And another thing I love about Wonder Woman is that it gently introdces some familiar tropes and the quickly shuts them dowm in favor of sincere and meaningful characterisation. 

The four male supports are the prime examples:

1. First, you have Steve, the Het White Male and you’re thinking oh I bet he’s a dick, lets get ready for some mild seualisation if not actual sexism. But?? Steve Trevor is a Pure and Good Man who supports and respects Diana and is actualy relationship goals????

2. Then, you have Sameer, and at first you think, oh hell the North African Con Man trope, but it turns out he’s a talented linguist who dreams of being an actor. Beautiful

3. Next you have Charlie, the Alcoholic Scotsman. But it turns out he drinks because he is facing some pretty serious mental health issues, and all his friends support his recovery and care for his emotional wellbeing !!!

4. And then you have Chief, and you’re surprised becasue first of all this is a Native American Character played by a Native American. And then!! He isn’t the Medicine Man, or the Spiritual Guide but a man who had everything taken from him by white people and is just trying to make something for himself. Fucking pUre.

LOIS LANE WEEK: Day 3 Sisterhood/female bonds

Today, people are celebrating Lois Lane’s relationships with other women so I’m sharing this short scene from the end of Batman v Superman from the extended cut of the film because I think it’s really important and poignant.

The ultimate cut of the film has some extra footage of Wonder Woman lowering Superman’s body to Lois and then standing there over her. It’s poignant footage.

The scene is powerful because despite the focus of so much of the film being on BATMAN, Bruce himself kind of takes a backseat during Superman’s death sequence. It’s Wonder Woman who lowers his body down to Lois and it’s Diana who actually NOTICES that Lois is there after she and Bruce realize that Clark is dead.

When Lois is crying over Clark’s body, she doesn’t turn to Batman and why would she? Batman was an antagonist for the majority of the film and had tried to murder Clark only a few hours earlier and the only reason he didn’t was due to Lois’s intervention. I’m not saying that I don’t think Batman is sad here regarding what happens to Superman because he clearly IS. He clearly is impacted by his death. But he’s also not really the focus of Clark’s death scene except for in shadow and I think there is a reason for that.

Wonder Woman, like Lois Lane, is an innocent here. She came to help the fight but she was not a part of this conflict. The women are innocent to this carnage which is why they are the focus. The women are, in Diana’s own words later, dealing with the consequences of man’s world of horrors. An innocent man is dead and a woman is left grieving and crying. Man’s World is cruel and unkind to Lois here. And Wonder Woman knows it. It’s also most likely a foreshadowing to the death of Steve Trevor.

Diana is aware that another woman is there. She’s present. Lois looks to her for help through her tears and Wonder Woman has a brief moment of “break” where she has to look away from Lois crying because she can’t help, can’t bring him back and can’t watch it. She can’t take it.

It’s human and sad and heartbreaking. It’s also intensely female. It’s one of the most beautiful things in the movie even though this scene, especially in the extended cut, is so sad. The message is clear: man’s world is unfair and women are often left to suffer the grief and pain from the fallout.

Googling a little after that last post, apparently the Wonder Woman movie is set in World War One? Wow that’s bad. Like they went out of their way to avoid bringing her back to her roots, which is unfortunate because a nazi-smashing blockbuster is what we need right now.

“the Wonder Woman movie is set in World War One? Wow that’s bad. Like they went out of their way to avoid bringing her back to her roots”

The issue is that when Wonder Woman went to man’s world in WWII, she stayed there because of what the Nazis and their supervillain allies like Baroness von Gunther, had done. Wonder Woman does not stay in the DCEU, so they need to explain that. The (allegedly) ambiguous morality and ending of WWI, combined with Steve Trevor’s death (most likely) will allow them to explain this.

“which is unfortunate because a nazi-smashing blockbuster is what we need right now.”

