(Spoilers) So like "Steve" and Diana in WW84.... are we gonna talk about it?

[Alpha]

WW84 asks us to imagine a world where putting a man in a body without consent is possible.

WW84 therefore asks us to think about the implications of the action. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be asking us to get invested.

Are you saying we shouldn't be invested in WW84?

What you are severily missunderstanding is the difference between expressing that you don't like something in a movie, and actually saying that something is wrong and it was wrong to do it. The first one is aesthetics, and it's fair game but it's unimportant. The second one is deeply consequential ethics. It's all right to say you don't like them having sex. But it wasn't wrong for Patty to direct that scene in that way. We reprimend filmmakers who present things in a way that might make them seem normal because it could lead others to recreate them or internalize them. This is the reason why racism in films is hurtfull. This is the reason why many war movies are judged as immoral. This was also what people worried about Joker (although that one ended up being a dud and anyone that takes any lesson from that meaningless movie is fooling themselves). These type of discussions matter when they have an impact on the world. And this is the reason why I find your insistence on discussing the morality of that scene and reprimending Patty Jenkins stupid, and hurtful, and intelectually insulting.

I will repeat, we complain about actual rape or things that emotionally resemble rape or abuse in movies because they normalize behaviour. That's literally the only reason. What you are proposing is essentially aesthetics. You don't like how something looks and you think it's worth a serious discussion and reprimending the filmmaker, but it isn't. I don't like when a character eats a raw fish in a film, or licks their own armpit, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't hurt anyone and if someone else does it on world It's of no concern of mine. When we see someone threaten another person into sex, or emotionally manipulate them, or force themselves on them when they are passed out, that's when it's worth complaining about. If there is a scene about rape then it's the scene in the park. It's not well written but it does present a not subtle attempt of rape. And it hopefully makes it clear that any person watching that scene should intervene when something like that happens in the real world. If the movie presented that rape attempt as perfectly okay, well then we should complain about it because it impacts the world.

Some people complained about the way the muslim world was portrayed in the movie. And while I don't entirely think it meant to say what some people interpreted, I do think there is a fair enough discussion to be had on it. Steve and Diana's weird sex life does not.

[brettc1]

"Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

Grant Morrison ;-)

Dont you listen to the naysayers AW. This is exactly the problem.

Simply put, many of the people struggling with the movie do so because it exceeds their willing suspension of cynicism.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Are you kidding me? What do you think a metaphor is? A metaphor is literally taking away the specific circumstances and creating a setting with similar emotions to express an idea. And this isn't a metaphor for drug rape becaus the emotion behind it resembles it in no way. And you are ignoring the fact that, once again, NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL RAPE. With something as specific as rape the whole point is that you have to understand the specific circumstances. The difference between consent and no consent is specific words and gestures. The more abstract you make it the more you miss how people fall into believing that they had consent but in fact didn't. So NO, WE CAN'T TREAT IT AS A METAPHOR because it misses the whole point of how we educate people on being respectful during sex. If you are using a metaphor to explain, or demonstrate consent, then you are doing it very wrong. Complain about the action in the movie all you want.

Consent requires Steve and Diana asking the owner of the body to do things with him, and this isn't just about sex. They could have killed and maimed him, then what? Sucks to be you guy who was possessed by Steve but them's the breaks. No, it's not real rape and it doesn't have to be for it to be a metaphor - this is why my examples of Dracula re completely overlooked because to break the argument into pieces. Dracula can't be about sexual mores of the Victorian period being explored though the exotic other of vampires, and how in media vampires biting victims can be symbolised as sex or rape.

There was no consent given, which continues to be ignored. The movie doesn't even bother giving the man a real name, that's how little the narrative cares about him as a person. His body is up for grabs, sexually or otherwise, by our heroes and they don't hesitate to think maybe they should have to to ask him or since they can't don't do anything and this adds another wrinkle to Diana's desire to keep Steve alive, if Steve had done that they would have both taken the owner's life away and he'd have never have known. His friends, family, colleagues - what are they going to think when he disappears once day since Steve's not maintaining that identity.

