Current Events > James Cameron calls 'Wonder Woman' a step backwards for women in Hollywood

(+) Yeah! (+)

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Well the WW director's response was aptly put IMO.

It's pretty easy to say "well it doesn't make sense you because you're not a woman"

very dismissive of what he was actually saying

Luckily that wasn't all that Jenkins said, though. Because I agree, if the entire response is "you're not a woman", it's a bit dismissive. In this case, it's also valid criticism. He's not a woman. He's a man, talking about how women should be feminist. At the heart of feminism is the idea that patriarchy needs to be toppled. I'm guessing that not a lot of feminists appreciate when men (who have a vested interest in maintaining patriarchy) try to dictate how women should do it.
But that aside - it's not really essential to the point she's making - I think Jenkins is right on the money. Strong women should be allowed to come in all flavors, just like men, and saying that "you're doing feminism wrong" just because the strong woman isn't damaged and flawed makes very little sense in the context of a super-hero movie.
---

scar the 1 posted...

But that aside - it's not really essential to the point she's making - I think Jenkins is right on the money. Strong women should be allowed to come in all flavors, just like men, and saying that "you're doing feminism wrong" just because the strong woman isn't damaged and flawed makes very little sense in the context of a super-hero movie.

It's because it's unbelievable to be strong without hardship.
---

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

But that aside - it's not really essential to the point she's making - I think Jenkins is right on the money. Strong women should be allowed to come in all flavors, just like men, and saying that "you're doing feminism wrong" just because the strong woman isn't damaged and flawed makes very little sense in the context of a super-hero movie.

It's because it's unbelievable to be strong without hardship.

Super-heroes are unbelievable. What hardship did Super Man have to endure to get strong? Spider-Man got a spider bite and had a few days of sickness. Thor? And so on.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Super-heroes are unbelievable. What hardship did Super Man have to endure to get strong? Spider-Man got a spider bite and had a few days of sickness. Thor? And so on.

exactly, which is idiotic to why she thinks that super-hero movies = all movies

Cameron is right, Monster was awesome and that reflected depth of character. Wonder Woman has no depth.
---

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Super-heroes are unbelievable. What hardship did Super Man have to endure to get strong? Spider-Man got a spider bite and had a few days of sickness. Thor? And so on.

exactly, which is idiotic to why she thinks that super-hero movies = all movies

Cameron is right, Monster was awesome and that reflected depth of character. Wonder Woman has no depth.

I don't understand what you're talking about. No one is saying Wonder Woman has depth. She's not saying that super-hero movies are all movies.
EDIT: Are you baiting me again?
---

scar the 1 posted...

I don't understand what you're talking about. No one is saying Wonder Woman has depth. She's not saying that super-hero movies are all movies.
EDIT: Are you baiting me again?

I don't think I am understanding either, so no not trying to bait. Truthfully I haven't seen WW, have no intention to but from the advertising it just looks token af.
---

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I don't understand what you're talking about. No one is saying Wonder Woman has depth. She's not saying that super-hero movies are all movies.
EDIT: Are you baiting me again?

I don't think I am understanding either, so no not trying to bait. Truthfully I haven't seen WW, have no intention to but from the advertising it just looks token af.

He's not complaining that it's "token af" (I think? What do you mean?), he's complaining that Wonder Woman is being sexualized like every other woman in Hollywood. Part of Jenkins's point is that she most definitely is not, because the sexualization he refers to is supposedly to please the male gaze, whereas this film was aimed at women. This is supported by the fact that the movie was a success in female demographics.
---

scar the 1 posted...

He's not complaining that it's "token af" (I think? What do you mean?), he's complaining that Wonder Woman is being sexualized like every other woman in Hollywood. Part of Jenkins's point is that she most definitely is not, because the sexualization he refers to is supposedly to please the male gaze, whereas this film was aimed at women. This is supported by the fact that the movie was a success in female demographics.

Token being placing a woman in a lead role but failing to give the character any depth. Probably didn't help they chose a model who couldn't act.
---

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

He's not complaining that it's "token af" (I think? What do you mean?), he's complaining that Wonder Woman is being sexualized like every other woman in Hollywood. Part of Jenkins's point is that she most definitely is not, because the sexualization he refers to is supposedly to please the male gaze, whereas this film was aimed at women. This is supported by the fact that the movie was a success in female demographics.

Token being placing a woman in a lead role but failing to give the character any depth. Probably didn't help they chose a model who couldn't act.