Certainly, but your tag claiming that such sentiment is unwelcome in contemporary film isn’t exactly fair.  Fury, Allied, The Mighty Eighth, Capt. America, Cpt. America: Winter Soldier, The Lady in Gold, Monuments Men, The Zookeeper’s Wife, Red Tails, Miracle at St. Anna, Their Finest, and Dunkirk all depict the Nazis as hated enemies. 

While we’re at it, with the exception of Bridge of Spies, Communism hasn’t come under serious fire in Hollywood since Red Dawn, maybe We Were Soldiers. I’ve got some ideas if people are interested:

The Czech Legion (perhaps based on the book Dreams of a Great Small Nation)

The Miracle of the Vistula; the beleaguered Polish Army halts the Red Cavalry, stemming the spread of Marxist-Leninist expansionism. 

Ode to Catalonia by George Orwell, depicting anti-fascist communists who are ultimately betrayed by their government and the Soviet Union.

The Katyn Massacre could use more publicity, though it has a big budget Polish film about it.

Richard Wurmbrand’s story of being imprisoned and tortured by the Romanian Police for maintaining a covert Church community in the 1970s.

Lech Walesa and Solidarity, and Vaclav Havel and the Velvet Revolution could do for a blockbuster (Roger Scruton has a successful novel about the Czech Underground that could serve as a template).

The Battle of Mirbat and the exploits of American Special Ops units in Vietnam are good material for a script, as is the CIA’s support for the Tibetan resistance to China, until the Dalai Lama ordered the insurgents to disarm.

How to eat soup with a knife, an excellent book about the Malayan Emergency, could serve as a springboard for a plot. The struggles of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic resistance groups against the Red Army after WWII is another story that could be told.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the heroic resistance of the Finns against the Red Army in the Winter and Continuation Wars.

ALRIGHT ONCE AGAIN let’s talk about the difference between the sexualization in other movies and Lois Lane’s bathtub scene in batman v superman. Lots of people have done this already and I thank you all for that. But some people are still not getting it. 

For those of you who have seen Iron Man 2, you know very well there is a scene where Black Widow strips down in the back of Happy’s car. Note that Natasha makes it very clear that she does not want to be watched or seen when she does this, but you have Happy spying on her anyway against her wishes, thus objectifying her. She clearly didn’t want him to look and he did anyway, and there is the further perverse impression that the viewer is spying on her body in the same way that Happy is.  Or how about in Star Trek: Into Darkness, when Dr. Carol Marcus tells Kirk to turn around while she changes? Then, of course, he doesn’t listen and he turns around anyway, thus causing her to demand that he turn around again. Once again, this is a woman being objectified for her body – the character explicitly asks not to be viewed in a such a way, and yet she is anyway. Like with Natasha, her wishes as a person – a human being – are directly ignored. Arguments can even be made that they needed to change for whatever reason, because hey – women have a right to change clothes as they please.

A scene is not automatically sexualizing because a woman is naked, or has consensual sex. Women have a right to be/do those things if they choose. But in both of these examples, you have the women’s bodies portrayed as more important than their characters/personalities/wants/needs. That is sexualization, without a doubt. 

Now let’s look at the bathtub scene. You have Lois Lane, understandably taking a bath because she had a traumatic and confusing/mysterious experience that she wants to piece together (lots of people use bathing/shower times to think. No, she is not clothed because obviously people generally don’t wear clothes in the bath. But it is still noticeable that the camera is almost entirely focused on her face the whole time. The amount of skin that is shown is really quite minimal (though skin is never the issue – it’s the way the skin is depicted). 

Nonetheless, when Clark enters the room, a big factor is that he is making DIRECT EYE CONTACT with her the whole time. He is looking at her, not at her body. This helps establish that he values her for more than her body. In fact, what does he come in to do? He enters to simply inform her that he is cooking dinner and making other gestures to suggest that he cares for her. Further, it is Lois that continues the conversation, indicating that she wants him to stay there with her (which is quite the opposite of what happened in the other two movies I mentioned, in which the women demanded that the men look away or leave).