This isn't about teaching, WW '84 isn't a sex ed documentary film - but we, the audience, can judge characters by their actions and what Steve and Diana could be considered rape. Would the owner be ok with it? We never find out, and Diana's not talking. Ergo, no consent even after the fact.

Complain about the CGI all you want. Complain about the dialogue all you want. DON'T PRETEND THAT WW84 IS A MOVIE ABOUT RAPE.

That's the problem, you think we're pretending when we're calling a spade a spade. That's incredibly '80's about the movie, that era didn't care that much for consent, either, that;s why its so strange to see Wonder Woman herself participate in it. I don't know hoe Jenkins missed this, or may she didn't and is keeping her mouth shut until she can spill about what happened behind the scenes.

Revenge of the Nerds isn't supposed to be a film about rape, it is in hindsight because society has realised what they did wouldn't go over like nothing in 2021. The actual narrative in ROTN is that if you're a nerd you can pose as a sexy girl's boyfriend and have sex with her who she thinks the nerd is her boyfriend and when it's over rather than be shocked or upset she's becomes his girlfriend instead!

[Alpha]

Consent requires Steve and Diana asking the owner of the body to do things with him, and this isn't just about sex. They could have killed and maimed him, then what? Sucks to be you guy who was possessed by Steve but them's the breaks. No, it's not real rape and it doesn't have to be for it to be a metaphor - this is why my examples of Dracula re completely overlooked because to break the argument into pieces. Dracula can't be about sexual mores of the Victorian period being explored though the exotic other of vampires, and how in media vampires biting victims can be symbolised as sex or rape.

There was no consent given, which continues to be ignored. The movie doesn't even bother giving the man a real name, that's how little the narrative cares about him as a person. His body is up for grabs, sexually or otherwise, by our heroes and they don't hesitate to think maybe they should have to to ask him or since they can't don't do anything and this adds another wrinkle to Diana's desire to keep Steve alive, if Steve had done that they would have both taken the owner's life away and he'd have never have known. His friends, family, colleagues - what are they going to think when he disappears once day since Steve's not maintaining that identity.

This isn't about teaching, WW '84 isn't a sex ed documentary film - but we, the audience, can judge characters by their actions and what Steve and Diana could be considered rape. Would the owner be ok with it? We never find out, and Diana's not talking. Ergo, no consent even after the fact.




That's the problem, you think we're pretending when we're calling a spade a spade. That's incredibly '80's about the movie, that era didn't care that much for consent, either, that;s why its so strange to see Wonder Woman herself participate in it. I don't know hoe Jenkins missed this, or may she didn't and is keeping her mouth shut until she can spill about what happened behind the scenes.

Revenge of the Nerds isn't supposed to be a film about rape, it is in hindsight because society has realised what they did wouldn't go over like nothing in 2021. The actual narrative in ROTN is that if you're a nerd you can pose as a sexy girl's boyfriend and have sex with her who she thinks the nerd is her boyfriend and when it's over rather than be shocked or upset she's becomes his girlfriend instead!

You completely ignored my comment about why Rape shouldn't be explored or commented on via distant metaphors. I don't know why you keep bringing up Dracula. Dracula is much more similar to real rape than WW84. Dracula uses mind control to reduce their inhibitions. He has the super strength to force himself physically and he disguises himself as other things. These are all active ways where he manipulates women emotionally and reduces their capacity to consent via artificial means, instead of drugs he uses his powers. Regardless of that whatever he does is either upon an unconscious body that is irresponsive or upon a conscious person that isn't in the right mental state to consent. Whereas WW84 has Steve have sex with conscious bodies that are in a secure mental state. Regardless of you disagreeing with me when I say that the body belongs to Steve at that moment, you can still recognize that there is far more consent and personal agency in WW84 than in Dracula.

I will propose something to you. If Firestorm had sex with a woman. Would both of the minds inside Firestorm have to consent even if one of them wasn't experiencing any of it? (And to be clear I think it's likely that in WW84 the other guy's soul isn't so much unconscious as it is nonexistent)

And please read the other comment I wrote on top of this page to LordUltimus. I explain that even if it was rape it doesn't deserve to be something reprimanded as a choice by the filmmakers, due to the fact that it isn't a type of rape that would be possible in our world, and the fact that it doesn't emotionaly resemble the circumstances of commiting rape in the real world (and the whole point of metaohors is the transference of an emotional experience to something with different circumstances).

