Gal Gadot Stars in the Wonder Woman Movie

[Powertool]

-- Premise: this will be my last contribution to this discussion. I don't want to saddle a thread dedicated to Gal Gadot and her role in the upcoming Wonder Woman movie anymore with a conversation that is running around in circles. --

You mention Rucka and Kirby and even those two took liberties with mythologies as well. Every person who has told or retold myths are making their agenda a part of it. Was Kirby dissing the Norse myths with him adding sci fi? Was Rucka dissing the Greeks by reinventing Ares?

The approaches of the artists I mentioned are so different from the one employed by Marston that I'll have to cut short the dissertation I have in mind since it would be too pedantic to write it in its entirety. It goes down a little like this:
Gaiman: "Let's superimpose a new layer of supernatural beings to the ensemble of Pantheons that the human race and all races across the universe created in billions of years of existence, a systemic family of Over-Gods that transcend the beliefs of men to incarnate life fixtures, making them the representation of existence itself."
Kirby: "Let's create a race of creatures living on a separate plane of existence armed with technology so advanced that it looks like magic in the eyes of men and explain that Norse mythology was originated by their incursions on our planet so that we can have more wiggle room in the future with their personalities and terminology."
Marston: "Let's turn this society of ancient warrior women into the ideal society I envisioned since they share the tract of being all-female populations. Oh, and Ares is now a Flash Gordon villain!"

And btw, Powertool, the Amazons staying on their island and minding their own business is nothing compared to European colonization and slavery of the 18th and 19th Century. There's a marked difference between "we don't trust you because you burned us once" and "we think we're superior so we'll kill and enslave you".

"White Australia", the policy from the Land Down Under I originally mentioned, was official Dominion policy to limit if not outright eliminate immigration of people of colour from other places of the British Empire (mostly India) and the South East Asian countries and colonies. Australia never really outgrew it, as recent and expensive accords with Sri Lanka and Indonesia for immediate repatriations of immigrants have shown. It was the law of the land during all of Marston's lifespan, when "segregated but equal" in all of its hypocritical glory was the key word in the near totality of the US and a perfectly acceptable stance for an overwhelming majority of (White) Americans. I was talking about the idea of creating a utopia through exclusion and you reply to my post writing about slavery and colonization? Why?

1. Where exactly is the contradiction? If anything this exemplifies that wish of being free from patriarchial violence thats kinda a part of the whole fanatical concept of Marston's Amazons. Also, the amazons aren't responsible for the evils of mans world nor are they responsible for solving problems of other people. In fact, that was the point of Diana. She IS the one that takes on that responsibility and wants to bring the teachings of the Amazons to the world and stop that sort of violence and oppression that exists. You did dismiss those realities by painting the idea that a group of women are somehow selfish for wanting nothing to do with a world that hates them and even worse by acting as if them not including men is on par with real world violence.

From this moment on I'll refuse to read anything from anyone badmouthing Azzarello's Amazons, since from this post I can only gather the confirmation of what I already suspected: DC's Themiscyran Amazons were pretty awful people from the very beginning. Now I wonder how Diana ever grew up to become a heroine, since she had been surrounded for all of her existence by people who couldn't deign to lift a finger to help even a single woman among the millions -- no, billions of poor souls suffering under patriarchical societies all over the world. A world, mind you, where training to become invincible demi-goddesses is something that can be accomplished. "The way for evil to win is having goof people do nothing" indeed!

2. I dont agree actually because its not as if Greek Myth hasnt borrowed or stolen or what have you from its predecessors and that Greek Mythology is just as much a result of writers reinterpreting and changing and adding and borrowing and stealing and etc previous mythologies as writers of today are. Even your idea of fan fiction is inherently flawed since it doesnt realize that most if not all works of fiction are in fact "fanfiction" the only difference is that what is considered fanfiction tends to be shaped by misogyny (among other things im sure) because there is nothing different about a person that decides to make a story about Kirk and Spock than the myriad of writers of greek myth taking well known mythologies/characters and making them their own. Our entire literary canon is basically fanfiction the only difference is that it is written primarily by men for primarily male audiences so its not grouped in as that. Most of the classics that shape what we know of Greek Mythology use the same characters but they have different personalities, purposes, and what have you.

