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

[FutureWonder]

You are spot on! Why is it that so many want to tear down a ‘MOVIE’ about a fictional hero? It’s just a story that involves magic. I haven’t seen the film yet but even if I don’t like it, I will just move on. I have seen YouTube videos where the narrator tears WW84 down for not being realistic and believable. This is again about a fictional character! What is realistic about a superhero anyway? Also, why do so many want them to be realistic? Most likely I will like it. As for the plot line of Steve Trevor’s return and how it was implemented, this was done in the comic before by Trevor’s alternate implanted in the God Eros in WW Volume 1, 322.

I think comic book fanboys in general tend to be some of the most fastidiously, nitpicky/overthinking people on the planet. Remember these are the folks that obssess over/complain about trite details like the eye color that a tertiary character had in an issue of "Superheroine X" released 20 years go. Then, to these types of discussions you add the increasingly complain-for-the-sake-of-complaining attitudes that too many younger fans have developed in our age of the one-track-minded SJW, plus a hot-button topic like rape, and voila: you get absolutely absurd discussions like "Did Wonder Woman rape the handsome dude in WW84?"
I also suspect that many MRAs are enjoying fueling the fires of this futile discussion: they always complain about women complaining about toxic masculinity, and now they are enjoying flipping the script.

The funniest thing is that, with all the flaws that WW84 had, these people have set their sights on the silliest aspect of the film; something that Jenkins wrote as a harmeless nod to the harmless eighties movie comedy trope of switched bodies. I am sure that she had no idea that so many people who don't care about real women being raped would act all offended at their made up conclusion that a dude was "raped" by Diana. It's laughable.

[brettc1]

I think we should also talk about how utterly horrible Diana is in the first movie.

For example, when she smashed that German soldier right out of a second story window.

104495214-wonder-woman.530x298.jpg

Here’s this poor guy, and he’s just doing his patriotic duty to defend his country, fighting alongside the few friends the war has left him. Trying to stay alive long enough to go home and see his Mamma and Pappa, his little sister Helga, and the girl who’s photo he keeps in his left side pocket for luck.

And the suddenly this raging she monster bursts in with a sword.

He’s trying to stop her, to keep his comrades in arms from being killed. His reward is to be smashed through a shuttered window and be hurled twenty feet onto the street below. Probably receives permanent back injuries that will leave him in pain for the rest of his life, adding to the PTSD he’s already suffering from after years of war, and making him unable to work to support his family as Germany goes into economic collapse.

Wonder Woman basically ruined this guys life. Probably his whole family’s as well.

And this is a person who is supposed to be a hero? Honestly, what the hell were Gadot, Jenkins, and Heinberg thinking?!

[Blind Wedjat]

I think comic book fanboys in general tend to be some of the most fastidiously, nitpicky/overthinking people on the planet. Remember these are the folks that obssess over/complain about trite details like the eye color that a tertiary character had in an issue of "Superheroine X" released 20 years go. Then, to these types of discussions you add the increasingly complain-for-the-sake-of-complaining attitudes that too many younger fans have developed in our age of the one-track-minded SJW, plus a hot-button topic like rape, and voila: you get absolutely absurd discussions like "Did Wonder Woman rape the handsome dude in WW84?"
I also suspect that many MRAs are enjoying fueling the fires of this futile discussion: they always complain about women complaining about toxic masculinity, and now they are enjoying flipping the script.

The funniest thing is that, with all the flaws that WW84 had, these people have set their sights on the silliest aspect of the film; something that Jenkins wrote as a harmeless nod to the harmless eighties movie comedy trope of switched bodies. I am sure that she had no idea that so many people who don't care about real women being raped would act all offended at their made up conclusion that a dude was "raped" by Diana. It's laughable.

Just because MRA types are using this backlash to their advantage doesn't mean the backlash isn't warranted. This is the kind of dismissal of criticism that has plagued media for a while now and is making things worse on both sides. As people have pointed out on this thread it's not just those people that have an issue. Lots of people in very progressive circles also have a problem with this, and that's because while #MeToo was primarily made by a woman for women, the movement has extended towards other genders as well. I also find it hilarious you're complaining about SJWs when we're talking about Wonder Woman of all heroes. She might as well be the Queen of SJWs.

There's nothing wrong with Patty Jenkins paying homage to old tropes. But the thing is, old tropes are revisited everyday. Many of them become outdated and filmmakers of today often flip these tropes on their heads to explore different themes and make a point. Flipping the "Black people in horror films" trope is how we ended up with Get Out and the current wave of Black horror movies, for instance. Using a trope without any further examination is just lazy writing and using the trope for using sake.

Nevermind that the film Big--the film Patty is attempting to use to excuse her writing decision--has been part of the discourse of statutory rape in film for years. And like I had said previously, taking the issue of sex and rape aside the morality of putting another man's body in danger is completely handwaved by the film. Diana who pledged to fight for and protect the innocent doesn't care about it for even a second. Steve never brings it up at all. The entire dilemma was only about her powers to defeat Max. And we're supposed to somehow accept that for days when the world almost went into war that none of the Handsome Man's friends and family tried to check up on him or his job never tried to contact him, despite being missing for days?

There was no point of Patty using the trope if it was just going to bring the movie down several notches and overcomplicate things.

[Blind Wedjat]

I think we should also talk about how utterly horrible Diana is in the first movie.

For example, when she smashed that German soldier right out of a second story window.

104495214-wonder-woman.530x298.jpg

Here’s this poor guy, and he’s just doing his patriotic duty to defend his country, fighting alongside the few friends the war has left him. Trying to stay alive long enough to go home and see his mamma and Papps, his little sister and the girl who’s photo he keeps in his left side pocket for luck.