[Blind Wedjat]

This thread was created by OP to talk about this specific situation in the movie. Telling people not to talk about it here and talk about something else would make the discussion off topic.

[Steel Inquisitor]

You completely ignored my comment about why Rape shouldn't be explored or commented on via distant metaphors. I don't know why you keep bringing up Dracula. Dracula is much more similar to real rape than WW84. Dracula uses mind control to reduce their inhibitions. He has the super strength to force himself physically and he disguises himself as other things. These are all active ways where he manipulates women emotionally and reduces their capacity to consent via artificial means, instead of drugs he uses his powers. Regardless of that whatever he does is either upon an unconscious body that is irresponsive or upon a conscious person that isn't in the right mental state to consent. Whereas WW84 has Steve have sex with conscious bodies that are in a secure mental state. Regardless of you disagreeing with me when I say that the body belongs to Steve at that moment, you can still recognize that there is far more consent and personal agency in WW84 than in Dracula.

That's moving the goal posts, the movie wasn't deliberately doing that - the problem is that the movie creators didn't know or didn't care about the implications and have less of an excuse then the Revenge of the Nerds movie. But I am curious, did you think that situation was rape? I bought up Dracula to point out that literary criticism is a thing and has been with media for a long, long time and I don't appreciate those portions of my argument, which did go into sufficient detail, being utterly ignored for so long as if I didn't day anything and when it is bought up its met with "I don't know what t his has too with anything." You know what it has to do with WW '84, I wasn't being subtle. I gave a video on the subject of how literary criticism works, did you watch it? Completely missed the point about the Dracula metaphors, it's what they represent to the audience not the acts themselves. Symbolism. It wasn't just about rape metaphors in fiction, the problem is you're having trouble grasping metaphors in fiction is a thing and it's not always intentional, like in Revenge of the Nerds. Did you watch that movie?

And why are so focused on Steve as if he's the one we should only be concerned about? The issue is with the man whose body he's using without permission and doesn't ever give consent to anything in the movie. He's lucky he's alive by the end of it because Steve's constantly on the verge of being murdered. Steve dies, he takes the body owner with him so two people die and the other has no agency in keeping his body safe. The body doesn't "belong" to Steve like any car doesn't belong to any thief who steals it, he has no right to it. Steve's dead, he's a ghost. He's not entitled to anything from that man. It's not like he asked the man for any consent about using it and has no regard keeping it safe and sound and even if he did Diana wanted him to keep it so that man's life would be over and he wouldn't know it. Ever. Dracula doesn't understand consent, he takes what he wants and mind controls women into his eyes, and they become demons under his control when they become vampires. The only reason they're slightly above Steve is that they know what's going on and are terrified by the experience and try running away, the man never stood a chance he was just "gone" one day with no warning.

I will propose something to you. If Firestorm had sex with a woman. Would both of the minds inside Firestorm have to consent even if one of them wasn't experiencing any of it? (And to be clear I think it's likely that in WW84 the other guy's soul isn't so much unconscious as it is nonexistent)

Did you watch WW '84? What was going on with Steve was nothing like Firestorm. For example, the identity that becomes a "spirit" with Firestorm is alert and is communication with the person operating the body. They see and hear everything the body does and reacts to it in real time.

This didn't happen to Steve in the movie, the man in the story has the narrative of an object not a person.

And please read the other comment I wrote on top of this page to LordUltimus. I explain that even if it was rape it doesn't deserve to be something reprimanded as a choice by the filmmakers, due to the fact that it isn't a type of rape that would be possible in our world, and the fact that it doesn't emotionaly resemble the circumstances of commiting rape in the real world (and the whole point of metaohors is the transference of an emotional experience to something with different circumstances).