After reading that you can group cheap slash fics featuring Star Trek characters and Dostoevskij's novels under the same catch-all term, that term being "fanfiction", anything I could reply would definitely feel very anti-climactic. I'll just leave one final consideration. A few months ago I found on a literature forum a link to a A song of ice and fire fanfic written by someone who had extensively delved into speculative fiction focusing on alternate history scenarios who had decided to write about a Westeros (and beyond) where Rhaegar and Robert both die at the Trident and Stannis is the new leader fo the rebellion. Half of its chapters are dedicated to subjects like explaining what happened to King's Landing merchant guilds during the Targaryens' reign, or reminding us that in a medieval-like world no relationship is tighter than the one between a Lord and his vassals. Nevertheless it shows an understanding of the original source and a willingness to enrich a fictional world devised by others that is really heartwarming in its honesty and commitment. If only Marston had shown even a tenth of those qualities when he stole elements from a millenarian tradition to give airs and graces to his characters, I wouldn't be here to discuss this whole matter with you.

[Powertool]

You keep calling his idea a pet theory and what you are trying to get at by doing so is right, the world is much more complicated than that but at the end of the day this is a comic book. I dont think you'll find many people, even among the most ardent of fans of Marston, that would agree that all the worlds ills can be solved through bondage but that doesnt mean that his idea is meant to be universal. Wonder Woman is one character with one mythology among an infinite amount of other possible characters. Typically if you dont agree with a character's pov or ideas you tend to ignore them or put what ever other ideas out there into another character but for some reason Wonder Woman isnt allowed that. Truthfully, Wonder Woman can never represent the totality of feminism because feminism itself isnt ONE thing or ONE definition or ONE way of thinking or doing(not even one RIGHT way) but a multitude of ideas and concepts that exist across the spectrum, many of which if not MOST contradict one another. Wonder Woman cant be everything to everyone because she becomes what she sorta is now, a contradiction with very little substance that exists solely to be whatever you want her to be. Also, these are comic book characters there is a level of outlandish that we give to them simply beacuse its apart of the genre. I personally think the idea of solving crime through fear is absolutely ridiculous but I certainly would not suggest to change batmans pov or the core concept his entire mythology has been based on since his inception but what exactly about Diana lends herself to this line of thinking?
That said there is no stigma placed upon people that dont believe in "loving submission." There is stigma placed on those that do bad things to people and/or themselves and the method to combat this is to teach them to submit to loving authority.

"This is a comic book" is the worst way to deal with a problem concerning one of them. It may be because I come from a country where a recently passed semiologist and philosopher once told the press that whenever he wished to read something thought-provoking he inevitably chose an issue of Dylan Dog, but my intimate conviction is that comic books have the ability to elevate themselves at the same level if not well beyond "serious" literature. Heck, why would Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts have attained the status of timeless masterpiece? Definitely not because the beagle sometimes wore aviator goggles, I assure you. If a newspaper strip, through the correct mix of social criticism, introspection, smart humour and perfect characterisation, can teach the reader more about the way an individual deals with others and the world surrounding him/her than the official books that are studied in prestigious universities, it's no big deal if I wish I could have found more to like in Marston's creation.
Wonder Woman was a revolutionary comic book when it first came out in the Forties, but I believe that was more due to the sheer amount of concepts tied to sexuality that were first given exposure on the pages of a magazine printed in millions of copies. When McCarthy and his committee decreed that there was only one way to write comic books in a God-fearing country like America, or maybe even before, when EC Comics started privileging the shock factor as a way to sell more comic books, Diana lost her main strength and only occasionally managed to find the right footing in her complicated editorial history. In no small part, I can ascribe that to having focused too much on such a subjective matter like fetishes, in particular the fetishes of a single man answering to the name of William Moulton Marston. Despite being an accomplished psychiatrist, Diana's creator was incapable in my opinion to create a convincing way to "catch the lightning in a bottle" like some of his contemporaries and give to the readers of yesterday and today a rounded synthesis of what he wanted to read in a comic book and what leaves a lasting impression in a reader beyond "boy, this funny book is ****ed up!". Loving submission was a concept that received too much exposure and at the same time was developed too little, since every confrontation is reduced to a stereotypical "good heroine fights evil villain(ess) and she wins". Marston chose a difficult core concept to focus his creation on, but that's no sin in and by itself. Had he been a more talented writer he could have reached piques of excellence undreamed of in the Golden Age, but that was not to be.

