Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
As much as I hate that I’m probably becoming known as a “DC Defense blog”* , I have to put this out there.
You know what’s probably most problematic with people’s claims that WW is sexualize while BW isn’t? The fact they believe it’s not feminist for Diana to wear something that’s revealing, something that shows skin EVEN THOUGH FEMINISM =/= regulating women’s clothes. And that Diana’s comics outfit which is less armored than this is and is designed to be a strapless one piece bathing suit has been what she’s known for for YEARS, DECADES EVEN and not once has that made her any less feminist of a character. Never once had that been deemed as negative because despite what she wore she was an amazon and a hero. That everyone looked up to her even though it could have been assumed she was going to be a Sports Illustrated cover model but NONE OF THAT MAKES HER NOT FEMINIST.
This is an iconic character fitted in a poster designed to make her look like a warrior and then you have BW whom is also iconic but looks like she’s on a photoshoot with this big fans and she’s having fun with it, she looks more like a doll designed to look cute for the male gaze. People need to remember that skin doesn’t mean sexualization, but everything that makes WW and BW different in these two photos SHOW that BW has been sexualized.
Fandom shows selective misogyny and it sickens me because only DC can do wrong, right??
Some things to also remember:
1) Black Widow also made her film debut as a supporting role in a male hero’s movie.
This is the promo shot they used to promote her appearance in said movie:
That is way, way more sexualized than the WW promo shot OR even the Black Widow promo from Cap 2.
And, in fact, it’s generally agreed on (not by everybody, but on the whole most of the fans I’ve seen seem to feel this way) that Natasha was both more sexualized and less well-written in Iron Man 2 than in her subsequent appearances in The Avengers and Cap 2. Marvel’s take on her didn’t start out perfect. That’s okay. It got better.
2) Yes, there’s no Wonder Woman movie confirmed yet. Guess what? There’s no Black Widow movie confirmed, either. Or any female-led superheroine movie from Marvel.
This is especially interesting when you consider that DC is, in many ways, still catching up to Marvel in terms of movies. Black Widow has been part of the MCU since 2010. The MCU has been going strong since 2008, and Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor have all built up successful franchises with multiple movies in that time. Iron Man has already had two sequels! But still no movie with a female heroine as the lead.
By contrast, DC is just starting to build up a shared cinematic universe like Marvel has. Man of Steel was the first movie that’s going to be part of the shared “DC Cinematic Universe” (or whatever you want to call it). That was just one year ago. Dawn of Justice is only going to be the second. If DC manages to get a Wonder Woman solo movie off the ground in the next five years, they’ll still have added a female-led movie to their line-up faster than Marvel did.
In certain ways, actually, DC already looks like they might be doing better than Marvel in terms of representation. The Avengers had one PoC main character - Nick Fury, who isn’t part of the official team. If the latest Dawn of Justice casting rumor about Aquaman is to be believed, the live-action Justice League will have at least two on the actual team (Ray Fisher as Cyborg and Jason Momoa as Aquaman. Gal Gadot, as an Israeli-born Ashkenazi Jew, does not necessarily qualify as a PoC, though you could debate that.)
I mean, look. Am I nervous as heck about how Dawn of Justice/DC’s cinematic universe in general is gonna turn out? Absolutely. The title “Batman v. Superman” alone makes me nervous. So does the fact that they’re introducing so many new characters in what was originally supposed to be a Superman movie - I’d rather have quality over quantity. And I don’t really trust David Goyer to write Wonder Woman properly.
But we haven’t even seen the movie yet, and DC’s cinematic universe is still in its infancy. Marvel didn’t start out perfect, and in fact Marvel is still far from perfect. So let’s wait and see what DC can bring to the table, alright? We might be pleasantly surprised.
***Disclaimer: Most of the images used do not belong to me. If you see one that’s yours, and you would like credit or to have it removed/replaced, please just ask.
I would also like to point out that the lady cosplaying Harley Quinn next to him in some of these pictures is his RL girlfriend, Alyssa King, and she is quite an awesome cosplayer herself:
man you know what I want? a superhero series where they have powers that 100% contradict their personalities. a fishermans daughter who lives by the sea, swims every day, learns that she can control fire. a boy who’s mortified of heights but realizes he can use antigravity and hates it. someone who was bitten by a dog as a child, suffers extreme fear around animals, can now communicate with them. they’re all disgusted by their powers.
Garth. The character you’re looking for is Garth.
I mean, can you get much more “powers not suited to their personality” than an Atlantean kid who’s afraid of fish?
do you ever get to a point in a fandom where you just… ignore canon?
