Originally Posted by
Totoro Man
so what does this mean? does it mean that if people try to engage your ideas about the film with arguments and references to the actual narrative of the film that you're going to ignore them? if these arguments don't support your line of reasoning and interpretation of the first WW film then they're not having the same 'conversation'?
this makes it look as though you are incapable of, or unwilling to, dispute ANY of the perfectly valid counter-arguments that have been made by SiegePerilous02's and others.
look, you're entitled to your opinion about the film. but when you respond to lengthy arguments from other people that actually reference the film and then say "I'm just talking about how she was presented"... it looks like your copping out. it looks like you can't even be bothered to actually defend your declared position.
so the first Wonder Woman film wasn't as confrontational or as revolutionary as you felt it should be.... big deal? I don't see why a superhero(ine) period piece would NEED to confront the present day 'patriarchy'. but, if you feel that's necessary then you can always go out and watch other movies instead. maybe you would like "Mad Max: Fury Road" or "Terminator: Dark Fate" instead? or perhaps you'd prefer the pseudo-historical speculations of "Agora" or "the Favorite"? (Hollywood is typically very, VERY bad with history!)
it just seems like you're setting up an ideological strawman by which to judge the Wonder Woman film. and you're judging it unfairly by standards that it never intended to live up to in the first place. it's like people ridiculing James Cameron's "Aliens" as being a right-wing patriarchal response to the subtle feminist and sexual themes of Ridley Scott's "Alien". true story: people have declared that "Aliens" was the reaction of angry right-wing man children to the threat presented to them by "Alien". even though Cameron has been vegan for ages now... and would fit neatly into the typical Hollywood liberal puzzle.