Is ‘Wonder Woman’ the New ‘Ghostbusters?’
Yes, the culture wars may have a new front thanks to the first official trailer for “Wonder Woman.”
The 2017 film released its first sneak peek Saturday at Comic-Con. And the press already is lining up with over-the-top praise.
Forbes: The Wonder Woman Trailer Is As Wonderful As You Hoped
HuffPo: Wonder Woman Needs No Man in First Trailer
IO9: The First Wonder Woman Trailer Is Even Better Than We Imagined
Nerdist: Wonder Woman Trailer from SDCC Is as Empowering As We Hoped
Jezebel: The New Wonder Woman Trailer Is Here, and It Rules
LA Times: Wonder Woman Gets Its First Poster, and It’s Stunning
Gal Gadot plays the DC Comics superheroine, alongside Chris Pine, Connie Nielsen, Danny Huston and Robin Wright. We first saw Gadot’s character in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” Fans and critics pounded the movie, but Gadot earned near-universal praise for her supporting turn.
Now, she’s the star.
RELATED: Is Gender Card ‘Ghostbusters’ Only Hope?
The upcoming film is the first significant superhero story led by a woman. Yes, we previously saw “Elektra” and “Catwoman.” Both tanked, with the latter proving laughably bad. That was before the current superhero movie craze. Today, these films earn massive budgets and A-list casts, and they typically land the best directors in the galaxy.
‘Wonder Woman’ and Hollywood’s Gender Woes
Given Hollywood’s current gender disparity, a new female-led franchise could pave the way for more women-powered projects.
So there’s a lot riding, from a cultural perspective, on the success or failure of Gadot’s feature. And journalists know it.
Can we expect the same biased press reporting we saw with “Ghostbusters” now applied to “Wonder Woman?” More overt cheerleading over skeptical, fact-based reporting? A new wave of attacks on those who view these properties with a healthy dollop of skepticism?
There’s little reason to think that won’t happen.
For starters, the new film apparently has a gender chip on its shoulder. Just like “Ghostbusters.”
Remember this line mid-movie regarding an Internet “troll” comment?
“Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts.”
The Comic-Con trailer has not one but two moments where gender inequality is name checked. Our fearless superheroine calls being a secretary a “slave.” And she snaps at male co-star Pine with this: “What I do is not up to you.”
Is there more to come? It’s not clear, but we do know the marketers behind the movie want you to think there is.
One big difference between the two projects is apparent. The first “Ghostbusters” trailer was flat-out awful. Yet many reporters insisted sexism, not lousy editing and flat jokes, fueled that trailer hate. This wasn’t just niche web sites. The Washington Post led the spurious charge.
Gadot’s trailer, in comparison, is solid.
Stirring action. Teases of the lead character’s superpowers in full bloom. A dash of humor. A sense of comic book pageantry. It’s a winner, if not an instant classic.
FAST FACT: Joss Whedon was once attached to direct a “Wonder Woman” movie, but the studio didn’t agree with his vision for the project.
Gender warriors will be itching to support the film. Journalists will likely follow suit.
After all, both groups appear ready to move on from “Ghostbusters,” anyway. The film dropped 63 percent Friday from its opening Friday tally, a steep decline for a comedy that allegedly had strong word of mouth.
Some social justice warriors aren’t keen on the finished product anyway.
One Man Too Many
Turns out they didn’t like giving co-star Chris Hemsworth, a man, so many funny moments. The movie failed to properly “out” Kate McKinnon’s character as a lesbian. Even director Paul Feig slyly suggested the character is gay, but the studio preferred to blur that matter. And it didn’t give the women more fully developed characters.
Then again, it looks like the “Wonder Woman” movie may not be perfect, either.
Three men wrote Wonder Woman, and that’s a problem – With Wonder Woman due out next summer, the Warner Bros. PR… https://t.co/HcessuI82o
— Ryan Boese (@rboese) July 13, 2016
One lesson applicable to both films. You can never please social justice warriors.
“Wonder Woman” reaches theaters June 2, 2017.
Three men wrote Wonder Woman, and that’s a problem…
I remember the old meritocracy idea, that what mattered was the quality of your writing, not your gender. Two women wrote the screenplay for LOTR, is that a problem? When you’re focused on gender instead of the quality of your product, you’re part of the problem.
I didn’t see the “What I do is not up to you.” as a feminist statement, but more in line with Superman telling the US military they can’t control him; more about automony than grrrl power.
