Maybe. Let me try again.bug_of_war said:I think we may both be arguing different points here cause I think I'm just as lost as you are at this point.
Because high heels do not serve any practical purpose. They are purely ornamental, existing to change the shape of a woman's legs, ass, and spine to conform to a modern standard of sexualized beauty; and worse, they are only impediments to any kind of quick movement or tactical movement, meaning a warrior who has chosen to wear them is one who would get as much practical benefit out of stepping into two bear traps before wading into battle.bug_of_war said:Then why are the heels a big deal? You just pointed out numerous amounts of things that are poor choices for an outfit when going to fight, so why are the heels the part that is so wrong?
...Okay, I'll give you that one. That was funny. Bravo.bug_of_war said:I get that she's supposed to be more durable and stronger than Olympic (heh) level athletes[...]
I can't speak to that with any authority. There have been many complaints about many different incarnations of Wonder Woman and the problems with putting a conventionally sexy woman in a pushup teddy while calling her a feminist icon, and I don't know what's specific about the complaints with this version that hasn't been said about other versions. At a guess, though, I'd say at least part of it is the disconnect and incongruity between the costume and the photo's composition, and between the costume and the costumes her male peers wear. The movie seems to want to pretend it's dark and grown up and realistic by slapping the lads into plated armor that is at least to some degree practical, but the woman? Nope, we need her skirt to be short enough that we can read the label on her panties.bug_of_war said:My main question is, why is this incarnation so reviled?
I don't doubt those are both components as well, but I tend to dismiss them as irrelevant. I'm sure some people who like the costume only like it because they like Zack Snyder and/or Man of Steel, so it all balances out and I don't care anyway. I have no stake in declaring whether another person's reasons for liking or disliking a costume are valid.bug_of_war said:Is it because Zack Snyder is doing it? Is it cause some people have less than favourable memories of Man of Steel?
But the exposed upper torso, no shield and a majority of her arms serves no practicality, especially when in a fight with bladed weapons. This is based on a comic design, and from the sound of a lot of posters in other threads regarding how the X-men should wear their colourful clothes, how finally a Spider-man film did the costume right etc. sticking close to the comics design of the character is something a lot of people seem to have a hard on for. I understand the impracticality of heels, what I don't understand is why some characters HAVE to be identical looking to their comic counterparts, but this one is such a strike.JimB said:Because high heels do not serve any practical purpose. They are purely ornamental, existing to change the shape of a woman's legs, ass, and spine to conform to a modern standard of sexualized beauty; and worse, they are only impediments to any kind of quick movement or tactical movement, meaning a warrior who has chosen to wear them is one who would get as much practical benefit out of stepping into two bear traps before wading into battle.
I do not think people are complaining about the heels as the only thing wrong, but using them as symbols representative of the problems with sexualizing her outfit and still asking us to take her seriously as a scowling, intense, melee-focused warrior.
YEAH!JimB said:...Okay, I'll give you that one. That was funny. Bravo.
Well to be fair, Superman is actually just wearing the undergarments for the suits of armour that his people wore, so it's really just a light fabric. And it kinda makes sense for Batman, the only human of the 3, to be wearing as much protection as possible. Sure he's supposed to have a great intelligence and combat skills, but when you're dealing with beings that have almost unlimited power and stamina...JimB said:I can't speak to that with any authority. There have been many complaints about many different incarnations of Wonder Woman and the problems with putting a conventionally sexy woman in a pushup teddy while calling her a feminist icon, and I don't know what's specific about the complaints with this version that hasn't been said about other versions. At a guess, though, I'd say at least part of it is the disconnect and incongruity between the costume and the photo's composition, and between the costume and the costumes her male peers wear. The movie seems to want to pretend it's dark and grown up and realistic by slapping the lads into plated armor that is at least to some degree practical, but the woman? Nope, we need her skirt to be short enough that we can read the label on her panties.
Not everyone gets hard-ons for the same material.bug_of_war said:This is based on a comic design, and from the sound of a lot of posters in other threads regarding how the X-men should wear their colourful clothes, how finally a Spider-man film did the costume right etc. sticking close to the comics design of the character is something a lot of people seem to have a hard on for.
You--or rather, the movie--can't have it both ways. Either Wonder Woman is VRY SRS N REELISTIK, or she's stripperific BCUZ COMCS YAY!bug_of_war said:I understand the impracticality of heels; what I don't understand is why some characters have to be identical looking to their comic counterparts, but this one is such a strike.
I was calling it armor because it's impervious to any damage humans or Kryptonians can do...but I'm not totally sure how it would actually deflect or absorb any damage, so yeah, I retract my specific language.bug_of_war said:Well to be fair, Superman is actually just wearing the undergarments for the suits of armour that his people wore, so it's really just a light fabric.
Irrelevant but fun fact: I've heard a rumor Wonder Woman is human too; an enforcer for Lexcorp trying to steal mystical artifacts. I hope to Christ it's untrue because that's dumb as hell, but it's what I've heard, and I certainly have no basis to assume the movie character's origin or abilities will be anything like the comic character's.bug_of_war said:Batman, the only human of the three,
Hugh Jackman went out of his way to go through training to get ripped enough to convincingly be Wolverine, I don't see why she can't do the same to be a convincing Diana.DrOswald said:First at a glance gut impressions:
Looks good in a general sense, like the sword, those boots are incredibly hot.
Thoughts after thinking about it:
1. She is a little skinny, but I am not going to pretend that getting a good actress that actually looks like an amazon it easy. She sells the "I could kick your ass" look down really well, but she could certainly stand to be more ripped. Considering the difficulty there is in finding amazons who can act, this is acceptable.