At this point, I pretty much ignore the fact that DC continues publishing comics
The thing is that DC just has so much canon. It’s not like, say, a series of books, where everything is planned out and written by one author. DC has over seventy-five years of canon, written by many different authors, some of whom contributed fantastic additions to the DC canon, some of whom… not so much. And many of these different ‘versions’ of canon outright contradict each other. A character may have had multiple backstories over the years, or their personality may be subtly (or not-so-subtly) different depending on who’s writing them.
People (myself included) sometimes fall into the trap of over-simplifying things as ‘pre-reboot’ and ‘New 52’ canon, but it’s actually a lot more complicated than that. Post-Crisis preboot canon was often very different from Pre-Crisis preboot canon. Bronze Age was very different from Silver Age or Golden Age.
So with all these conflicting versions of canon, it’s actually impossible to form a coherent whole if you accept literally everything as canon. So, you have a choice of either always accepting the most current version as definitive - or you can do what I do, and what I think many comic fans do, and pick and choose the versions you like best, the ones that make the most sense to you. And I think that often comes down to a combination of which version you encountered first (which often becomes the definitive version in your eyes), which version appeals to you the most, and which version you consider the most iconic, important, or definitive.
Me, I tend to usually go by the original canon, but there are exceptions to that - I’m open to retcons where there’s a clear improvement. The retcons I like best, though, are those which only add instead of taking away from the existing history - like Bruce and Zatanna being childhood friends, or Dick being Romani, or the additions George Perez made to Wonder Woman’s mythology. If a writer wants to add a retcon like that and I feel like it fits the character(s), I’m usually happy to accept it as canon. It’s only when I feel like a retcon violates an important aspect of a character’s previously established history or personality that I reject it.
The bottom line is that to me, it’s not a matter for not going by the canon in this case - I do go by the canon. But I go by my canon, not whatever DC’s decided the latest version is. I think that’s what a lot of us do. It’s not that we don’t respect the canon - it’s just a question of which canon we’re choosing to take as definitive.
I’ve been listening to a lot of people’s reactions and theories to Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and her possible stand alone movie, and one thing about the discussion has jumped out at me.
One of the topics brought up often about a Wonder Woman movie is who would be the villain and a lot of people scratch their heads and say things like, “Well, I don’t know who they would use for the villain. I can’t think of any moniker Wonder Woman villains so they should probably just make one up.”
And that just vexes me. Now if they announced a Batman or Spider-Man or Superman movie and said they weren’t going to use any of their villains and they were making one up for their films, the thousands of sweaty nerds and half of the general public would flip their collected shits.
Just because you can’t name an iconic Wonder Woman villain doesn’t mean she doesn’t have any. I don’t even read that much Wonder Woman and I can name at least ten villains, WITHOUT going to Wikipedia, they could use for her first film.
Something about that notion just rubs me as inherently sexist and willingly ignorant.
I’m with you 100% on this I mean it’s like noone’s even seen Superfriends or Justice League and witnessed the badassery that is The Cheetah and you don’t even need to pick up a comic book to know that. i know there’s other villains but Cheetah keeps WW on her toes from a hand to hand aspect whereas Circe or anyone else would be a bit different.
IMO, the perfect choice for a Wonder Woman villain would actually be Ares.
#1 - Per George Perez’s classic WW run, Ares is the archenemy not only of Wonder Woman but of all the Amazons. He’s the one who drove them to seclusion on Themyscira, and he’s the reason Diana chooses to enter Man’s World.
#2 - It emphasizes Diana’s ties to Greek mythology, which I think is essential for a WW movie. And this is something unique to Diana among the top-tier DC heroes, something you don’t see with Superman or Batman or any other member of the Justice League. It makes her story different. The Marvel movies have been having huge success with characters from Norse mythology - why shouldn’t DC do the same with Greek?
#3 - We want to establish right off the bat that Diana is hugely powerful and badass - what says that more than having her archenemy be a literal god? And the god of War, no less! If any haters want to whine that WW is just a weak girl, or she’s a lame superhero whose only powers are her invisible jet and her lasso, or she’s clearly a stupid character because of her costume - can you think of a better way to shut them up than saying “Wonder Woman can go up against the God of War and win”?
#4 - On the flipside, we want to establish that Diana is powerful and badass, and a fierce warrior when necessary, but we also want to establish that she prefers peace and would rather put an end to violence whenever possible. (Something many depictions get wrong, turning her from badass but peace-loving to a lover of aggression and violence.) To that end, I think it’s wonderfully symbolically powerful to have her enemy literally be War. Ares can represent the kind of violence and aggression that Diana stands against, while Diana represents the honorable warrior who knows how to win battles but would rather establish peace.
Just my two cents.
Page 1 of 89