[RealWonderman]

So...back in Gotham...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/wonder...gotham-a141080

[Lex Luthor]

-- Premise: this will be my last contribution to this discussion. I don't want to saddle a thread dedicated to Gal Gadot and her role in the upcoming Wonder Woman movie anymore with a conversation that is running around in circles. --



The approaches of the artists I mentioned are so different from the one employed by Marston that I'll have to cut short the dissertation I have in mind since it would be too pedantic to write it in its entirety. It goes down a little like this:
Gaiman: "Let's superimpose a new layer of supernatural beings to the ensemble of Pantheons that the human race and all races across the universe created in billions of years of existence, a systemic family of Over-Gods that transcend the beliefs of men to incarnate life fixtures, making them the representation of existence itself."
Kirby: "Let's create a race of creatures living on a separate plane of existence armed with technology so advanced that it looks like magic in the eyes of men and explain that Norse mythology was originated by their incursions on our planet so that we can have more wiggle room in the future with their personalities and terminology."
Marston: "Let's turn this society of ancient warrior women into the ideal society I envisioned since they share the tract of being all-female populations. Oh, and Ares is now a Flash Gordon villain!"



"White Australia", the policy from the Land Down Under I originally mentioned, was official Dominion policy to limit if not outright eliminate immigration of people of colour from other places of the British Empire (mostly India) and the South East Asian countries and colonies. Australia never really outgrew it, as recent and expensive accords with Sri Lanka and Indonesia for immediate repatriations of immigrants have shown. It was the law of the land during all of Marston's lifespan, when "segregated but equal" in all of its hypocritical glory was the key word in the near totality of the US and a perfectly acceptable stance for an overwhelming majority of (White) Americans. I was talking about the idea of creating a utopia through exclusion and you reply to my post writing about slavery and colonization? Why?



From this moment on I'll refuse to read anything from anyone badmouthing Azzarello's Amazons, since from this post I can only gather the confirmation of what I already suspected: DC's Themiscyran Amazons were pretty awful people from the very beginning. Now I wonder how Diana ever grew up to become a heroine, since she had been surrounded for all of her existence by people who couldn't deign to lift a finger to help even a single woman among the millions -- no, billions of poor souls suffering under patriarchical societies all over the world. A world, mind you, where training to become invincible demi-goddesses is something that can be accomplished. "The way for evil to win is having goof people do nothing" indeed!



After reading that you can group cheap slash fics featuring Star Trek characters and Dostoevskij's novels under the same catch-all term, that term being "fanfiction", anything I could reply would definitely feel very anti-climactic. I'll just leave one final consideration. A few months ago I found on a literature forum a link to a A song of ice and fire fanfic written by someone who had extensively delved into speculative fiction focusing on alternate history scenarios who had decided to write about a Westeros (and beyond) where Rhaegar and Robert both die at the Trident and Stannis is the new leader fo the rebellion. Half of its chapters are dedicated to subjects like explaining what happened to King's Landing merchant guilds during the Targaryens' reign, or reminding us that in a medieval-like world no relationship is tighter than the one between a Lord and his vassals. Nevertheless it shows an understanding of the original source and a willingness to enrich a fictional world devised by others that is really heartwarming in its honesty and commitment. If only Marston had shown even a tenth of those qualities when he stole elements from a millenarian tradition to give airs and graces to his characters, I wouldn't be here to discuss this whole matter with you.

1. I mean youre certainly entited to your opinion in the same way i think anyone incapable of seeing the the pre n52 Amazons as anything but a group of women that fought tooth and nail for their own freedom and sanity and protection from enslavement and rape as a being sexist and not understanding that not only is this fantasy uplifting for many people but that the very idea of them isnt even absurd sans the obvious fantasy element given that plenty nations/countries/races/etc have broken off out of self preservation for the exact same(actually even less very legitamate reasons). Not only that its pretty baseless to judge someones character for not getting involved in other peoples affairs esp when earlier you were judging Marston's comics for being Totalitarian Hellholes but you want them now to go around dealing out judgement and justice cross cultures and nations because they have the power to. its not really adding up to me. Diana's position as eager to leave paradise island makes total sense simply because the Amazons taught her and brought her up in a loving, misogyny free environment and shes never had to deal with the pain that most of the older Amazons face that made them want to leave actual hellhole they grew up in.

2. Firstly, yes I absolutely did put slash fics under the same umbrella as pretty much the entirety of western literary canon because they are the same thing but if you want by all means tell me what makes them so different. The only difference between writing a new novel for ACD's Sherlock and writing fanfiction about the romance between John and Sherlock on Ao3 is who is consuming it, how they consume it, and who created it. There is nothing about fanfiction that makes it necessarily any less than any other form of literature