Again, completely misses the point of literary criticism and that metaphors don't have be 1=1 to be bad decisions by film makers. Of course they get blame for those choices, they control the mechanics of the story and what Steve and Diana do. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this, you're not understanding anything I'm saying. Do you read or watch movie reviews? Because they do this all the time for various subjects.

[brettc1]

Well I still think this is funny.

FARSCAPE season 2 episode 9: John Crichton In Aeryn Sun’s body...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fD7Uah_QUY

Mentally damaged. Hilarious!

[LordUltimus]

I will propose something to you. If Firestorm had sex with a woman. Would both of the minds inside Firestorm have to consent even if one of them wasn't experiencing any of it? (And to be clear I think it's likely that in WW84 the other guy's soul isn't so much unconscious as it is nonexistent)

Yes. And as mentioned, Firestorm is a bad example because both minds perceive everything together anyways. This literally happened in Future's End, and the only reason people didn't go ballistic was because it was an alternate future.

And anyway, him not experiencing it doesn't matter. Having sex with a comatose man would still be rape. It would be an especially vile form of rape because he physically could not give consent even if he would say yes.

[Alpha]

That's moving the goal posts, the movie wasn't deliberately doing that - the problem is that the movie creators didn't know or didn't care about the implications and have less of an excuse then the Revenge of the Nerds movie. But I am curious, did you think that situation was rape? I bought up Dracula to point out that literary criticism is a thing and has been with media for a long, long time and I don't appreciate those portions of my argument, which did go into sufficient detail, being utterly ignored for so long as if I didn't day anything and when it is bought up its met with "I don't know what t his has too with anything." You know what it has to do with WW '84, I wasn't being subtle. I gave a video on the subject of how literary criticism works, did you watch it? Completely missed the point about the Dracula metaphors, it's what they represent to the audience not the acts themselves. Symbolism. It wasn't just about rape metaphors in fiction, the problem is you're having trouble grasping metaphors in fiction is a thing and it's not always intentional, like in Revenge of the Nerds. Did you watch that movie?

And why are so focused on Steve as if he's the one we should only be concerned about? The issue is with the man whose body he's using without permission and doesn't ever give consent to anything in the movie. He's lucky he's alive by the end of it because Steve's constantly on the verge of being murdered. Steve dies, he takes the body owner with him so two people die and the other has no agency in keeping his body safe. The body doesn't "belong" to Steve like any car doesn't belong to any thief who steals it, he has no right to it. Steve's dead, he's a ghost. He's not entitled to anything from that man. It's not like he asked the man for any consent about using it and has no regard keeping it safe and sound and even if he did Diana wanted him to keep it so that man's life would be over and he wouldn't know it. Ever. Dracula doesn't understand consent, he takes what he wants and mind controls women into his eyes, and they become demons under his control when they become vampires. The only reason they're slightly above Steve is that they know what's going on and are terrified by the experience and try running away, the man never stood a chance he was just "gone" one day with no warning.



Did you watch WW '84? What was going on with Steve was nothing like Firestorm. For example, the identity that becomes a "spirit" with Firestorm is alert and is communication with the person operating the body. They see and hear everything the body does and reacts to it in real time.

This didn't happen to Steve in the movie, the man in the story has the narrative of an object not a person.





Again, completely misses the point of literary criticism and that metaphors don't have be 1=1 to be bad decisions by film makers. Of course they get blame for those choices, they control the mechanics of the story and what Steve and Diana do. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this, you're not understanding anything I'm saying. Do you read or watch movie reviews? Because they do this all the time for various subjects.

I don't understand why you think the term "literary criticism" changes the dynamics of the conversation. We can judge and reprimand the actions of a fictional character but only within the scope of human ethics and behaviours. This is why we don't have rule of ethics for co existing with self aware artificial intelligence or colonization of other planets. Because we can only define the correct behaviour once we experience those things. We wouldn't want a guy from 100 B.c. defining the rules for online dating now would we? Same thing applies to impossible things that happen in fiction. The further away the action gets from the emotional reality of real life the less adequate our moral rules are. You can still judge them and discuss them, but not shame and ask for correction.