There are plenty of male leads without depth. Why is it a problem to have a female lead role with no depth? That's what the genre is.
---

I think he's right and wrong.

He's right because characters like Ripley and Sarah Connor broke the mold of women at the time that they were all expected to be mothers in dresses.

He's wrong because WW shows that women can be heroes no matter what but i get what he means that the character is just typical beauty model type.
---

scar the 1 posted...

There are plenty of male leads without depth. Why is it a problem to have a female lead role with no depth? That's what the genre is.

he didn't say it was a problem, he just said don't expect a golf clap
---

Virus731 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

There are plenty of male leads without depth. Why is it a problem to have a female lead role with no depth? That's what the genre is.

he didn't say it was a problem, he just said don't expect a golf clap

He said it's a step backwards, no? I read it as "She's doing it wrong, I'm doing it right".
---

scar the 1 posted...

He said it's a step backwards, no? I read it as "She's doing it wrong, I'm doing it right".

I think it's a step backwards because it was an opportunity to present a nuanced character to a large audience, but they just made a female version of a generic hero. Hence why it's popular with women and not with men. It's made to cater just to women which is a step backwards.
---

I bet he would appreciate her more if she had more armpit hair. Liberals have literally lost their minds.

RoseIsHorriblle posted...

Liberals have literally lost their minds.

literally has nothing to do with anything
fuck off
---

Virus731 posted...

RoseIsHorriblle posted...

Liberals have literally lost their minds.

literally has nothing to do with anything
fuck off

Thank your for the confirmation.

RoseIsHorriblle posted...

Thank your for the confirmation.

I'm Australian so the definition of liberal is literally reversed

HURRRFUCKINGDURRRRR
---

Regarding Sarah's portrayal in T1 I think that was pretty realistic for someone, male or female, who had no combat training and was in her situation. By T2 she had extensive combat training so her reaction was completely different. Even the actress went through a lot of training for the role and there's at least one part of the movie where they added Sarah pulling off a one armed shotgun cocking because it was something very difficult to do but Linda Hamilton could do it

Jokeaccountinc posted...

Didn't she start out as a bondage fantasy

Which one?
---

Wing_Phoenix posted...

Which one?

Wonder Woman.
---

Ok where did that idea come from? The only time I recall her being portrayed as anything close to a bondage fantasy was a DC Comic crossover where she and a lot of other heroes and heroines got brainwashed by the arc's villain and that was in the late 90s or 2000s. I know I haven't read anything close to every early issue but it seems like something of that nature would be noticeable.
---

Wing_Phoenix posted...

Ok where did that idea come from? The only time I recall her being portrayed as anything close to a bondage fantasy was a DC Comic crossover where she and a lot of other heroes and heroines got brainwashed by the arc's villain and that was in the late 90s or 2000s. I know I haven't read anything close to every early issue but it seems like something of that nature would be noticeable.

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/813831/Wonder-Woman-bondage-William-Marston-S-M-sex-love-cult

"Wonder Woman's bullet-proof gauntlets were even inspired by the bondage cuffs he gave Olive Byrne when she officially became part of his relationship with his wife Betty in 1925."
---

Virus731 posted...

I think it's a step backwards because it was an opportunity to present a nuanced character to a large audience,

But it wasn't though. The genre doesn't make room for "nuanced characters". There plenty of space to make nuanced characters, super-hero movies is the wrong forum for that. Her point is that there should be plenty of room for strong female characters without much nuance as well. Just like for men. Why is it a step backwards when female super-heroes are few and far-between in the first place?
---

Ok her creator was really, really weird. Doesn't make a reboot movie with few or none of those elements inherently bad though
---

He's dead on. Both Sarah Connor and Riley from Aliens are much better examples. And that was 30 years before the SJW community engaged in circle jerks over identity politics of every film cast.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Virus731 posted...

I think it's a step backwards because it was an opportunity to present a nuanced character to a large audience,

But it wasn't though. The genre doesn't make room for "nuanced characters". There plenty of space to make nuanced characters, super-hero movies is the wrong forum for that. Her point is that there should be plenty of room for strong female characters without much nuance as well. Just like for men. Why is it a step backwards when female super-heroes are few and far-between in the first place?

You're so focused on the super hero part it just makes your argument stupid. I cbf.

Wing_Phoenix posted...

Ok her creator was really, really weird. Doesn't make a reboot movie with few or none of those elements inherently bad though

No one said that, it's just worth noting.
---

Sarah Conner wasn't even in most of Cameron's Terminator 2...

And lol @ him complaining about Wonder Woman being hot.
---

Virus731 posted...

