Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 222829303132
Results 466 to 475 of 475
  1. #466
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awonder View Post
    You'll just cherry pick movies instead.
    I never said it was all the movies in the world, but it does indicate a growing trend. What other movies would you like to discuss?



    I agree with you (based on your description) about that proposal in Australia to never lay hands on a woman; that it can be too simplistic. Similarly, while it sounds to good say it's a single issue requiring a single response, I think that can be too simplistic as well.

    Take heart attacks for example. Doctors assumed it was a "single issue;" they were wrong. Heart attacks don't show the exact same symptoms in women as they do in men, so, for years, many women having a heart attack went undiagnosed, leading to preventable deaths. It would be bad science to treat it as a "single issue."

    Further, both men and women get breast cancer. For the individuals affected - men and women - I hope they get the best care available. But, from a social standpoint, far more women get breast cancer, so, no, I would not put half of my effort and resources into screenings for men. It would be bad rescource management to treat it as a "single issue."

    Sometimes, "single issue" just doesn't fit the realities of our unbalanced world.
    Your cancer premise is flawed, because it focusses on individual types of the disease. While there are specific varieties that target certain genders, there are many kind [like skin cancer] that affect both. And a better way to tackle cancer is to address the disease as a whole. That way you help everyone.

    I agree that body issues are currently a more pressing issue for females than males, but that trend is changing and I am not going to turn my back on the future of 50% of my children on the increasingly flawed premise that only one of them is likely to grapple seriously with this issue.

    Regarding what Phil said - that the boys won, I think a better way to say it might be that increasingly everyone has lost. His focus in a way that Wonder Woman is presented that represents a certain male expectation and what male readers find acceptable - which is valid. The Wonder Woman appearing in most of the issues of the first two years of New52 was far more violent and far less in control of her emotional outbursts. The fact she has changed at all is, I think, largely in part to writers saying "That is not really Wonder Woman" any more than Superman written that way is the typical expectation for Superman.

    However, we also get some depictions of male characters, or the way that female characters interact with male characters, which I would consider sexist [the Superman page above, for example]. So instead of removing sexism you just equalize it.

    Sort of like curing cancer by making sure everybody has it.

    And being for men doesn't mean you are against women.
    Last edited by brettc1; 10-13-2015 at 12:48 AM.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  2. #467
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    This is another quote from Phil linked to the same article...

    Going back to the Lynda Carter stuff, the way that she embodied that character, the whole song, ‘make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love,’ I’m into that. The thing to me about Wonder Woman, like a lot characters, is the core concept. What’s interesting to me about her is she asks audiences a lot when she’s done well, what they think about women and what they think about war. Those two things are very important to me, so that character at its best constantly asks me questions about how I feel about those two things.
    Some here will say that she still does that, but I think the core question has changed and that has subtly but profoundly changed the character.

    At the moment, if some are to be believed, her question is "Do you really want to go to war? War is terrible, and if you go to war with me it will be terrible for you, so is that really what you want?" It's basically a kind of threat.

    Previously I don't think that implied threat was there. Regardless of whether or not she had a sword in her hand in her first issue, the key element of the character was that she didn't just want to stop war, she wanted to bring peace. I'm not sure that same impetus is there, even with the recent text in Justice League #44.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  3. #468
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1
    At the moment, if some are to be believed, her question is "Do you really want to go to war? War is terrible, and if you go to war with me it will be terrible for you, so is that really what you want?" It's basically a kind of threat.