And I reiterate, rape and sexual harassment is such an intimate issue that what really matters are the specific actions someone takes. The difference between consent and non consent is a fine line sometimes. Your conception of the scene as a metaphor for drug eape isn't accurate.

And I know how Firestorm works. I'm proposing a story where one of the two heads within Firestorm is unconscious and unable to be woken up, and the other one is awake and in control of the body. If he decides to have sex with someone is he raping the other unconscious head?

[Alpha]

What you are severily missunderstanding is the difference between expressing that you don't like something in a movie, and actually saying that something is wrong and it was wrong to do it. The first one is aesthetics, and it's fair game but it's unimportant. The second one is deeply consequential ethics. It's all right to say you don't like them having sex. But it wasn't wrong for Patty to direct that scene in that way. We reprimend filmmakers who present things in a way that might make them seem normal because it could lead others to recreate them or internalize them. This is the reason why racism in films is hurtfull. This is the reason why many war movies are judged as immoral. This was also what people worried about Joker (although that one ended up being a dud and anyone that takes any lesson from that meaningless movie is fooling themselves). These type of discussions matter when they have an impact on the world. And this is the reason why I find your insistence on discussing the morality of that scene and reprimending Patty Jenkins stupid, and hurtful, and intelectually insulting.

I will repeat, we complain about actual rape or things that emotionally resemble rape or abuse in movies because they normalize behaviour. That's literally the only reason. What you are proposing is essentially aesthetics. You don't like how something looks and you think it's worth a serious discussion and reprimending the filmmaker, but it isn't. I don't like when a character eats a raw fish in a film, or licks their own armpit, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't hurt anyone and if someone else does it on world It's of no concern of mine. When we see someone threaten another person into sex, or emotionally manipulate them, or force themselves on them when they are passed out, that's when it's worth complaining about. If there is a scene about rape then it's the scene in the park. It's not well written but it does present a not subtle attempt of rape. And it hopefully makes it clear that any person watching that scene should intervene when something like that happens in the real world. If the movie presented that rape attempt as perfectly okay, well then we should complain about it because it impacts the world.

Some people complained about the way the muslim world was portrayed in the movie. And while I don't entirely think it meant to say what some people interpreted, I do think there is a fair enough discussion to be had on it. Steve and Diana's weird sex life does not.

[Alpha]

I'll give you another example. This is a plotline for a real movie

"Every Day tells the story of Rhiannon (Angourie Rice), a 16-year old girl who falls in love with a mysterious soul named "A" who inhabits a different body every day. Feeling an unmatched connection, Rhiannon and A work each day to find each other, not knowing what or who the next day will bring. The more the two fall in love, the more the realities of loving someone who is a different person every 24 hours takes a toll, leaving Rhiannon and "A" to face the hardest decision either has ever had to make. "

Is this movie about a 16 year old girl who is a serial rapist and her boyfriend who also happens to be a rapist appearantely?

[LordUltimus]

And I know how Firestorm works. I'm proposing a story where one of the two heads within Firestorm is unconscious and unable to be woken up, and the other one is awake and in control of the body. If he decides to have sex with someone is he raping the other unconscious head?

Yes. They share the same body. Using the body knowingly without the consent of the other in a sexual way is rape.

[LordUltimus]

I'll give you another example. This is a plotline for a real movie

"Every Day tells the story of Rhiannon (Angourie Rice), a 16-year old girl who falls in love with a mysterious soul named "A" who inhabits a different body every day. Feeling an unmatched connection, Rhiannon and A work each day to find each other, not knowing what or who the next day will bring. The more the two fall in love, the more the realities of loving someone who is a different person every 24 hours takes a toll, leaving Rhiannon and "A" to face the hardest decision either has ever had to make. "

Is this movie about a 16 year old girl who is a serial rapist and her boyfriend who also happens to be a rapist appearantely?

Yes.

10 char.