Secondly, this isnt even an equivalent situation. Greek Mythology, or what we know of it, is an amulgamation of multiple works by multiple people under multiple time periods . There is no one canon version of these characters, ideas, etc. simply because its basically nothing but numerous people using the same characters/history/etc. and re telling them in their own pov that is often shaped by the culture around them. This is why there are different versions of Zeus or different versions of Aphrodite with different origins because there is no one singular mythology but a collection of multiple stories that create a larger canon that we then term as Greek mythology. However, its obvious there is source material for AOIAF and to compare Greek Myth to a modern day fantasy series makes no sense. Even then if someone DID want to take liberties with AOIAF then they can do whatever they want with it and it would not necessarily be wrong or disrespectful in anyway and the only thing that stands in there way are legal problems. Marston didnt "steal" he did what every other author even involved in shaping what we know of Greek Myth today and reinterpreted and revisioned characters and situations to fit whatever idea he wanted to convey with this character. I'd suggest you actually read some of those classical pieces and see he did absolutely nothing that is unheard of and that the entire idea you've been trying to present is a bastardization of reality.

[Lex Luthor]

"This is a comic book" is the worst way to deal with a problem concerning one of them. It may be because I come from a country where a recently passed semiologist and philosopher once told the press that whenever he wished to read something thought-provoking he inevitably chose an issue of Dylan Dog, but my intimate conviction is that comic books have the ability to elevate themselves at the same level if not well beyond "serious" literature. Heck, why would Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts have attained the status of timeless masterpiece? Definitely not because the beagle sometimes wore aviator goggles, I assure you. If a newspaper strip, through the correct mix of social criticism, introspection, smart humour and perfect characterisation, can teach the reader more about the way an individual deals with others and the world surrounding him/her than the official books that are studied in prestigious universities, it's no big deal if I wish I could have found more to like in Marston's creation.
Wonder Woman was a revolutionary comic book when it first came out in the Forties, but I believe that was more due to the sheer amount of concepts tied to sexuality that were first given exposure on the pages of a magazine printed in millions of copies. When McCarthy and his committee decreed that there was only one way to write comic books in a God-fearing country like America, or maybe even before, when EC Comics started privileging the shock factor as a way to sell more comic books, Diana lost her main strength and only occasionally managed to find the right footing in her complicated editorial history. In no small part, I can ascribe that to having focused too much on such a subjective matter like fetishes, in particular the fetishes of a single man answering to the name of William Moulton Marston. Despite being an accomplished psychiatrist, Diana's creator was incapable in my opinion to create a convincing way to "catch the lightning in a bottle" like some of his contemporaries and give to the readers of yesterday and today a rounded synthesis of what he wanted to read in a comic book and what leaves a lasting impression in a reader beyond "boy, this funny book is ****ed up!". Loving submission was a concept that received too much exposure and at the same time was developed too little, since every confrontation is reduced to a stereotypical "good heroine fights evil villain(ess) and she wins". Marston chose a difficult core concept to focus his creation on, but that's no sin in and by itself. Had he been a more talented writer he could have reached piques of excellence undreamed of in the Golden Age, but that was not to be.

3. Well I dont think i'm saying comic books cant be serious or are not serious literature but a part of the genre is a level of camp and dramatic simply because most comic books deal with outlandish ideas(cheetah women, aliens, men dressed as bats) AND because they tend to be very overt in there messages. Those are simply a part of the genre which you can tell from the bolded words and over the top dialogue of the characters. This doesnt mean that they can not be serious and there is no denying comics have grown considerably since marston's time but they still hold those values esp DC comics and other characters in WW position. In fact one of the main reasons I and many others enjoy Diana's golden age comic books is because of the serious and substance filled stories and thought provoking ideas that you get from reading theme. Marston was very clever and while I dont entirely agree with the gender politics of GA WW the message(both overt and subtextual) was certainly thought provoking esp for the times and truthfully there hasnt been a WW comic since that dealt with gender issues the way that WMM's comics did. There are plenty of classes being taught on golden age wonder woman and plenty of books that have been written analyzing her golden age comics and what they meant and what they character stood for. Books that were a result of years of careful study and research because WMM himself was a heavily educated man with ties to first wave feminist so to say that there is no level of serious or underlying truths to those comics simply isnt true.

