Post by Vassaggo on Dec 29, 2020 0:12:49 GMT
Spoilers: In my review I did bring up the fact I got a rapey vibe from the non-consent sex. I didn't even think about the fact they kept on putting the guy's body into perilous situations. I think the worst thing is neither Steve or Diana wanted Steve's soul to violate a random guys body, that was accidental, but the fact that neither really cared that once it was done that they thought/reacted to the repercussions of that violation.
I kind of disagree with the assault on Barbara especially the second time. I think the sinister tone/music was because she was enjoying the beating he was taking.
People in the media are starting to bring this up though. Even Forbes has a article on it.
www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/12/26/the-warped-morality-of-wonder-woman-1984/?sh=4cf1ee8b3e23
I kind of disagree with the assault on Barbara especially the second time. I think the sinister tone/music was because she was enjoying the beating he was taking.
People in the media are starting to bring this up though. Even Forbes has a article on it.
www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/12/26/the-warped-morality-of-wonder-woman-1984/?sh=4cf1ee8b3e23
The Warped Morality Of ‘Wonder Woman 1984’
Isn’t Wonder Woman supposed to be a good person?
I don’t think Wonder Woman 1984 is a good movie. If it was just another forgettable superhero blockbuster I’d leave it at that - but the warped vision of morality presented by this film is too rotten to ignore, an egregious example of the cracked moral compass at the heart of the superhero genre.
Before I criticize some of the choices made in this movie, I just want to point out that I don’t think the creators of this movie had any unpleasant intentions - it's incredibly difficult to tell a good story, at the best of times, and when you’re helming a massively expensive blockbuster, a merchandise-generator that connects to a larger franchise, certain elements get overlooked in the process.
There’s a lot of things going on in this movie, so I’m going to try and keep it simple - and, obviously, major spoilers ahead.
Wonder Woman 1984 depicts our protagonist, Diana, in the same place we left her - still obsessed with her deceased lover from the original film, Steve Trevor, who died around seventy years ago, according to the film’s timeline. Never mind what this says about Diana’s emotional maturity, or inability to move on - that’s the headspace she’s in during this story.
Hence, when Diana makes her wish, the resurrection of Steve is the only desire she has (and to be fair, the rest of her life is incredibly privileged and meaningful - what else could she possibly want?). But when Steve is ripped from Heaven’s womb, his soul is placed into the body of … some random guy. A living stranger, whose consciousness simply disappears the moment his body is possessed by the former WWI soldier.
Naturally, Diana is surprised to see him return - but she doesn’t seem concerned with the fate of the stranger - not even a little bit. She simply doesn’t care. In fact, she has sex with Steve, using this man’s body like a silicone sex doll.
During one particularly amusing scene, Steve essentially tells Diana that she needs to move on and choose a new man - he even points to himself, and asks, “What about this guy?” But Diana isn’t interested, stating “I don’t want him!” And then, they continue talking, like two sociopaths, completely unconcerned with the fact that this man didn’t get to choose.
The two seem more disturbed by the artificiality of Steve’s return, rather than the non-consensual use of another human’s body for sex (not to mention, the life-threatening circumstances Steve often finds himself in).
Can you imagine if Superman did this? Used a random woman’s body for his own pleasure, to bring back Lois Lane, or whatever? The fact that Wonder Woman, supposedly a pure-hearted, almost childlike figure of virtue, doesn’t have an issue with this at all, is deeply strange, to say the least.
Towards the end of the film, after Steve’s soul has returned to the afterlife, Diana actually bumps into the random stranger that she had sex with without his knowledge, and they have a deeply bizarre interaction, with Diana seemingly flirting with him, and the man politely wishing her a good day, before moving on with his life.
Throughout that scene, Diana has her signature wholesome smile spread across her face, seemingly untroubled by the fact that she’d just finished using this man’s flesh as a vessel for her own desires - it’s one of the most surreal exchanges I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie (or any movie, for that matter).
It’s an extremely odd creative choice, especially considering the fact that every other wish seems to magically materialize out of the atmosphere - if using a man’s body as a doll was meant to represent the cursed nature of the wishes, it's strange that Diana herself never considers it.
There’s a second questionable scenario, also involving sexual assault, in which Diana’s friend, soon-to-be-enemy Barbara, almost gets raped while walking home through the park. Thankfully, Diana swoops in to save Barbara, knocking the attempted rapist away like a straw doll.