[LordUltimus]

What you are severily missunderstanding is the difference between expressing that you don't like something in a movie, and actually saying that something is wrong and it was wrong to do it. The first one is aesthetics, and it's fair game but it's unimportant. The second one is deeply consequential ethics. It's all right to say you don't like them having sex. But it wasn't wrong for Patty to direct that scene in that way. We reprimend filmmakers who present things in a way that might make them seem normal because it could lead others to recreate them or internalize them. This is the reason why racism in films is hurtfull. This is the reason why many war movies are judged as immoral. This was also what people worried about Joker (although that one ended up being a dud and anyone that takes any lesson from that meaningless movie is fooling themselves). These type of discussions matter when they have an impact on the world. And this is the reason why I find your insistence on discussing the morality of that scene and reprimending Patty Jenkins stupid, and hurtful, and intelectually insulting.

I will repeat, we complain about actual rape or things that emotionally resemble rape or abuse in movies because they normalize behaviour. That's literally the only reason. What you are proposing is essentially aesthetics. You don't like how something looks and you think it's worth a serious discussion and reprimending the filmmaker, but it isn't. I don't like when a character eats a raw fish in a film, or licks their own armpit, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't hurt anyone and if someone else does it on world It's of no concern of mine. When we see someone threaten another person into sex, or emotionally manipulate them, or force themselves on them when they are passed out, that's when it's worth complaining about. If there is a scene about rape then it's the scene in the park. It's not well written but it does present a not subtle attempt of rape. And it hopefully makes it clear that any person watching that scene should intervene when something like that happens in the real world. If the movie presented that rape attempt as perfectly okay, well then we should complain about it because it impacts the world.

Some people complained about the way the muslim world was portrayed in the movie. And while I don't entirely think it meant to say what some people interpreted, I do think there is a fair enough discussion to be had on it. Steve and Diana's weird sex life does not.

What you are severily missunderstanding is the difference between expressing that you don't like something in a movie, and actually saying that something is wrong and it was wrong to do it. The first one is aesthetics, and it's fair game but it's unimportant. The second one is deeply consequential ethics. It's all right to say you don't like them having sex. But it wasn't wrong for Patty to direct that scene in that way. We reprimend filmmakers who present things in a way that might make them seem normal because it could lead others to recreate them or internalize them. This is the reason why racism in films is hurtfull. This is the reason why many war movies are judged as immoral. This was also what people worried about Joker (although that one ended up being a dud and anyone that takes any lesson from that meaningless movie is fooling themselves). These type of discussions matter when they have an impact on the world. And this is the reason why I find your insistence on discussing the morality of that scene and reprimending Patty Jenkins stupid, and hurtful, and intelectually insulting.

I will repeat, we complain about actual rape or things that emotionally resemble rape or abuse in movies because they normalize behaviour. That's literally the only reason. What you are proposing is essentially aesthetics. You don't like how something looks and you think it's worth a serious discussion and reprimending the filmmaker, but it isn't. I don't like when a character eats a raw fish in a film, or licks their own armpit, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't hurt anyone and if someone else does it on world It's of no concern of mine. When we see someone threaten another person into sex, or emotionally manipulate them, or force themselves on them when they are passed out, that's when it's worth complaining about. If there is a scene about rape then it's the scene in the park. It's not well written but it does present a not subtle attempt of rape. And it hopefully makes it clear that any person watching that scene should intervene when something like that happens in the real world. If the movie presented that rape attempt as perfectly okay, well then we should complain about it because it impacts the world.

Some people complained about the way the muslim world was portrayed in the movie. And while I don't entirely think it meant to say what some people interpreted, I do think there is a fair enough discussion to be had on it. Steve and Diana's weird sex life does not.

Did... did you just literally copy and paste your own post on the same thread page?

[brettc1]

Seems to me that this whole concern is predicated on the idea that a handsome single living by himself in the 80s would not want Wonder Woman to have sex with him.

Yeah, sure. And people think everyone revoking their wishes is unrealistic.

Oh, but Brett, how do you know he’s straight! HA! Explain that, you heteronormative oppressor!

Well, if we accept that sexual orientation is genetic, that would mean its hardwired into the body the same as autonomic functions like pulse and breathing. Therefore, putting a person brain into another persons body would effectively give them that body’s aroussl response, in the same way that putting A guy into a woman’s body would allow them to see extra shades of red because of the extra cones in the eye structure.

Science.