In this scene, Lois and Clark have a legitimate, necessary discussion that moves the plot along and lays out Lois’s motivations as a CHARACTER quite clearly. You learn that she is suspicious of what happened, and that she has a thirst for knowledge. You learn that she cares deeply about Clark and the world’s reactions to him. This scene serves as character development for her (something that many female characters are unfairly denied). She exists in this scene as more than just an attractive body – she is a breathing, thinking person. 

At no point does Lois suggest that she does not want Clark there. When he tentatively makes physical contact with her, she grabs onto him. And when he climbs into the bathtub to disprove her concerns that “he can’t love her and still be him,” he pauses to see if she is okay with it. And it is clear as day that she is – she smiles, laughs, and leans backwards to make room for him.  Is it sexualization if two consenting adults in love engage in this sort of behavior? No. That’s pretty much human nature. 

And why a bathtub scene, many of you ask? I’m sure many of you think it was unnecessary and pointedly included to sexualize Lois. But this scene is straight up foreshadowing. Lois essentially asks Clark if he can  be Superman and love her at the same time. He responds in a silly though meaningful way by jumping fully clothed into the bathtub so that he can kiss her. This implies that he would do anything for her. 

And what happens later in the movie? Oh yeah. He jumps into the water to save her from drowning, meanwhile abandoning the fight against Doomsday. He stops being Superman and becomes a mere man in love…for her. And then to further prove this foreshadowed point, he implies that he is going to sacrifice himself for Lois in particular. 

And last but not least, it is meant to disprove the idea that Lois and Clark’s biological differences stand in the way of this sort of thing. We learn quickly that they don’t, and that they’re in love, and that they’d do anything for each other. Case closed. Characters developed. Relationship established. Sexualization not achieved.

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK

I just said something similar but this literally cannot be repeated enough because some of you still don’t understand what real intimacy looks like between two consenting adults who love each other vs. 99% of the shit you get in media the rest of the time. I honestly don’t care what you think about the rest of the movie but this scene was important.

This is tangential, and I apologize, but the OP’s bringing up of Iron Man 2 and Star Trek Into Darkness reminded me of another distinction between the scenes.

Specifically, the role of the audience.

As mentioned, Carol and Natasha do NOT want an audience while they’re changing, that’s made abundantly clear.  Happy and Jim don’t care.  Now if the story beat was just that Happy and Jim* are the kind of men who don’t give a shit about what women want, that’d be one thing.  The camera could stay on the men while making it clear that Happy and Jim are looking at the women.

(The original version of James Kirk was NEVER this kind of man, but that’s a rant for another day.)

But the camera follows their eyes, basically putting us in the men’s roles and making us complicit in their violation of Natasha and Carol’s privacy.

The bathtub scene is different.  The camera/audience is just the omnipresent viewer.  The only people in this scene are Lois and Clark.  Clark is present with Lois’s clear permission and consent.  

There is a difference.

I don’t think your point is tangential at all. I think your point is the essence of what people don’t understand here.

We are used to the female body and, by proxy, female sexuality being treated as a tease. Women are supposed to be sexually available to men but it’s a very “look but don’t touch” concept. It creates a situation where men are constantly in power—even GOOD men like Happy and Jim. It’s a “tee hee” approach that takes place in a lot of our mediums where women wear sexy costumes to “kickass” and it’s why Wonder Woman’s costume is so misunderstood because she actually ::is:: a contrast to this idea even though she shows skin. This idea is created through how the audience is used.

I think part of the reason so many people were uncomfortable with the scene in Batman v Superman is specifically because it’s just them and so you really DO feel like a voyeur. They also aren’t in public. This is their HOME. They are in the privacy of their own home and he’s her live in PARTNER. He’s not a random guy. He’s allowed to be there. He lives there. He’s allowed to touch her—she welcomes it.

