Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 25, 2017 14:56:23 GMT
lo and behold, three threads on this, so I can repost. Cameron and Jenkins are both partially right-…or wrong...from their certain points of view:
- WW may be a big step for the CBM genre, but it's only a tiny leap for the movie genre as a whole: Previously, there were no successful female-led and female-directed CMBs ever, they all flopped. So, WW and its reception is a milestone for CBMs. Cameron may have overlooked this aspect.
- But on a higher level strong female warriors are an ancient thing, it's rooted in all mythology (e.g. Greek or Norse or Asian). Hollywood did not invent that, it was always there. Cameron and his ilk just added nuances: Grounded semi-realistic female warrior characters like Leia in Star Wars (77), Ripley in Alien (79), or later Sarah Connor in Terminator or much later Furiosa in Mad Max. Wonder Woman is the more naive, mythological, idealized version of this type, modelled from the archetype of the beautiful warrior princess ( a la Brünhild).
- Thus, in this regard WW is actually a sort of back step with her perfect looks and superhuman strength. But it genuinely comes with the CBM territory and source material. This is fairy tale land for kids after all.
- Not to forget: great that this overpowered god-mode character was not written as a Mary Sue! Diana's abilities and rank flow from her character backgrounds and history. The story reality does not bend around her to glorify her: no WW must finally realize the world is not as simple as she thought and she must adapt (duality of human nature monologue). Despite her status as demi-goddess she can be petty and self-righteous, she makes mistakes and is naive and learns, she loses and fails terribly and must fight for things, she is not awarded with everything (missions, attention, status, items etc) automatically. Pretty solid writing that!
- WW may be a big step for the CBM genre, but it's only a tiny leap for the movie genre as a whole: Previously, there were no successful female-led and female-directed CMBs ever, they all flopped. So, WW and its reception is a milestone for CBMs. Cameron may have overlooked this aspect.
- But on a higher level strong female warriors are an ancient thing, it's rooted in all mythology (e.g. Greek or Norse or Asian). Hollywood did not invent that, it was always there. Cameron and his ilk just added nuances: Grounded semi-realistic female warrior characters like Leia in Star Wars (77), Ripley in Alien (79), or later Sarah Connor in Terminator or much later Furiosa in Mad Max. Wonder Woman is the more naive, mythological, idealized version of this type, modelled from the archetype of the beautiful warrior princess ( a la Brünhild).
- Thus, in this regard WW is actually a sort of back step with her perfect looks and superhuman strength. But it genuinely comes with the CBM territory and source material. This is fairy tale land for kids after all.
- Not to forget: great that this overpowered god-mode character was not written as a Mary Sue! Diana's abilities and rank flow from her character backgrounds and history. The story reality does not bend around her to glorify her: no WW must finally realize the world is not as simple as she thought and she must adapt (duality of human nature monologue). Despite her status as demi-goddess she can be petty and self-righteous, she makes mistakes and is naive and learns, she loses and fails terribly and must fight for things, she is not awarded with everything (missions, attention, status, items etc) automatically. Pretty solid writing that!