Wonder Woman is an insult to women

Wonder Woman is an insult to women Jul 5, 2017 21:29:00 GMT

Quote

Post by THawk on Jul 5, 2017 21:29:00 GMT

Jul 5, 2017 16:21:17 GMT Skaathar said:

Jul 3, 2017 3:39:56 GMT damngumby said:

Riduculously skimpy costume, totally unsuitable for combat, but perfect for a strip club - Check

Extra large boob armor - Check (Gal Gadot could have hidden a couple sandwiches in that thing)

Lengthy scene of her trying on dozens of outfits in a fashion boutique ... because even Amazon warrior women just love to shop - Check

A remarkably sexist movie. Gal Gadot was obviously chosen to be Wonder Woman for no other reason than to give the super hero fan-nerds a little chubby every time they got a chance to look up her skirt, which was frequent. She's a looker, no doubt, but she simply isn't that good of an actor. Wonder Woman, the character, was a big ol' nothing burger. Almost as boring as the criminally predictable villains of this movie.

I suspect the good RT score is largely due to pity ... after the DC debacle of last summer. WW is much better than BvS, but that's not saying much. I'd rank it among the lower end Marvel movies. If this is the best DC can do, Marvel has absolutely nothing to worry about, particularly if Justice League is as bad as that trailer I saw before WW.

1. Skimpy outfits ARE ideal for combat, or for any other vigorous activity. That's why boxers, wrestlers and MMA fighters all wear skimpy, tight outfits. That's why gymnasts and figure skaters wear skimpy, tight outfits. People hear "armor" and they immediately think of full plate armor like 14th-15th century knights would wear, completely forgetting that throughout the ages warriors have worn partial armor. Sometimes it's just a breastplate, sometimes it's just forearm guards and shin guards. WW's leather kilt seems extra short, but then if you do as many high kicks as she does then you'll also be thankful for a short skirt. No person in complete full plate armor will ever be able to perform the kind of moves she does, so it's a compromise between protection and mobility. If you want to talk about impractical costumes, then go harp on why Superman's and Batman's costumes have muscles chiseled into them. Heck, those tight leather outfits that the X-men wear in the movies are probably the most impractical costumes of all. They can hardly move in those.

2. Majority of people watching movies like attractive leads, and movie makers will knowingly pander to that. There's nothing wrong with that, as physical attraction is a natural part of being human.

3. Unless you consider the almost speedo-like shorts of MMA fighters as indecent, then I don't see why "seeing up WW's skirt" is anymore indecent. It's not like she only wears underwear under there.

4. I think WW's RT score is bloated and is higher than it should be, but not for any of the reasons you listed.And not as low as you make it out to be.

1. Erm, boxers and wrestlers are not facing bullets. It's hand to hand combat. That is very different from facing machine gun fire. Again, the movie did not specify whether WW's skin was bullet proof or not. What it did specify however is that she had superhuman strength - meaning she absolutely could have done all her movies while wearing more appropriate attire.

2. There's nothing wrong with attractive leads, but there is everything wrong if that takes precedent over plot and character. Not saying that's what happened here, but the line was thin.

3. Not an MMA fan, but those shorts are not designed to be sexy. WW's costume, 100%, was made to appeal to males. If you don't believe that, you really know little about movie marketing.