But this is what happens when the majority of your media treats sexuality the opposite way where it’s “look but don’t touch” and yet the audience is the man who looks anyway. No one understands true intimacy anymore when consent is fully present and privacy is in place. The actress’s age is also relevant and totally changes the context but that’s also lost on people. I’ll literally defend this scene until my dying day. It’s a good scene and it’s criminal that so many people watched it and just went “naked lady in tub oh my god this is so sexist.” That’s just not true at all. Context is everything. EVERYTHING.

Ahem

In light of everyone rightfully angry and upset about misogyny and the role it plays in journalism, a reminder that Lois Lane is the hero we need who doesn’t have a solo book at DC Comics. Just in case you forgot.

The state of modern journalism and its ability to truly speak truth to power and work to protect the innocent from the oppressed through the power of the press is in actual REAL crisis. An actual real problem with consequences. The fact that misogyny also plays a huge role in this problem is also a real thing. So there is even a gender divide in not only the profession but in how we get our news. We know this to be fact now.

And the one heroine at DC Comics literally ::designed:: 75 years ago to be the voice for this kind of truth and justice and the power of the press to hold corrupt men like Donald Trump to the fire doesn’t…have…a….solo…book.

But, that’s fine. Go back to writing your billion Batman comics. Even though he’s not the hero you need here. Batman isn’t going to save us here. Neither is Superman. Clark Kent could. But he’s a man and he’s not as good as she is. Lois Lane is the hero you need here.

Honestly, this Captain Marvel/ Wonder Woman mishegas is the biggest, most glaring example of the anti-DC bias in the media, especially since it started before the DCEU. 

When we were balls deep in phase one of the MCU which was five male-led films all with one to two female characters each, the only thing DC was making was the Dark Knight trilogy, DC was getting smashed all over for not making a Wonder Woman film. In the entirety of the 2000s, DC only made films about four different characters (one of them being female but sure, don’t mention that…).

Fast forward a bit, now we’re suffering through phase 2 of the MCU and the DCEU has now technically begun. And now we’re introduced to the biggest piece of shit phrase that ever graced the Marvel vs DC sides of the internet: “Marvel can make a movie about a talking raccoon and DC can’t make Wonder Woman”. 

Which, at the time was about half fair. DC had admittedly been in the wrong for waiting so long to make Wonder Woman, but where was Marvel’s Wonder Woman? Where was Captain Marvel, or Black Widow, or She-Hulk, or Spider-Woman, or any female character that wasn’t a mutant or Sue Storm? Where was it? It wasn’t there. They were too busy making “a movie about a talking raccoon”.

Fast forward to the present. Captain Marvel has a face to her name, a face that we won’t see in any movie for, at the very least, another year and in her own movie, another four years. Meanwhile, Wonder Woman’s solo film, her own film that she is the lead hero of, the thing that everybody wanted for years, the movie that DC has been criticized for not making for god knows how many years, is in post production. It’s coming. There’s a trailer. It was at comic con. The release date is refreshingly close.

And now what are people saying about it?

That it was rushed.

It’s also important we notice that the narrative for this movie’s reception has already been set in place. Because the hate wagon only needs one person saying something stupid and then everyone will regurgitate it, i expect the movie’s reviews to say it was rushed, messy, and i expect them to say people should wait for Captain Marvel.

This article has already told everyone (especially critics) that all they need do, is trash the Wonder Woman Movie and then Marvel can waltz in and claim victory like it put a female led movie out first. The knife’s already been sharpened and judgement was rendered before the case got to trial.

That stupid letter from a supposed insider about how it’s a ‘’mess’’ is going to make things worse because people are now already willing to write it off and look for anything to confirm the conclusion They already came to.

Yup, the movie is officially a Mess as far as critics and haters are concerned. Who cares if the letter was debunked? Which is no different from what Man of Steel, Batman v Superman (TC) and Suicide Squad were accused of, despite not being messes, just edited non conventionally. People need to learn the difference between something that’s actually wrong, and something you’ve never experienced before, is a deliberate decision on the part of the director and should not just be written off hyperbolically as “badly done”.