Later, after Barbara has developed superpowers of her own, she encounters the attempted rapist, again, and he attempts the same thing! This time, Barbara (understandably) beats the absolute snot out of him.
But Barbara’s scene isn’t presented the way Diana’s violence is - the tone is unquestionably menacing, as though Barbara’s actions are meant to be condemned by the viewer. But why? Why is the scene framed as an act of villainy?
Is wanting revenge against a man who tried to rape you (twice!) meant to be a sign of an unpleasant personality? Perhaps the difference stems from Barbara enjoying her act of violence, or at least, appearing to. If so, what does that say about a character like Batman, who would gleefully beat the brain-juice out of a teenager with a gram of weed in his pocket?
More importantly, what does this say about Diana, who doesn’t have any issue wielding her super-strength against lesser mortals? Is violence against violent men justified, or not?
According to Wonder Woman 1984, the answer is yes - but only if you’re the titular hero of the story. Because Diana’s careless acts of destruction never seem to result in civilian casualties, or even death to her enemies, seemingly because she doesn’t intend to - but really, because of sheer luck. In fact, Diana eventually drowns and electrocutes Barbara, simultaneously (but she doesn’t die, for some reason).
The nastiest element of this story, however, is the fact that Barbara’s “sin” is wishing for a better life for herself; she’s overlooked and underappreciated, and simply wanted to soak in some of Diana’s confidence. But the story warps her character into a monster, suggesting that she just doesn't have the self-restraint to be a superhero, and that wanting to change herself was a problem. This warped sense of morality isn’t limited to Wonder Woman - it’s embedded into the very concept of superheroism.
Superheroes tend to maintain the status quo, however unjust, and villains who desire change tend to be depicted as unhinged radicals. Even if villains have a sympathetic grievance, or a strong point (Black Panther’s Killmonger, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Vulture), they are always written to be violent, unhinged psychopaths - because they have to be.
Superheroes, however admirable their character, are rarely agents of change. They tend to be comfortable with the status quo, and look down upon characters who express unhappiness with their lot in life, especially those who dare to do something about it.
Ironically, their responsibility to save people is often depicted as some kind of burden - Diana complains bitterly about this during Wonder Woman 1984. Does she ever consider the lives of paramedics, nurses, or firefighters? At least Diana makes a decent income.
Many superhero films are intended to be family friendly blockbusters, mindless fun that the viewer isn’t encouraged to think too hard about. But being family-friendly never stopped the folks at Pixar from thinking about the implications of their stories - why shouldn’t superheroes face the same scrutiny?
In short, Wonder Woman 1984 isn’t just a bad superhero movie - it’s an ugly one.
Isn’t Wonder Woman supposed to be a good person?
I don’t think Wonder Woman 1984 is a good movie. If it was just another forgettable superhero blockbuster I’d leave it at that - but the warped vision of morality presented by this film is too rotten to ignore, an egregious example of the cracked moral compass at the heart of the superhero genre.
Before I criticize some of the choices made in this movie, I just want to point out that I don’t think the creators of this movie had any unpleasant intentions - it's incredibly difficult to tell a good story, at the best of times, and when you’re helming a massively expensive blockbuster, a merchandise-generator that connects to a larger franchise, certain elements get overlooked in the process.
There’s a lot of things going on in this movie, so I’m going to try and keep it simple - and, obviously, major spoilers ahead.
Wonder Woman 1984 depicts our protagonist, Diana, in the same place we left her - still obsessed with her deceased lover from the original film, Steve Trevor, who died around seventy years ago, according to the film’s timeline. Never mind what this says about Diana’s emotional maturity, or inability to move on - that’s the headspace she’s in during this story.
Hence, when Diana makes her wish, the resurrection of Steve is the only desire she has (and to be fair, the rest of her life is incredibly privileged and meaningful - what else could she possibly want?). But when Steve is ripped from Heaven’s womb, his soul is placed into the body of … some random guy. A living stranger, whose consciousness simply disappears the moment his body is possessed by the former WWI soldier.
Naturally, Diana is surprised to see him return - but she doesn’t seem concerned with the fate of the stranger - not even a little bit. She simply doesn’t care. In fact, she has sex with Steve, using this man’s body like a silicone sex doll.