At the very least ever since Gail Simone's Wonder Woman run in the mid-late 2000s (if not sooner), Diana's had a strong and openly stated adversity towards high heels in combat and even expressed that opinion to other heroines in the DC verse, ergo, the current Diana strongly prefers flat soles and is very much a pragmatist, not sure why the film one can't follow suit.2. Those boots have 4 inch heels, this makes them less hot and a lot more silly, but whatever. Still look great. Certainly a huge improvement over previous incarnations.
Considering she does an awful lot of ground combat (and in the comics has been said, by Batman no less, to the best hand to hand fighter in the Justice League), yeah, heels do matter and practical flat soles would make more sense.1. This is overall a step forward for the character in terms of not looking like a stripper or an idiot. What she is wearing now looks like it would actually stay on her body without double sided tape. Much less 1950's discount lingerie and much more like actual clothing. The "armor" look is obviously decorative and not mean to protect her in any real way, but this is wonder woman. From what I understand anything short of terminator armor would provide no additional protection anyway. Besides the heels this is a fairly practical outfit for a super human. Plus, she can fly. Do heels even matter to someone who can fly?
Actually they can, it's called juxtaposition, and if done right it can be a really good way to establish a character's persona/outlook/feeling/etc.JimB said:You--or rather, the movie--can't have it both ways. Either Wonder Woman is VRY SRS N REELISTIK, or she's stripperific BCUZ COMCS YAY!
...lulwot?JimB said:Irrelevant but fun fact: I've heard a rumor Wonder Woman is human too; an enforcer for Lexcorp trying to steal mystical artifacts. I hope to Christ it's untrue because that's dumb as hell, but it's what I've heard, and I certainly have no basis to assume the movie character's origin or abilities will be anything like the comic character's.
Not everyone can just bulk up like that. If you don't have the right body type for it getting to that point is incredibly unhealthy. Good on Hugh Jackman for being able to do it, but it is unreasonable to just say "she should just bulk up." In any case I really don't see why this is such a massive problem.Pedro The Hutt said:Hugh Jackman went out of his way to go through training to get ripped enough to convincingly be Wolverine, I don't see why she can't do the same to be a convincing Diana.DrOswald said:First at a glance gut impressions:
Looks good in a general sense, like the sword, those boots are incredibly hot.
Thoughts after thinking about it:
1. She is a little skinny, but I am not going to pretend that getting a good actress that actually looks like an amazon it easy. She sells the "I could kick your ass" look down really well, but she could certainly stand to be more ripped. Considering the difficulty there is in finding amazons who can act, this is acceptable.
I wasn't talking about previous incarnations wearing heels. I was talking about previous incarnations wearing ugly boots. Every single incarnation I have ever seen of wonder woman wears ugly footwear. Including Gail Simone's Wonder Woman. This is the first time I have thought her boots look good.At the very least ever since Gail Simone's Wonder Woman run in the mid-late 2000s (if not sooner), Diana's had a strong and openly stated adversity towards high heels in combat and even expressed that opinion to other heroines in the DC verse, ergo, the current Diana strongly prefers flat soles and is very much a pragmatist, not sure why the film one can't follow suit.2. Those boots have 4 inch heels, this makes them less hot and a lot more silly, but whatever. Still look great. Certainly a huge improvement over previous incarnations.
Hand to hand is not necessarily ground combat. And I was not saying that she would spend all her time in the air, I was saying she can create plenty of force though her flight ability. She can't really brace herself against the ground, even solid concrete would give way under the massive forces involved in a super hero battle without giving any real help.Considering she does an awful lot of ground combat (and in the comics has been said, by Batman no less, to the best hand to hand fighter in the Justice League), yeah, heels do matter and practical flat soles would make more sense.1. This is overall a step forward for the character in terms of not looking like a stripper or an idiot. What she is wearing now looks like it would actually stay on her body without double sided tape. Much less 1950's discount lingerie and much more like actual clothing. The "armor" look is obviously decorative and not mean to protect her in any real way, but this is wonder woman. From what I understand anything short of terminator armor would provide no additional protection anyway. Besides the heels this is a fairly practical outfit for a super human. Plus, she can fly. Do heels even matter to someone who can fly?
There's juxtaposition and then there's tonal incongruity. Until someone can show me how Wonder Woman's appearance is intended as a contrasting comparison, I'm going with the latter.bug_of_war said:Actually they can, it's called juxtaposition, and if done right it can be a really good way to establish a character's persona/outlook/feeling/etc.
It's what I heard. It's probably untrue, but it's what I heard.bug_of_war said:...lulwot?
I agree. Gal Gadot is actually very pretty, but she looks positively horsefaced in that promo picture.elvor0 said:[However, Gal Gadot still doesn't look like an Amazonion warrior, she's still way too skinny. And she's....really not looking great in that picture either, I know she's prettier normally, but that's not a flattering facial expression.
Pretty much this. Right now, Yawn of Justice is nowhere near my "To watch" list, and the only reason I'm looking at information about the movie is to both see how they screwed up this time, and because Captain America 3 comes out the same day.Batou667 said:M-m-m-monster-MEH.
I don't much care for the GRIMDARK direction DC is taking. Is it to differentiate themselves from Marvel, or do they actually believe it appeals to anybody? Sepia is so last decade.
As for Wonder Woman herself - all I can say is, I hope this chick can act, because she sure as hell doesn't look the part. I'm no comics geek but isn't WW meant to be basically the female equivalent of Superman? Raven-haired, beautiful, uber-capable, Amazonian build, and so on? What we have here is the analogue of casting Justin Bieber as Thor; it's underwhelming. WW should be a woman, not a girl in above-average cosplay.
I also find it a bit weird that the most well-known female superhero is ostensibly going to be playing third fiddle to Batman and Supes in their face-off. Seems like a waste of a perfectly good standalone origin story with WW as the lead.