While They’re at it, maybe people can also try and understand the difference between creating stories that use characters in a different context and fundamentally misunderstanding Them.

And they can also learn how to use google and at least perform a little research on these characters so their knowledge of them isn’t outdated as far back as 1978 and while at it, they can learn these “poor characterizations” such as a relatable and troubledly human Superman, the subversion to the no killing rule, Batman more or less killing his enemies, have all been done before to no resistance whatsoever. But unfortunately, that would require they extract their heads from their ass and i hear the hallucinogens in that tight space are off the charts.

The thing that pisses me off so much about that article is that it reinforces that there’s something SPECIAL or RISKY about female led action projects, and that it’s SO MUCH better to wait for the perfect project, the perfect moment, the best team of people with the best story and the best characters.

This all SOUNDS good until you remember that while female geeks have been waiting 15 movies for a single shot at fair and equal representation, male geeks have plenty of mediocre to awful films produced with male leads just inside the MCU. Where’s our Ant Man? Where’s our Thor 2?

The idea that the MCU’s first ever female led project needs to be exceptionally good reinforces a toxic idea that female led projects are not allowed to be just sort of good, just good enough, or fail completely. By extension, women and girls are being cheated out of their opportunity to fail.

Failing is important, failing means learning from mistakes, failing is a step toward learning how to keep trying rather than just give up. Women can’t fail because their failures are seen as evidence of an inherent lack of skill, especially in male dominated settings like comic books, action, and STEM.

You wanna know why the majority of female led superhero projects are so bad? I would argue that it’s in part because they are written, directed, and produced almost entirely by men, but in large part its because there’s 1 Supergirl movie and 6 Superman movies, 8 live action Batman movies to 1 Catwoman movie, 15 MCU movies centering men and ZERO centering a female character.

These films are not going to get better while Hollywood is being “strategic” about their female led projects by putting them off, they can’t get better if you don’t go ahead and MAKE THEM.

Harley’s reaction to Diablo’s story in the bar is really interesting. She gets really passionate and angry when she’s telling him “You own that shit.” with regard to killing children. Now, the first text that pops up during her introduction sequence describes her as an “accomplice to the murder of Robin”. With this extra bit of information, it seems to me like her impassioned speech wasn’t so much directed at Diablo, but at herself. If that’s the case, she’s definitely having a hard time coping with her involvement in Jason’s murder. Maybe she’s not as far gone as she appears to be…

also to add to this: her dream sequence - what she desires the most - was a happy life with joker and TWO KIDS. and that coupled with the fact that in the scene where joker is surrounded by knives, there is also baby clothes laid out too. she could/would have been  a mother but circumstances must have led to something happening to her kids. the dream sequence makes it really clear though: harley wants a family. she wants children. that’s what she desires the most. and perhaps the weight of killing/being complicit in the murder of a child is finally catching up to her.

The SKWAD: Amanda “The Wall” Waller. Age & Birthplace: Classified. Cutthroat Government Agent. Boss Ass Bitch.

“The Squad’s Puppet Master.” Suicide Squad (2016)

Can we carve her out of this two-hour Hot Topic ad and put her in a better film?

How about this. Try this concept for once in your miserable life, friend. How about you keep your ugly ass comments off of people’s posts and maybe keep it to yourself? Or perhaps just not reblog things you dont like since we dont make these posts for people like you. I know its a foreign concept for someone with your intelligence but try it once, as to save you from embarassing yourself aswell as just flat out annoying those around you.

Also, Its funny how you morons call Suicide Squad the “Hot Topic movie” when in reality if you actually walk into a Hot Topic, instead of Suicide Squad, you’ll see Deadpools face from wall to wall. There’s even an entire area devoted to Marve’s “clothing line”. But nooo, you dont whine or moan about that, instead you target Suicide Squad, which is probably the most diverse superhero movie to ever grace the screen since ever that just so happens to not be under Marvel. A movie you havent even fuckin watched yet I might add. I wonder why?