    Previously I don't think that implied threat was there. Regardless of whether or not she had a sword in her hand in her first issue, the key element of the character was that she didn't just want to stop war, she wanted to bring peace. I'm not sure that same impetus is there, even with the recent text in Justice League #44.
    I think that the question/threat you mention sounds like something the Ares of #0 (with his tendency to rationalize) might have said. But Wonder Woman rejected his philosophy. When she spares the minotaur, sides with "the girl in the middle of nowhere" against both king and queen, responds to Hades' cruelty with a gift, hugs the sister who is hurling a storm of blades at her, encourages Milan and Orion to find their inner heroes, shows concern for Demeter even though that goddess was on the wrong side, spares the First Born's life hen she could have sent him to Hades with Ares, gives up information to Cassandra rather than continuing to fight when Milan's life is in jeopardy, intentionally loses to Artemis in order to secure her assistance, etc., she shows that she cares not just about brining wars but about stopping peace. If her goal was just to "stop war," she would, for example, have killed the minotaur and the First Born, and thus prevented future killings. But because her goal was to bring peace by being peaceful ("be the change you seek in the world," as Ghandi said), she leaves them alive, even knowing that they may fight another day. in Azz's book, as summed up in the final issue, I think her actual question is "instead of making war, shouldn't we love each other and submit ot each other? Shouldn't we trust in each other's strengths?" (Unfortunately, the First Born's answer to that question is "no"--or yes, but defining "love" as possession--so she can't save him.)

    I know you've said you consider the Azz run to be an exception, but it's where we get the most sustained development of the character in the New 52, so I don't think it can be pushed off to one side in any discussion of the New 52 Wonder Woman.

    I do see plenty of places in other books where she takes the "threatening" stance you mention. But in JL, we've seen examples more recently of her showing a preference for peace--doing charitable work in (I think) Africa alongside Lex Luthor, giving Luthor a chance to show that he can be trusted, some of the comments she has made int he Darkseid arc. Even in the Finch arc, after Hippolyta's words about "managing conflict," she starts to show less impulsiveness and more of a tendency towards peace (i.e, trying to reform Donna. I don't think Finch is portraying this well, but she does seem to be trying.) Whether this development is or is not because "writers are saying 'this is not Wonder Woman,'" it is (as you seem to acknowledge, to some degree) happening, so it has to be part of how we assess New 52 Wonder Woman overall.

    Jiminez could have made the same comments if he had heard the title "god of war" and seen a smattering of panels in which Wonder Woman does or says something violent, but never read any whole issues of Wonder Woman since the New 52 started. So while his comments about her new Olympian title, for example, reflect some reasonable assumptions about what being the god of war might mean, I just don't think they address what (if anything) being god of war has meant in the books.

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    While there are specific varieties that target certain genders, there are many kind [like skin cancer] that affect both. And a better way to tackle cancer is to address the disease as a whole. That way you help everyone.
    If scientists can develop a screening for "all cancers" that's effective enough to take the place of all the screenings for specific forms of cancer, that would be great. But, as long as doctors recommend type-specific screenings for anyone, health care systems have to set policies for such screenings. So, for example, if doctors are going to recommend and fund routine mammograms for all women over a certain age, must they also recommend and fund the same for men, to avoid a "double standard"? Even though men only account for about 1% of breast cancer cases per year?
    Last edited by Silvanus; 10-13-2015 at 07:35 AM.

  4. #469
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIu...ature=youtu.be

    hum so wonder woman will show up on robot chicken, besically as a sexual object to superman and batman lust over her. catwoman shows up only to show her bra.
    happy wonder owman 75th anniversary I guess

  5. #470
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tayswift View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIu...ature=youtu.be

    hum so wonder woman will show up on robot chicken, besically as a sexual object to superman and batman lust over her. catwoman shows up only to show her bra.
    happy wonder owman 75th anniversary I guess
    I may have missed something but I didn't see Superman appear in batman's porno scenario. Seriously can we stop blaming Superman for all of Wonder Woman's problems.

