I get the reference, and I don’t begrudge the joke, and certainly not the discussion about it. It’s still off-putting that the only female superhero movie thread has a creepy title.
Bat signals are passe. Virtue signals are where its at!
Seeing it Saturday. Looks good so far, but I’ve not really watched too much of the trailers so as it is fresher when I see it. Gadot really seems to carry the strength of a Super Hero when it’s called for (again, based on a few shots I’ve viewed).
Trivialize what? The character? By discussing her creator and her origins? Am I trivializing Superman if I say it’s the ultimate Jewish immigrant wish-fulfillment story? Even when later interpretations (with DC and Warner Bros approval) have portrayed Superman as the ultimate Jesus allegory?
But hey, I’m not insensitive to the prevailing opinion. How does the new title work for you?
Puh-lease. I don’t think anyone in this forum is preening for crowd points. I’m not upset at telefrog, the origin of the character is nutty, and fascinating. It’s not a big deal. I would prefer less clever titles and this one is prima facia icky, and I’m probably being overly sensitive. My 8 year old daughter is excited to catch the movie this weekend and my own enthusiasm is heightened as a result. It’s simply a bit deflating to see the title every time I want to channel my excitement about it.
Eh, yes? You are trivialising Jews rather than Superman with that claim. And you are trivialising women rather than Wonder Woman when you bring in all those history. Would you go and talk to, say, a black American with an icebreaker like “hey your ancestors came to America as slaves. IT IS HISTORY.”?
Thanks.
I’m sure it’s less relevant here than my joke implies. But it’s not without some merit, I don’t think.
Regardless, I avoid the P&R forum like the plague, so am sorry for adding to the slight veer into identity politics here.
It is widely acknowledged and accepted that Superman’s creators specifically drew on their own experiences and feelings as second-generation Jewish immigrants when they created Superman. This is a source of pride for many people, and the newer interpretation of Superman as space-Jesus actually downplays Siegel’s and Shuster’s creative spark.
Obviously, we view characters of myth through the lens of our times, so if someone wants to see Superman as Space Jesus, that’s their prerogative. I find his immigrant and acceptance origin story interpretation more satisfying.
Edit: What if I told you that Black Lightning’s real-life origin had its roots in a super-racist character named Black Bomber?
Goddammit stop changing thread titles! Shitty thread titles are a part of what I love about Qt3!
You must love the Diablo 3 and Mordor sequel threads.
This looks awesome. We have a group of mostly ladies ready to see this Sunday. This same group typically enjoys Marvel and sometimes we see them together… this is the first DC movie anyone has cared about to actually get a group together though.
The Diablo 3 thread is my favorite thread on all of Quarter to Three and I hate D3 with the fiery passion of a thousand vengeful suns.
I got no problem with that. But if you only mentioned the creative history, without any context, that is exactly what someone would say, if the person tries to denigrate the characters or the people referenced. Talking about WW the movie as “Amazon(ian) bondage fetish time”, without any context, is exactly that.
“Amazonian” does sound more grammatically correct…
My opinion is that writing “Amazon bondage fetish time” as the kicker to a Wonder Woman thread isn’t denigrating to women at all. First, as I’ve shown, the character’s origin is controversial and the character herself is still under debate as a women’s empowerment story. Second, nothing in that phrase is specifically negative. (Okay, maybe you have me on the grammar issue.) If you’re saying all acts of bondage or fetishes are negative, there would be quite a few sexually active women that would take issue with that. Finally, I believe her real origin to be important and worthy of mention because it was whitewashed and covered up for so long. Without the truth of her origin, we wouldn’t know that the two women in William Marston’s life, Olive Byrne and Elizabeth Holloway Marston, were physical and emotional inspirations for the character and even had input on her ultimate portrayal in the comics. And isn’t that more satisfying than saying she was solely created by a dude?
Cripes, are we seeing the SJW’ification of QT3 now too? The original thread title was a harmless, humorous wink at Wonder Woman’s origin, which by now is so well known that no, it doesn’t require any additional contextualization. Those of you who were somehow ignorant of it until now, welcome the opportunity to have learned something new instead of using it as yet another excuse to stamp your feet and act offended. Ya bunch of sex-negative white-knighting muggles.
I didn’t get the reference in your title originally, though understanding it now I still like the new title better, if nothing else because it feels more inclusive.
+1
I can’t wait to see the movie, I’m taking my girlfriend to see it this weekend.
Well known by whom… the comic book circles which many of us are not a part of? I had no idea of her origins nor do I care. Commence with your rant.
Ummm… then why are you posting in this thread?
Umm,… because it’s a mainstream movie and I am going to go see it. What makes you think that me going to see a movie somehow equates to wanting to know or caring about who the creator was and what excited him in the bedroom?
oh and this line i am stealing from below:
So this movie is only for those that know about the character’s creation? Does that mean people that want to see the Batman films should be aware of how the original writer was shut out of credit for creating the character?