Hint: It’s cause you’re a closeminded simpleton with a stupid fedora.

lol apparently I’m not done talking about this. I can’t stop thinking about the bathub scene, y’all. not because it’s scorchingly, blindingly hot (which it is) but because of the tone and how it’s filmed. it’s joyfully erotic, but the point of the scene is more than the sex - it’s about lois feeling emotionally vulnerable and off-balance, and clark reassuring her of where they stand.

he walks in on her bathing, but he knocks softly on the door first. he reaches for her, to comfort her, and puts his hand on the back of her neck (idk about the rest of you but this is a BULLETPROOF kink for me, it’s so damn intimate) and she immediately puts her hand over his to keep it there. he offers her a flower from the bouquet he brought her and waits to see if she’ll accept it before climbing into the bath with her. everything he does in this scene he does to make lois feel as loved as he possibly can. it’s all about clark and lois finding a moment of intimacy amongst the chaos of their complicated lives.

and then, oh my, when he starts taking off his clothes? we see lois’s face reacting to the sight (she looks appropriately stunned even after presumably seeing this nearly every day for two years, such is the power of henry cavill’s body), and then that glorious pan shot of his naked chest. not ONCE is her body the focus of the scene, but his sure as hell is. the shot where he peels off his shirt and his pecs jiggle is the most blatantly female gaze-y thing I’ve ever seen. it feels like a direct counterpoint to the thousands of shots of women undressing in a similar way that are all over our media.

and throughout the whole thing, they just look at each other with such uncomplicated adoration. THIS is how you do drama while also depicting a healthy relationship. left to their own devices, they would be blissfully happy. all their conflict comes from external forces beyond their control. it’s so obvious that they’re ridiculously in love, and this scene treads the line between sweet and filthy so well (where exactly is your hand while you’re gazing so tenderly into lois’s eyes, clark?) that I will literally never be over it.

I’m sure I’m not the first person to realize this but the scene of Batman naked, alone and seemingly depressed in the shower in the Ultimate Cut is meant to be contrasted with Clark in the bathtub with Lois earlier in the movie. (Also a longer scene in the ultimate cut.) Bruce is isolated and alone and he’s showering alone. Clark is also undressed in the bathroom but he’s smiling and he’s not isolated or alone. He’s holding Lois. It’s a simple way to highlight the different ways both men cope with difficulty and struggle. Bruce tends to turn inward and be alone. He struggles to let people close. Clark tends to lean on Lois. He draws strength from intimacy both emotional and sexual. It’s actually a pretty great parallel that communicates a lot about who they are.

Please look at how Gal Gadot was shot in the movie versus how Ben Affleck was shot. 

Diana would have been the easiest character for Zack Snyder to seriously sex up. She’s a stunning, statuesque beauty who wears a revealing costume. Throughout the movie, we see her in dresses for the most part. The dresses are sexy, yes, but they fit her character, and there are never any ridiculous close up shots of her breasts or legs. The most revealing shot of her in a dress is when she’s walking away from Bruce and we see her bare back.

Then we see her in her hotel room and she’s wearing a robe, but there’s no unnecessary shot of her putting on the robe after stepping out of the shower or anything so we can see some of her naked skin. We just see her sit down in the robe, and there’s nothing revealing about it.

The most revealing outfit she wears in the movie is her Wonder Woman costume, which was inevitably revealing. But it’s really important to consider how she was shot in this outfit. Never was there any kind of close up of her breasts, butt, legs, or anything. Often what you see when women in movies wear outfits like that is the slow pan up their entire body before the reveal of their face. This never happens with Diana. The way she is shot almost makes you forget that she’s wearing something so revealing because Zack never put the focus on her body. Look at the shots of her fighting:

(gifs belong to @dailydcheroes)

The focus is on her power and skill. Not her body. This was the least sexualized portrayal of a female superhero I’ve ever seen put to screen.