And the suddenly this raging she monster bursts in with a sword. He’s trying to stop her, to keep his comrades in arms from being killed. His reward is to be smashed through a shuttered window and falls twenty feet onto the street below. Probably receives permanent back injuries that will leave him in pain for the rest of his life, making him unable to work to support his family as Germany goes into economic collapse.

Wonder Woman basically ruined this guys life. Probably his whole family’s as well.

And this is a person who is supposed to be a hero? Honestly, what the hell were Gadot, Jenkins, and Heinberg thinking?!

If you're trying to compare fighting an enemy German soldier to using someone's body without their consent, it's quite obvious that you don't understand the general issue at all.

[brettc1]

If you're trying to compare fighting an enemy German soldier to using someone's body without their consent, it's quite obvious that you don't understand the general issue at all.

Oh I understand it perfectly.

Wonder Woman does awful things to people. What about all those times she violates people’s civil rights with that magic lasso?

You realise the mall has to pay for those security cameras she selfishly destroyed, right?

[Blind Wedjat]

Oh I understand it perfectly.

Wonder Woman does awful things to people. What about all those times she violates people’s civil rights with that magic lasso?

You realise the mall has to pay for those security cameras she selfishly destroyed, right?

Are you seriously comparing property damage to consent? To the violation of one's human rights?

[brettc1]

Are you seriously comparing property damage to consent? To the violation of one's human rights?

You want to talk about human rights? What about all those a German soldiers Diana and the Amazons murdered? Men just doing their duty, and not one was taken prisoner.

9040E702-FDC2-44BE-BA43-36A995843445.jpg

Brave young men, dying on the sands of an alien shore when they would rather be home with their families and loved ones. No thought given to how those people back in Germany will suffer never even knowing what happened to their sons, brothers, husbands and sweethearts.

[Blind Wedjat]

This is borderline trolling. Soldiers know the risk of going into combat. Soldiers are expected to die in the battlefield. It is their choice. Being a soldier and dying in the battlefield is not considered a human rights violation.

If you think being a soldier is comparable to rape or having your body used in anyway without your consent, then you obviously don't know any soldiers and are actually insulting them. And I pray with that mentality no one you love ever has their consent violated.

[Awonder]

If an individual's entire consciousness can leave its body, does the consciousness still "own" the body it left?

Note: I don't think this part of the movie was a good idea, but I also think it is being blown way overboard by the "rage for attention" crowd. Sadly, that's our current cultural climate.

[brettc1]

This is borderline trolling. Soldiers know the risk of going into combat. Soldiers are expected to die in the battlefield. It is their choice. Being a soldier and dying in the battlefield is not considered a human rights violation.

If you think being a soldier is comparable to rape or having your body used in anyway without your consent, then you obviously don't know any soldiers and are actually insulting them. And I pray with that mentality no one you love ever has their consent violated.

It’s not trolling. It’s nitpicking.

Not one German soldier tried to surrender on that beach? Is that realistic? No quarter given? Kill them all?

Or do we just let it go because it’s a movie, and everything is offensive to somebody? L

We don’t even know that Steve and Diana had sex. The guy lived and came out of it with a world not obliterated in a nuclear war and some improved fashion sense.

Let’s just move on.

[Blind Wedjat]

If an individual's entire consciousness can leave its body, does the consciousness still "own" the body it left?

Note: I don't think this part of the movie was a good idea, but I also think it is being blown way overboard by the "rage for attention" crowd. Sadly, that's our current cultural climate.

Then Patty Jenkins is either a careless storyteller or simply a poor one, if she couldn't see this entire situation becoming a problem for many people.

We don’t even know that Steve and Diana had sex.

See reply:

The film implies that they had sex. I'm not about to rewrite the common film language of seeing a couple wake up the next morning in their underwear which has been used to imply sex without showing it for decades, just for this one movie so I can pretend it's somehow less problematic. That is enough to draw the conclusion that she did in fact have sex with Steve.

[Alpha]

If you're trying to compare fighting an enemy German soldier to using someone's body without their consent, it's quite obvious that you don't understand the general issue at all.

You do realize that the first world war was fought over territorial control and alliances betweeen countries. There was no wrong or right side. That german soldier was fighting for his country and he had every reason to. Diana was only fighting with the allies because Steve Trevor was american. If he was german she would've been on their side.

[Alpha]

This is borderline trolling. Soldiers know the risk of going into combat. Soldiers are expected to die in the battlefield. It is their choice. Being a soldier and dying in the battlefield is not considered a human rights violation.

If you think being a soldier is comparable to rape or having your body used in anyway without your consent, then you obviously don't know any soldiers and are actually insulting them. And I pray with that mentality no one you love ever has their consent violated.

That soldier didn't expect to fight an indestructible woman who can lift tanks. And can you for the love of god stop talking about consent considering the fact that "switching bodies with someone" is incomparable to actual rape or sexual abuse.

[Alpha]

Are you seriously comparing property damage to consent? To the violation of one's human rights?

Steve Trevor possessed a guy. This has absolutely no comparison to rape or sexual abuse.

[brettc1]

You do realize that the first world war was fought over territorial control and alliances betweeen countries. There was no wrong or right side. That german soldier was fighting for his country and he had every reason to. Diana was only fighting with the allies because Steve Trevor was american. If he was german she would've been on their side.

True that. A German soldier put in the lasso would have talked about how they were fighting to defend their way of life and homeland against British imperialism.