To embed videos in the forums, type out the YT link within a pair of "" brackets and get rid of the 'www.' and '.com/watch?v' portion. Quote me to see the syntax of this embed:Darth_Payn said:All this talk of the jacket got me thinking this should calm everybody down:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3MExgf6mwdU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
I'll be back when I have something more intelligent and relevant to the "Wonder Woman costume and sexual implications thereof" issue, because right now, nothing really comes to mind yet.
EDIT: Oh, for fuck's sake, why did the YouTube video for "Jacket" not get embedded?!
DC's flagship characters maybe.Alarien said:snip... DC's problem has always been that their characters have been about as dull as dishwater.
Eh, skinny girls can put on muscle. Compare Linda Hamilton in Terminator to Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2. That kind of physical presence, while still not super muscular would be sufficient I think.PhiMed said:I think the discussion of whether this will be a disaster is already over. They've already selected a waif for the role. If you can look at Gal Gadot and tell me seriously that she belongs in the role of wonderwoman, I will eat any article of clothing you have. Even the unsavory ones.
Jesse Eissenberg doesn't belong in the role of Wolverine (and you know what, he shouldn't be Lex Luthor, either, but that's for another discussion). We can say that. That's okay to say.
But it's not okay to say this, though, is it? "Gal Gadot should not be Wonderwoman." I'm okay saying that. But it's not okay to say that, is it?
Paul Giamotti should not play f'ing BLADE at this juncture. I don't know... maybe don't cast Nightwing as Sean Bean.
Maybe somatotrophism isn't the worst thing in the world, when applied to FICTIONAL,NEVER HAVE EXISTED, NEVER WILL EXIST CHARACTERS.
I just expect a little more "umph" to someone who is capable of taking supes in a fistfight. Skinny chicks get enough roles. Let this one go to a girl who's eaten a sandwich this year.
Call me crazy.
She's a character whether or not she wears pants.Andrew Siribohdi said:Bob sez, "Jacket off".
...Wait, that came out wrong.
I agree with you, Bob. But I do think pants means there one step in the right direction in making Diana into a character.
I think emphasizing sexuality is entirely dependent on the intent and execution; Think Bayonetta vs. the sorceress from Dragon's Crown.piscian said:hmm. Is emphasis of sexuality pro-feminism or sexist? Gauh I don't know. It's so personal. For me I lean towards de-emphasis and blurring the lines of the sex's. In other words putting a woman in a military uniform doesn't make her more manly it just makes everyone more the same.
When I think about it no matter how hard I try I can't take power girl seriously. She'll always just be a set of boobs. Wonderman gets a break because she's just like this mom character. It's hard for me to see her as a sex object. Again this is all personal eye of the beholder stuff.
I prefer Wonderman in a suit. It's just more logical. I know she isn't really affected by weather but I just don't know any girls who spend all day like that so she doesn't relate like that anymore.
I also like the jacket.