It’s almost hilarious when you compare the way Diana is shot to the way Bruce is shot in the movie because Bruce was by far the most sexed up character in this movie. I honestly do think it’s because Ben Affleck (Henry Cavill too, but Ben more so in this movie) worked so hard to get in that shape and wanted to show off the results, and Zack has proven time and time again in his movies (300 anyone?) that he has no qualms about showing off the men.

Bruce’s workout scene is borderline laughable with how fan servicey it is.

I seriously started chuckling when I saw that slow pan down his abs. That slow pan is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I was saying it is done to female characters. The “let’s show off her body by bringing the camera up and down her body.” It’s so funny to see that happen to a male character in a big movie like this. I’m so used to women being sexed up and then this movie made Bruce the biggest sex pot in the movie. Meanwhile Zack doesn’t allow any of the male audience to objectify Diana and I could kiss him for that.

Then he went another step further and gave us naked Bruce in the ultimate edition.

It’s almost shot the same way as the very famous Jessica Alba shower scene from Machete. Further proving my point here.

The most sexed up character in a big movie that featured multiple female characters, including Wonder Woman, was Batman. 

man of steel superman has been superman for about five hot minutes and people are immediately like “why hasn’t he brought about world peace yet? DCEU is doomed”

He’s been superman for like 5 minutes and people are screaming about how he should have found another way to defeat Zod. LOL.

Like, usually, Supes has a build up to Zod. THis universe was all “fuck you, Clark. He gets to be your first supervillain. have fun! figure out some shit.”

yea, in just one movie he’s been challenged more than in the past five superman movies. he literally had to weigh two genocides and still survive a fight against a goddamn trained warrior with superpowers. man of steel made me feel more worried for an invulnerable person than avengers movies make me feel for those two humans who are cardboard compared to everything else in those worlds

Literally in most of the other Superman movies he was up against a guy trying to commit real estate fraud and THAT is it.

In the world of superheroes, real estate based offenses are considered especially heinous. In Metropolis, the dedicated alien who stop these vicious felonies is known as Superman. These are his stories. CHUN CHUN

Guys, please share this like wildfire. This article explains, in plain and simple terms, why Civil War is the apex and end result of Marvel dumbing down their films and reducing them to a 1+2 formula. It acknowledges the fact that BvS does what CW could not, that BvS is an intellectual movie, and, for lack of more gracious phrasing, drags Marvel to hell kicking and screaming. This is it.

rad shit lois lane has canonically done in the justice league cinematic universe, and reasons I will hear no criticisms of her:

Hmm maybe tuck your dick back in your pants and actually pay attention to the movie? That scene was about vulnerability. We see Lois right before in a scene where she nearly died. This scene was about breaking down the barriers between Lois and Clark to show that at the end of the day, they are a couple who love each other and will always be so no matter what the world thinks of them. And honestly she did nothing to even have it be considered sexy?? She wasn’t sensuously rubbing soap all over her or drinking wine with candles around her or shit. She was just taking a bath, like you know, normal people do. Lemme guess, you think a girl wearing short skirts means she wants to be fucked?

AND AGAIN WITH THE SPEAR!!!! She threw it away because she knew that it was almost used to KILL superman just a few moments ago! I swear every time someone brings it up they’re almost always a complete idiot who don’t watch movies. No offense but maybe film writing is not for you because you need plot spoonfed for you.

You really are a sexist ass lmfao. 