Golden Age Wonder Woman's gender politics are still radical even by todays standards, and while her being the first successful heroine was apart of what made her so revolutionary, her message and the history around her creators were as well. While sexuality was definitely apart of WW's golden age comics and undeniably apart of what drew some to her but to label it as "shock factor" is only not true but also loses the fact that wonder woman was loved for more aspects outside of sexuality. Also, its literature of course the subject matter is subjective this isnt hard scientific evidence no character is portraying an objective reality but a subjective truth that is meant to be held by that particular character and their narrative. Loving submission is no more subjective than fighting crime with fear or there being good in everyone. Actually he didnt find a difficult concept to focus his core creation on i mean actually if anything he wove that concept so well into the character that its undeniably stilll existing today. I mean the grand statement in Azzarello was her doing away with first born and then allowing Athena to become the new authority of Olympus, Rucka's run made it so it was Zeus that was made to submit and that Athena was the one crowned, Perez made it so Diana stopped Ares not through violence but through wisdom(a slight difference but the general theme of stopping war through submission is there). Im not denying the message has been misconstrued and poorly applied but thats certainly not marston's fault that DC has spent years attempting to distance her from her creators original ideas. Truthfully, very little of what you said is actually even true and the response to her golden age comics only exists because there is an everpresent desire among a multitude of her fans to deny the reality of what she originally represented simply because rewriting history makes them more comfortable as opposed to accepting what it was. In fact the idea of Loving Submission isnt even that far off from what most leftist revolutionaries have preached since the beginnings of American history and the idea of fighting domination with love is undeniably apart of the most feminist/anti-racist/etc social theories. The problem truly is that Wonder Woman was created in many ways as a critique of the oversaturation of masculinity and masculine perspectives in comic books and instead of continuing to be that outlet for that feminine perspective she's been bogged down by uninspired tropes that play into those masculine perspectives(i.e eye for an eye justice, violence, etc.). Its also weird that you say that given that the few things that made Azzarellos book pop out in any specific way was that he focused on those themes of rehabilitaory justice and loving submission in his book and while he did massacre it quite a bit thats what resonated the most with people(Heras story arc, her love in the face of Hades domination, her compassion for the minotaur, overthrowing First born). The only compelling thing people CAN seem to do with her character come from the core concepts that Marston instilled into her so truthfully you might be more of a fan of him than you'd like to admit.

Nonetheless, you are right in that this is a bout Gal Gadot's role in Wonder Woman and because of that we can end this convo here.

[Last Son of Krypton]

More pics from France. Is it the Louvre behind her?

[Punisher007]

Honestly the one problem that I've always had with the concept of "this is paradise" is that it's only paradise for one gender (and it's debatable as to if that's actual paradise or not). I kind of reminds of the argument that she and Steve had in the WW animated film in a way.

And that could be an interesting ideological difference between Diana and many of the older Amazons. No one is BAD in that debate, they just have different ways of looking at things.

[HaveAtThee]

I just realized in BVS, Wonder Woman takes off from Lex's party in an Alfa Romeo 4c. Gorgeous, unimaginable power AND phenomenal taste in cars. Can't wait for her solo film.

[Outside_85]

I just realized in BVS, Wonder Woman takes off from Lex's party in an Alfa Romeo 4c. Gorgeous, unimaginable power AND phenomenal taste in cars. Can't wait for her solo film.

And as Top Gear would point out: probably broken down 5 miles down the road... because Alpha's are like that.

[Agent Z]

Honestly the one problem that I've always had with the concept of "this is paradise" is that it's only paradise for one gender (and it's debatable as to if that's actual paradise or not). I kind of reminds of the argument that she and Steve had in the WW animated film in a way.

And that could be an interesting ideological difference between Diana and many of the older Amazons. No one is BAD in that debate, they just have different ways of looking at things.

They've been doing that since the Perez run.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

So...back in Gotham...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/wonder...gotham-a141080

Not Gotham, but Paris. It makes sense that Wayne Corp. would have a branch there.
Also, I'm thinking Paris may be Diana's home base.

[HaveAtThee]

And as Top Gear would point out: probably broken down 5 miles down the road... because Alpha's are like that.

More about a gorgeous woman driving a gorgeous machine.

[Rig]

Not Gotham, but Paris. It makes sense that Wayne Corp. would have a branch there.
Also, I'm thinking Paris may be Diana's home base.

Are we sure Paris is called Paris in movie? There are many fictional cities in DC universe but they have to shoot in real world cities because those fictional cities don't exist.

[RR1976]

Are we sure Paris is called Paris in movie? There are many fictional cities in DC universe but they have to shoot in real world cities because those fictional cities don't exist.

I'm okay with fictional cities, as long as they don't look like real cities. The Louvre pyramid is too connected to Paris to represent something else. I hated The Dark Knight Rises where you could see Freedom Tower in Gotham.

[Outside_85]

Are we sure Paris is called Paris in movie? There are many fictional cities in DC universe but they have to shoot in real world cities because those fictional cities don't exist.

We aren't sure, but like the debate over why Diana is living in London and not in a fictional city or American city, one has to ask: Why wouldn't she live in Paris?
Like, if the question is 'why Paris and not X, Y or Z?' the same question could be asked if she was based in the fictional Gateway City.