  6. #471
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssupes View Post
    I may have missed something but I didn't see Superman appear in batman's porno scenario. Seriously can we stop blaming Superman for all of Wonder Woman's problems.
    you lost the part that supes and bats are on a road trip and then they see sexy womander woman and get excited.
    nobody blaming on superman or batman, but the creators and DC that greenlit this

  7. #472
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    I think that the question/threat you mention sounds like something the Ares of #0 (with his tendency to rationalize) might have said. But Wonder Woman rejected his philosophy. When she spares the minotaur, sides with "the girl in the middle of nowhere" against both king and queen, responds to Hades' cruelty with a gift, hugs the sister who is hurling a storm of blades at her, encourages Milan and Orion to find their inner heroes, shows concern for Demeter even though that goddess was on the wrong side, spares the First Born's life hen she could have sent him to Hades with Ares, gives up information to Cassandra rather than continuing to fight when Milan's life is in jeopardy, intentionally loses to Artemis in order to secure her assistance, etc., she shows that she cares not just about brining wars but about stopping peace. If her goal was just to "stop war," she would, for example, have killed the minotaur and the First Born, and thus prevented future killings. But because her goal was to bring peace by being peaceful ("be the change you seek in the world," as Ghandi said), she leaves them alive, even knowing that they may fight another day. in Azz's book, as summed up in the final issue, I think her actual question is "instead of making war, shouldn't we love each other and submit ot each other? Shouldn't we trust in each other's strengths?" (Unfortunately, the First Born's answer to that question is "no"--or yes, but defining "love" as possession--so she can't save him.)

    I know you've said you consider the Azz run to be an exception, but it's where we get the most sustained development of the character in the New 52, so I don't think it can be pushed off to one side in any discussion of the New 52 Wonder Woman.

    I do see plenty of places in other books where she takes the "threatening" stance you mention. But in JL, we've seen examples more recently of her showing a preference for peace--doing charitable work in (I think) Africa alongside Lex Luthor, giving Luthor a chance to show that he can be trusted, some of the comments she has made int he Darkseid arc. Even in the Finch arc, after Hippolyta's words about "managing conflict," she starts to show less impulsiveness and more of a tendency towards peace (i.e, trying to reform Donna. I don't think Finch is portraying this well, but she does seem to be trying.) Whether this development is or is not because "writers are saying 'this is not Wonder Woman,'" it is (as you seem to acknowledge, to some degree) happening, so it has to be part of how we assess New 52 Wonder Woman overall.

    Jiminez could have made the same comments if he had heard the title "god of war" and seen a smattering of panels in which Wonder Woman does or says something violent, but never read any whole issues of Wonder Woman since the New 52 started. So while his comments about her new Olympian title, for example, reflect some reasonable assumptions about what being the god of war might mean, I just don't think they address what (if anything) being god of war has meant in the books.
    Which is probably why he ends that part of the interview by throwing back to the reader to consider what these changes mean for WW as a continuing character, and whether they are beneficial.

    While I don't completely dismiss the Azzarello run's affect on the New52, I think two things should be considered.

    First, what was the effect on sales of that run compared to other books [like Justice League and Superman/Batman] that were going at the same time and also had depictions of WW that might have been quite different.

    Second. it's over.

    As for the Finch's, sadly good intentions in this case are not always enough. It's great to have the intention to show Diana reforming somebody who has fallen, but if the execution of this is that Wonder Woman looks ham-fisted and/or belligerent then you might as well not have bothered. Equally, as was the case with the space bugs story and the Amazon massacre, both of those end with Wonder Woman apparently succeeding. But the stories were [IMO] so poorly set up that her success as a character is totally undermined by the failure of the narrative itself.

    If scientists can develop a screening for "all cancers" that's effective enough to take the place of all the screenings for specific forms of cancer, that would be great. But, as long as doctors recommend type-specific screenings for anyone, health care systems have to set policies for such screenings. So, for example, if doctors are going to recommend and fund routine mammograms for all women over a certain age, must they also recommend and fund the same for men, to avoid a "double standard"? Even though men only account for about 1% of breast cancer cases per year?
    Being mindful of the need to stay on topic, I'll answer this in a PM.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  8. #473
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    First, what was the effect on sales of that run compared to other books [like Justice League and Superman/Batman] that were going at the same time and also had depictions of WW that might have been quite different.
    I doubt that any editorial choices about Wonder Woman in Justice League had a more than was more than negligible "effect on sales" of that book. Justice League sold a lot of copies because it was Justice League, because it had Batman in it, because it was billed as a kind of keystone book for the whole New 52, and because the hottest-selling creators were on it. And Superman/Wonder Woman sold better than simultaneous issues of Wonder Woman primarily because it was newer, and also perhaps because it drew its audience from Superman fans as well as Wonder Woman fans.