I’ve had a post brewing for weeks now about the bath scene because, frankly, the way people have responded to it so exemplifies the kind of vile hypocrisy that surrounds the female body and female sexuality that it enrages me. I’m sure I’ll write the post at some point but for now let me say this: I’m beyond tired of idiots pulling out “tropes” as if it’s the be all end all to your discussion as opposed to the starting point. Tropes can and are subverted all the time by context in a narrative. Amy Adams is 41 fucking years old. She is a beautiful woman and, in general, she’s become a woman about whom people are obsessed with saying that she “looks so young” which honestly bothers me because she is allowed to own her life experiences and when we talk about how she “looks young” we basically insult and imply that it’s strange for a 40 year old woman to be that good looking. And that’s gross. Women over 40 are, generally, in these movies and in most areas of life, totally stripped of their sexuality by an ageist, youth obsessed culture. When they are allowed moments of desirability and sexuality it’s through the heinous lens of “cougar” jokes and it’s wrong and awful because this does not happen to men. Men are allowed to be young and virile forever. Women are cut off from being allowed to be sexual. So, here you have a mainstream movie where a 40 year old actress is an actual object of desire for arguably the most beautiful and powerful man in the world. He wants her. He wants her so badly that he can barely wait to get in the bathtub with her. He loves her so much and they are so close to each other that he feels comfortable–and she feels comfortable letting him—sit on the side of the tub and rub her neck to comfort her. Mind you, she wears a conservative business suit for the rest of the movie. This is the only moment in the whole movie where we see her not as a professional woman in her work uniform but as a woman period. Vulnerable. Real. Out of the protective armor that is her business suit that shields her while she does her very dangerous job. There is zero in the scene that exploits her. There is no sensual lighting. There is no close up camera angle. Nothing. We don’t even see her. Wonder Woman’s costume shows more skin than we SEE of Lois in this scene. (I’ll come back to that btw.). CLARK sees her. Clark sits next to her and they have a gentle conversation while she’s bathing and then he playfully gets on top of her and they presumably have sex. And that’s the root of what is really making people uncomfortable here. These movies almost always are more than happy to present sexed up heroines posing in skimpy outfits but the minute you see an actual loving couple having actual sex…the hypocrisy is staggering. Harley Quinn, Blaxk Widow, Catwoman and yes, Wonder Woman all show significant amounts of skin or have worn sexy outfits. “Sexy” is built into their costumes and we are told to accept this because it “makes sense” for the characters. Which is fine. We can debate why and how all our female superheroes were created so that it “made sense” for them to be wearing hot outfits while they save the world. I love all those women too and I have complicated opinions about what they usually are forced to wear in the name of “Kickass.” But what you don’t get to do is throw out “trope” as if you have any idea of how and why tropes for women can and are subverted. As if Amy Adams’ age –which she gets to OWN and doesn’t get taken away from her bc of some idiot “but she looks young” bullshit–isn’t relevant here. As if you it’s totally ok for the other female characters to walk around in hot pants but a civilian heroine who wears a fucking business suit THE ENTIRE MOVIE is somehow compromised during one scene where she isn’t wearing clothes in front of the man who shares her bed. I don’t want or need some man deciding what is or isn’t ok for a 40 year old woman to do in a genre where 40 year women get stuck playing the Mom while Robert Downey Jr. still gets to be Iron Man. I don’t want or need some man pearl clutching about Superman and Lois Lane having LOVING, committed, monogamous sex in a scene in a genre where sexuality is still this weird thing that usually gets associated with villains, antiheroes and playboys. Superman is the most desirable man in the entire world. And he wants Lois Lane. Not a supermodel. Not a goddess. Not a “perfect” woman. He wants her. That he wants her ALWAYS subverts a fucking trope simply because of the kind of woman she is (not the kind that men typically view as a prize) but it subverts a trope even MORE in this particular version of the myth because of the actress’s age. And if you don’t understand how or why this subverts the trope and why this scene in the bathroom is important to the narrative and to who Lois is as a woman…then you really have no business trying to break down this scene at all or to try and mansplain to a bunch of women about how and when it’s ok for a woman to choose to take her clothes off. A 40 year old woman being nude was there “ for the men??” Guess what? Even if that was true (which its not) that alone—the very acknowledgment that a woman who is older than 35 is that desirable—subverts the God damn trope. Class dismissed..