose', 'Sunstone', 'Strangers In Paradise, 'Northstar', 'The Ravening', 'Razor', 'Hellina', 'Pandora' etc but the movies have long FAILED to reflect that and they announce they are finally going to use one in a movie a lot of us do get excited over it 'cause we have so little representation in movies and then we are hurt when we see them get 'Straightwashed' over and over again. It is basically Hollywood's way of saying we are not good enough to be in movies or "we'll use the character but we will have to wash away the gayness first." Hollywood wanted to do the same thing to Cassie Hack in 'Hack/Slash' and Tim Seeley stopped them from doing it 'cause apart from the real woman he based Cassie on being a lesbian he knows how important LGBT representation is and how offensive straightwashing is. Marvel definitely should have done the same with Valkyrie but it is more likely they will give her a male love interest in the next movie she is in. Precisely. I'm betting a $1000 on them giving Valkyrie and Ayo husbands in the next movies they appear in.
|
|