You're so focused on the super hero part it just makes your argument stupid. I cbf.

:S I dunno man, to me it looks like this:
Cameron is critiquing a super-hero lead role for being a typical, flat super-hero instead of a gritty, damaged character like Sarah Connor (his own character). He says that because it sticks to the genre, it's a step backwards.
Jenkins responds that it's not a step backwards, because strong women should be able to be portrayed in all flavors, ranging from flawed, damaged characters like in Monster to your typical super-hero character like Wonder Woman. Male characters span this entire range all the time, why is it a step backwards for women to do the same?

I'm focused on the super-hero part because it's part of the context. Why should she receive flak for sticking to the genre? I just don't get it. It's just Cameron tooting his own horn boasting that he does feminism better than Jenkins, and Jenkins explaining why he doesn't really understand and is being narrow-minded about it.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Cameron is critiquing a super-hero lead role for being a typical, flat super-hero instead of a gritty, damaged character like Sarah Connor (his own character). He says that because it sticks to the genre, it's a step backwards.

Stop focusing on it being his character. There are plenty of examples that aren't Sarah, it's just the most relevant example for him to use.

scar the 1 posted...

Jenkins responds that it's not a step backwards, because strong women should be able to be portrayed in all flavors, ranging from flawed, damaged characters like in Monster to your typical super-hero character like Wonder Woman. Male characters span this entire range all the time, why is it a step backwards for women to do the same?

Because of how the film is marketed and flaunted. It's like it's demanding more attention because it's a woman, rather than it being a good film. Hence the TOKEN part.

scar the 1 posted...

I'm focused on the super-hero part because it's part of the context. Why should she receive flak for sticking to the genre? I just don't get it. It's just Cameron tooting his own horn boasting that he does feminism better than Jenkins, and Jenkins explaining why he doesn't really understand and is being narrow-minded about it.

She's not coping flak, it's just that the movie isn't this huge step forward like everyone makes it out to be.
---

Virus731 posted...

Stop focusing on it being his character. There are plenty of examples that aren't Sarah, it's just the most relevant example for him to use.

No, using his own character is relevant here. He could have used the lead in Monster or whatever, but using his own changes his message to "I'm doing this better than you".

Virus731 posted...

Because of how the film is marketed and flaunted. It's like it's demanding more attention because it's a woman, rather than it being a good film. Hence the TOKEN part.

You're injecting your own reasoning here. What he said was that "It's a step backwards", not just "it's not the huge step forward that critics are praising it to be". If that were his only message, he'd arguably be unqualified to make that judgement anyway, but he's literally saying that it's a step backwards.

Virus731 posted...

She's not coping flak, it's just that the movie isn't this huge step forward like everyone makes it out to be.

She's responding to the accusation that it's a step backwards. And since it brings huge female audiences into a typically male-dominated genre, she argues that it's actually a step forward.
---

scar the 1 posted...

She's responding to the accusation that it's a step backwards. And since it brings huge female audiences into a typically male-dominated genre, she argues that it's actually a step forward.

what's the point if we're segregating audiences? that's like saying it's a step forward for men by making the heart throb of a romcom a fat slob

scar the 1 posted...

No, using his own character is relevant here. He could have used the lead in Monster or whatever, but using his own changes his message to "I'm doing this better than you".

no, it's not and fact of the matter is he did do it better

scar the 1 posted...

You're injecting your own reasoning here. What he said was that "It's a step backwards", not just "it's not the huge step forward that critics are praising it to be". If that were his only message, he'd arguably be unqualified to make that judgement anyway, but he's literally saying that it's a step backwards.

you're taking the meaning of step backwards too literally, as I said, I don't care, I don't go to the movies
---

Virus731 posted...

what's the point if we're segregating audiences? that's like saying it's a step forward for men by making the heart throb of a romcom a fat slob

No one is segregating audiences. What would that even mean? That's not what I said. It brings a new demographic to the genre. That's expanding, not segregating.
No, it's not a "fact" that he did it better. You're injecting your own opinion on something that's not trivially measured.
And what's "I don't care" supposed to mean? It doesn't really help your point, nor does it support your suggestion that I'm taking "step backwards" too literally. How literally should I take it? Why should I use your interpretation if you don't even care?
---

I havent seen WW yet, but this guy just sounds like hes feels challenged bythe WW movie, so he bashed it while promoting his own.

CommonStar posted...

Patty Jenkins' response:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DICzihOXcAAwEWs.jpg

Classy.

"You're terminated, fucker!"