During one particularly amusing scene, Steve essentially tells Diana that she needs to move on and choose a new man - he even points to himself, and asks, “What about this guy?” But Diana isn’t interested, stating “I don’t want him!” And then, they continue talking, like two sociopaths, completely unconcerned with the fact that this man didn’t get to choose.
The two seem more disturbed by the artificiality of Steve’s return, rather than the non-consensual use of another human’s body for sex (not to mention, the life-threatening circumstances Steve often finds himself in).
Can you imagine if Superman did this? Used a random woman’s body for his own pleasure, to bring back Lois Lane, or whatever? The fact that Wonder Woman, supposedly a pure-hearted, almost childlike figure of virtue, doesn’t have an issue with this at all, is deeply strange, to say the least.
Towards the end of the film, after Steve’s soul has returned to the afterlife, Diana actually bumps into the random stranger that she had sex with without his knowledge, and they have a deeply bizarre interaction, with Diana seemingly flirting with him, and the man politely wishing her a good day, before moving on with his life.
Throughout that scene, Diana has her signature wholesome smile spread across her face, seemingly untroubled by the fact that she’d just finished using this man’s flesh as a vessel for her own desires - it’s one of the most surreal exchanges I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie (or any movie, for that matter).
It’s an extremely odd creative choice, especially considering the fact that every other wish seems to magically materialize out of the atmosphere - if using a man’s body as a doll was meant to represent the cursed nature of the wishes, it's strange that Diana herself never considers it.
There’s a second questionable scenario, also involving sexual assault, in which Diana’s friend, soon-to-be-enemy Barbara, almost gets raped while walking home through the park. Thankfully, Diana swoops in to save Barbara, knocking the attempted rapist away like a straw doll.
Later, after Barbara has developed superpowers of her own, she encounters the attempted rapist, again, and he attempts the same thing! This time, Barbara (understandably) beats the absolute snot out of him.
But Barbara’s scene isn’t presented the way Diana’s violence is - the tone is unquestionably menacing, as though Barbara’s actions are meant to be condemned by the viewer. But why? Why is the scene framed as an act of villainy?
Is wanting revenge against a man who tried to rape you (twice!) meant to be a sign of an unpleasant personality? Perhaps the difference stems from Barbara enjoying her act of violence, or at least, appearing to. If so, what does that say about a character like Batman, who would gleefully beat the brain-juice out of a teenager with a gram of weed in his pocket?
More importantly, what does this say about Diana, who doesn’t have any issue wielding her super-strength against lesser mortals? Is violence against violent men justified, or not?
According to Wonder Woman 1984, the answer is yes - but only if you’re the titular hero of the story. Because Diana’s careless acts of destruction never seem to result in civilian casualties, or even death to her enemies, seemingly because she doesn’t intend to - but really, because of sheer luck. In fact, Diana eventually drowns and electrocutes Barbara, simultaneously (but she doesn’t die, for some reason).
The nastiest element of this story, however, is the fact that Barbara’s “sin” is wishing for a better life for herself; she’s overlooked and underappreciated, and simply wanted to soak in some of Diana’s confidence. But the story warps her character into a monster, suggesting that she just doesn't have the self-restraint to be a superhero, and that wanting to change herself was a problem. This warped sense of morality isn’t limited to Wonder Woman - it’s embedded into the very concept of superheroism.
Superheroes tend to maintain the status quo, however unjust, and villains who desire change tend to be depicted as unhinged radicals. Even if villains have a sympathetic grievance, or a strong point (Black Panther’s Killmonger, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Vulture), they are always written to be violent, unhinged psychopaths - because they have to be.
Superheroes, however admirable their character, are rarely agents of change. They tend to be comfortable with the status quo, and look down upon characters who express unhappiness with their lot in life, especially those who dare to do something about it.
Ironically, their responsibility to save people is often depicted as some kind of burden - Diana complains bitterly about this during Wonder Woman 1984. Does she ever consider the lives of paramedics, nurses, or firefighters? At least Diana makes a decent income.
Many superhero films are intended to be family friendly blockbusters, mindless fun that the viewer isn’t encouraged to think too hard about. But being family-friendly never stopped the folks at Pixar from thinking about the implications of their stories - why shouldn’t superheroes face the same scrutiny?
In short, Wonder Woman 1984 isn’t just a bad superhero movie - it’s an ugly one.