Unfortunately, it looks like this film will be plagued with criticism because of its Israeli star’s views on the IDF. That may exempt Gal and her film from support by feminists and their progressive white knights (already seen some nasty remarks on Lefty gossip sites). Sad.
From a storytelling perspective, the simple and obvious way to make Wondy an interesting and inspiring character for the 21st century is to ditch the outdated gender politics entirely and focus on what she is at her core: a soldier. A very powerful one, from a foreign land, who comes to America and finds, for the first time in her life, something truly worth fighting for. This focus on the character both as a woman (her romantic love for Steve Trevor coupled with her more general maternal love for humanity driving her to want to protect the world from evil) and as a warrior would give a screenwriter plenty of interesting thematic material to explore. The question is, will they respect their audience enough to put storytelling above propaganda?
The answer to this question is no. It’s not a remake of a much loved classic, it’s a follow on from a much derided blockbuster (i.e. BvS), the franchise (Wonder Woman) was always female led and their currently isn’t any big controversy about the script, style, special effects or trailers (Indeed people seem to generally like this trailer, I know I did). It also features a young, highly attractive woman, so I’m sure it will also draw in some more shallow male viewers and anger the kind of feminists that find sexiness offensive. Basically it is nothing like Ghostbusters except that it is female led and some people have called it empowering. I wouldn’t be surprised if every female led film was called empowering by someone.
But anyway, regardless it may still suck, but I don’t think anyone is going to claim it shouldn’t have been made. I’ll be paying to see this movie, while I wasn’t willing to pay to see the Ghostbusters remake. I’ve always said, writing a good female character in a good film is how you empower women, the rest sorts itself out. Remember Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley? Of course you do, they were friggin’ epic.
Wait, men who find a “highly attractive” actor worth watching are “shallow”? Kind of a sweeping generalization, don’t you think?
No, because I didn’t say men that find a highly attractive actor worth watching are shallow, I said that there being a highly attractive woman in it means that men that are shallow are more likely to watch this. See the difference? If I cross the road I’m more likely to be run over, that doesn’t mean crossing the road = being run over or that I can’t suggest crossing the road risks being hit by a car without somehow suggesting every road crossing leads to fatality.
You disagree I assume? You think shallow guys aren’t more likely to watch something with attractive women in? Or do did you just want to put words in my mouth?
Wow, pedantic much, Fenrisfil?
Wow… When you look at text on the screen you really must read something random in your head. I feel pity for you. It’s like your arguing against the demons in your head or something.
Or perhaps it is just that I clearly demonstrated you made a mistake and rather than manning up to it and accepting you misread what I said you are getting all butthurt and scrabbling for some other bizarre accusation you can throw at me.
Or maybe you are just a troll. You seem incapable of intelligent discussion so perhaps I’ll just block you.
Reading comprehension is indeed your friend sir. You should try making its acquaintance someday.
I had no problem reading his first comment and totally agreeing with it. There are some very shallow men out there who will indeed watch this for the beautiful young actress in it.
As long as they don’t make it all feminist, they focus on her as a soldier/warrior patriot, this reboot of the classic should do well. She looks great carrying a sword. Lynda Carter didn’t even do that IIRC.
If you’re going to quote the trailer, at least do so in context: Godot asks Lucy Davis “what’s a secretary?” to which she responds “I go where he wants me to go, I do what he wants me to do”. Then Diana says “Well, where I’m from, that’s called slavery.” I think that line’s amusing, actually. And, for that matter, go rewatch the trailer, Godot hardly “snaps” at Pine…
Because we all know that’s the basic definition of a secretary. Please. It’s dumb in context.
What should she had said instead, “Cool. Wish I had a secretary”?
The dialogue just shouldn’t have been in the movie. It’s a dumb exchange. Is being a secretary in and of itself demeaning? No it’s not.
Overall a good trailer, but that part was not.
I think when trailers are out this early, one purpose is to test stuff like this dialogue to see how it plays with the audience. I have no doubt there will be some tightening and tweaking right up until near release date.
So…Wonder Woman doesn’t know anything about Greek history?
It’s a trailer, not a movie, but there’s at least two feminist quips so far and, yeah, that is worrisome.
I WANT to like this movie, Gal was the best thing in B v S. But I don’t want a lecture.
It is. Amazonian women would indeed treat men like that historically.