    It's true, and unfortunate, that more fans saw Wonder Woman beating up Hal, for example, than saw her hugging Sirracca. But Johns could have had Wonder Woman beat up Hal without being the daughter of Zeus, without being the daughter of Zeus or the sister of homicidal Amazons. The "Warrior Woman" in Johns' early issues seems to me to more the result of a general trend in Diana's portrayal since the late nineties (which Jiminez and you point out) than like a result of backstory changes specific to the New 52.

    Second. it's over.
    That's true. But are we arguing about the "New 52 Wonder Woman" in general, or just about the state of the character in, say, 2015? If the latter, we should leave out portrayals of the character in earlier arcs of JL? If the former, we should leave in the portrayal of Wonder Woman in Azzarello's run.

    Ss for the Finch's, sadly good intentions in this case are not always enough. It's great to have the intention to show Diana reforming somebody who has fallen, but if the execution of this is that Wonder Woman looks ham-fisted and/or belligerent then you might as well not have bothered. Equally, as was the case with the space bugs story and the Amazon massacre, both of those end with Wonder Woman apparently succeeding. But the stories were [IMO] so poorly set up that her success as a character is totally undermined by the failure of the narrative itself.
    Yes, maybe so. But she didn't do such a good job of portraying Wonder Woman as a fierce warrior either. For purposes of defining the character, maybe we should just declare the Finch run a wash.
    Last edited by Silvanus; 10-14-2015 at 04:29 AM.

  9. #474
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    I doubt that any editorial choices about Wonder Woman in Justice League had a more than was more than negligible "effect on sales" of that book. Justice League sold a lot of copies because it was Justice League, because it had Batman in it, because it was billed as a kind of keystone book for the whole New 52, and because the hottest-selling creators were on it. And Superman/Wonder Woman sold better than simultaneous issues of Wonder Woman primarily because it was newer, and also perhaps because it drew its audience from Superman fans as well as Wonder Woman fans.

    It's true, and unfortunate, that more fans saw Wonder Woman beating up Hal, for example, than saw her hugging Sirracca. But Johns could have had Wonder Woman beat up Hal without being the daughter of Zeus, without being the daughter of Zeus or the sister of homicidal Amazons. The "Warrior Woman" in Johns' early issues seems to me to more the result of a general trend in Diana's portrayal since the late nineties (which Jiminez and you point out) than like a result of backstory changes specific to the New 52.
    I think PJ would argue, and I agree, that the New52 gives writers more liberty to write Wonder Woman in very different and more warrior-esque way. Whereas previously others might say "That's not Wonder Woman" the argument now would be "It's the New52 Wonder Woman, get used to it."



    That's true. But are we arguing about the "New 52 Wonder Woman" in general, or just about the state of the character in, say, 2015? If the latter, we should leave out portrayals of the character in earlier arcs of JL? If the former, we should leave in the portrayal of Wonder Woman in Azzarello's run.
    The ongoing character, certainly, but we have seen that for all his good intentions Azzarello has not had much influence on the current writing style of WW's own book. More perhaps on John's and I do wonder why? It cannot be that he decided that this is the five years later Diana, because the story where she carves up Hal took place five years after JL #1-6.



    Yes, maybe so. But she didn't do such a good job of portraying Wonder Woman as a fierce warrior either. For purposes of defining the character, maybe we should just declare the Finch run a wash.
    It does seem to be going that way.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  10. #475
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    I'm saying that you are clearly defaulting to "mythological goddess" Athena when you fill in the blank. If that is the case, why wouldn't the Amazons be the "Mythological" Amazons?
    Like how Azz had no problem changing Ares to fit his story?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •