How ‘Justice League’ ruined the ‘Wonder Woman’ Amazonian outfits

I’d been holding out on watching Zack Synder’s “Justice League” because I knew I was going to be disappointed after watching Patty Jenkin’s “Wonder Woman.” What I didn’t know is that not only would I be disappointed, I would be furious too.

Advertisements

As I’ve mentioned before, the 2017 “Wonder Woman” movie starring Gal Gadot and directed by Patty Jenkins may or may not have changed my life. I cried my way though the whole movie and left the theater with high hopes for future super heroine depictions. Those hopes were somewhat sustained by the 2018 “Black Panther” release because, although the badass females in that movie weren’t the main characters, they were still very much celebrated and given almost as much screen time as the Black Panther himself, T’Challa, and his nemesis, Erik Killmonger (but that’s a topic for another blog).

Regardless, I left the theater after watching “Wonder Woman” with my heart in my throat and my head in the clouds regarding future super heroine depictions. But I was brought back down to Earth hard after I finally got around to watching Zack Synder’s “Justice League.”

Two VERY different designs
Can you guess which set of costume armor was designed by a man? Lindy Hemming designed the set used for “Wonder Woman” (left) and Michael Wilkinson designed the set for “Justice League” (right). Source: Instagram via People.com

By now, you’ve probably heard of the controversy surrounding the late 2017 release and, more specifically, the altered Amazonian warrior costumes (And if you haven’t, have you been living under a rock?).

According to an article from Cinemablend.com, the official line from Michael Wilkinson, costume designer for “Justice League,” is that the reason the costume designs are so different between the two movies is because of the different time periods.

“For the majority of screen time in Justice League, the Amazons appears in 2017: one hundred years after the events of the Wonder Woman film,” Wilkinson said. “We wanted to show the passage of time by having a slight development in their armor, so some of the lines and details are different.”

Saying “some” of the lines and details are different is a bit of an understatement as nearly all the Amazonian costumes in “Justice League” have been reduced to thin lines and bare midriffs, a design that is incredibly impractical for a female warrior race.

[READ: Wonder Woman Calls for a Reimagining of Cinematic Feminism]

Lindy Hemming, costume designer for “Wonder Woman,” has been interviewed on her inspirations for the 2017 movie costumes and several chapters of the book “Wonder Woman: The Art and Making of the Film” were devoted to the subject. But the best analysis of the costumes, by far, came from a fellow costume designer and writer Amanda Weaver. Weaver, an unaffiliated fan of the film, broke down the costume designs in a series of tweets that are well worth the read.

Weaver's Twitter costume breakdown
Weaver’s passionate break down of the Amazonian costumes in “Wonder Woman” – and how they compare to previous “pin-up” incarnations of Diana’s costume – is a real treat to read if you’ve got the time. Source: Twitter

Weaver reversed-engineered Diana’s costume and that of the other Amazons in the 2017 movie and compared it to early Roman armor, ending her passionate “gushing” by saying the armor of Diana and her fellow Amazonians “showed respect” and that “The intent was to portray these women as warriors first and foremost.”

And warriors they are. Even though that’s not how Wilkinson and Synder went about portraying them.

Wilkinson continued in the same article from Cinemablend, saying, “Zack [Synder] wanted a more primal feel. So we harkened back to a time where armor was more primitive, metal was less developed and the Amazons had a more tribal feel.”

[READ: Why Wonder Woman Should Have Her Own Video Game]

Because “primal” and “tribal” apparently mean less clothing, more skin on display, and not as much protective armor, which seems counterintuitive for a warrior race. Never mind that most of the Amazonians wore hard leather armor with only some pieces of metal placed at a few key locations along their bodies.

More Weaver breakdown
Another tweet from Amanda Weaver detailing the use of leather in early Roman armor and how it was used as the inspiration for the Amazonian costumes in “Wonder Woman.” Source: Twitter

I could keep going about how this costume change takes three giant steps back in terms of female representation in the movies by reducing a group of powerful warrior women to dude-bro fantasy babes wearing nothing but skimpy leather bikinis, or about how since “Wonder Woman” was filmed before “Justice League,” Synder probably already had the original Amazonian costumes and made the conscious decision to scrap those designs and waste time and money creating new more revealing outfits, but I’m not.

I’ll just content myself knowing that although Justice League made away with just over 2 million in domestic revenue, according to BoxOfficeMojo, Marvel’s “Black Panther” made almost that much on its opening weekend.

Better luck next time, Synder. Who knows, maybe if you stop catering to dude bros and start broadening your female and POC representation, you’ll start seeing greater returns.

Just don’t ever expect to get on Marvel’s level.

And with that, let the power of Lara Croft be with you.

warrior armor

Lucky 13: This ‘Doctor Who’ fan isn’t ‘scared’ of 13th Doctor’s gender

What a time to be alive.

Truth be told, I haven’t watched “Doctor Who” in years. Once a rabid “across-the-pond” fan, my attention has waxed and waned over the years before declining sharply with the introduction of Clara as “The Impossible Girl.”

Part of my inattention was caused by the increasingly complex (see: ridiculous) plotlines and escapades imagined by series writer Steven Moffat. The other part was a long waiting period and weakening Netflix addiction that was only revived by my foray into college life. But after yet another wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey tale of hijinks ran off the rails into dramatic explosions and cleverer-than-thou Doctor monologues, I had to stop watching the show or start hating the series that I had loved so much in my late middle school and early high school years.

However, with the release of the new trailer unveiling the 13th incarnation of the alien Doctor grabbing attention across the globe, I’m willing to give this classic British series another chance.

It’s no secret that I’m for more female protagonists. Whether they be in video games, movies, TV shows, books or other mediums, I’m of the belief that more female characters — more complex and engaging female characters with realistic emotional definition and detailed character arcs and plotlines — the better.

[READ: 5 things we need more (or less) of in video games]

So it should be of no surprise that I’m excited about this new Doctor. I do have one critique, however.

What the hell took you so long?

This show has been running continually on British TV since the 1960s — barring a brief break during the 90s until the show’s official relaunch in the early 2000s — with twelve, now thirteen, different incarnations of the title character and countless variations of the spunky sidekick role throughout the years.

ten eight two
Some of the most memorable Doctors include David Tennant (Ten, 2005-2010), Tom Baker (Four, 1974-1981) and Patrick Troughton (Second, 1966-1969) with more great companions than I have room to name in a 800-word blog post. Sources: David-tennant-news.com, Dailymail.com and Pinterest.com

But year after year, Doctor after Doctor, Tardis set after Tardis set, there have been no female Doctors until Jodie Whittaker. And Whittaker has already released a statement urging fans not to be scared of her gender.

You heard right.

Scared. Of her gender.

In a quote in the article “Doctor Who: Fans react to Jodie Whittaker casting” from BBC News, Whittaker said, “I want to tell the fans not to be scared by my gender. This is a really exciting time and Doctor Who represents everything that’s exciting about change.”

The tone of this quote is defensive and a little pleading and while I can sort of understand its necessity , I’m a little shocked and a lot pissed that Whittaker and/or her PR agent felt they had to say it.

But she’s not exactly in the wrong to feel defensive. The BBC article went on to compile some of the most memorable fan reactions to the announcement, rom a father tweeting about his 8-year-old pumping her fist in the air to Facebook and Twitter trolls bemoaning the syntactic difference between a Time Lord and a Time Lady.

yes and no tweets
Seriously, shut up. Just shut up. You have no right to take this moment of victory away from the female Doctor Who fans who are finally celebrating gender parity in regards to the show’s main role. Source: BBC.com

I could go on and on about how the term “doctor” is gender-neutral and about how the show has already shown us through secondary characters and Moffat-y exposition that there are as many Time Ladies as there are Time Lords and about how everyone criticizing the new direction of the show needs to get real about what year we’re living in, but I’m not.

Instead, I’ll just say that this is the kind of world I want to live in. Setting aside the horror-show that is modern politics, at least some in the entertainment industry are trying to do the right thing by factoring gender into equations of Hollywood and small screen success and broadening the traditional role of women in the industry.

[READ: ‘Wonder Woman’ calls for a reimagining of cinematic feminism] 

In a world where women can be Ghostbusters, and superheroes and Jedi and queens and Doctors, those who stand opposite these powerful women and complain about their successes are in the wrong. Those that complain and bemoan the death of traditionally male-dominated roles in the industry are in the wrong. And those that rail against gender parity, that criticize and demean and condemn the female presence as a mark of equality rather than an object of the male gaze are, undoubtedly, unequivocally, unmistakably wrong.

But to all those celebrating the new female Doctor, keep calm and carry on, as those of the BBC would say, and let the power of Lara Croft (and Diana Prince and Rey and the 13th Doctor) be with you.

gender parity

‘Wonder Woman’ calls for a reimagining of cinematic feminism

It’s hard to put into words just how much this movie means to me.

When it comes to superhero movies, I’ve got pretty low standards.

I know it. My friends know it. My mom knows it. And my sister, the self-proclaimed film critic of our family, knows it and talks about it with me at length, often disparaging my taste in films while she preaches down at me with the great knowledge of YouTube’s Cinema Sins and Screen Rant behind her.

But this long overdue silver screen interpretation of the most enduring female superhero of all time surpassed my standards and even those of my sister. It also surpassed everyone else’s expectations of a female-led superhero movie associated with a superhero brand that just can’t get it right (and with a female director at the helm, no less).

Right out of the gate, the movie made cinematic history, earning over 100 million its opening weekend, according to the Associated Press. Gal Gadot’s “Wonder Woman” also has a 93 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes as of Sunday with close to 250 reviews, higher than any recent DC movie, including “Man of Steel,” “Suicide Squad” and “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” and all Marvel films except the first Iron Man, according to Vox.

But it’s not about the money or the ratings or the number of people who gave it a good score on the “Tomatometer.” It’s about what it represents to me and many other female moviegoers sick of watching the same superhero formula film: hope.

beautiful badass diana
I legitimately swooned every time she burst into action. Source: Comicbookmovie.com.

[READ: Why Wonder Woman Should Have Her Own Video Game]

Don’t know what I mean? Think about this for a minute.

Two little girls sat down next to me in the theater. One was blonde and generically cute while the other, her sister, was dark-headed and clumsy, tripping (adorably) on her feet. In her hand she held a Barbie doll with jet-black hair, a familiar red and blue dress and two silver bands clasped around her thin plastic wrists. A tight coil of rope at her hip swayed back and forth as the girl held it, gesturing wildly in her excitement as her dad settled her and her sister down with some popcorn.

Whether or not those girls were old enough to see the movie is not in question here – but if it was, I would probably say they weren’t, as the very first preview was rated “R” and the movie itself featured an amount of violence that befit it’s World War I subject matter. What’s important to them and to other little girls across the country is that for the first time in recent cinematic history, a woman was able to fight and kick butt on screen in a genre of movies generally reserved for men. And what’s more, she wasn’t overly sexualized, much to my relief.

In fact, none of the Amazons were. Their costumes and weapons were appropriate for their Greco-Roman origins and the slow-motion cinematography used during the fight scenes only further highlighted their athleticism and ability, something that is distressingly lacking in other movies depicting female fighters. It seems, to Hollywood, when we aren’t whimpering weaklings, we’re over-sexualized she-demons with about as much venom and malice as a pair of boobs locked behind a tight corset.

[READ: Why ‘Sexy’ Modding Isn’t Really Sexy At All]

WONDER WOMAN
Not overly sexualized, but perfectly athletic and able, Diana and the other Amazonians are the strong women we need from our superhero action movies. Source: Ew.com.

But “Wonder Woman” proved that women can be tough and sexy and intelligent and witty and funny, all without being hyper-sexualized or put on display for the infamous “male gaze.” Not only was Gadot’s portrayal of Diana as funny and charming as it was youthful and emotional, she was a Grade A badass. I fell in love with the way she moved, the confidence in her fighting and her looks and the way she held herself throughout the movie: like someone royal, some awe-inspiring and, well, like someone wonderful.

I fell in love with “Wonder Woman” and with Gal Gadot’s portrayal of the timeless character. It was so important to me that this movie do well and I’m absolutely relieved that it did. Not only because it would have been a death sentence for all other female-led superhero movies, according to the tone of coverage surrounding the movie before it was even released – and that’s an issue for another blog – but because it showed girls, and Hollywood producers, that women are capable of kicking butt and looking hot. Of being sweet and funny while also being tough and heroic.

Of being an icon for a new generation of girls and feminists, ones who deserve a stronger third-wave, or a newly defined fourth, and who deserve to play with Wonder Woman action figures and baby dolls and Barbies and toys that don’t fit into the strict gender binary our consumer culture often forces them into.

It’s hard for me to overstate just how much this movie meant to me, and how much it will mean for a new generation of moviegoers. While it’s easy to say that this movie has finally shattered the impenetrable glass ceiling for women in Hollywood, we can’t get complacent. The same thing was said about movies like “Bridesmaids,” “Thelma and Louise” and “9 to 5,” and here we are, still working towards gender equality in Hollywood and pretty much all other facets of life.

mashup posters
All three of these movies have shattered expectations and cinematic norms, but the glass ceiling has remained firmly intact after each release. Source: Amazon.com and Wikimedia.org.

While I could easily continue to talk about how much I loved this movie and how much more can be done towards making it a truly feminist movie, I think it’s important to remember that these things take time. Yes, “Wonder Woman” is not the magic bullet for female equality in Hollywood some might have wanted it to be, but it can get us there and, if we all work hard enough, we can help it stand for more than just an awesome female superhero movie – which it undeniably is.

We can help it stand representative of a new wave of feminism, or a revisited old one; one that calls attention to the new problems women are facing in our age of social media and technology and one that shakes up the postfeminist narrative that has invaded our media culture.

One last thing. To all those men angry about women-only screenings: Get. Over. It.

Look around a movie theater next time you go to a major action movie like “Fate of the Furious” or “Die Hard” or any Bond movie or the fifth Transformers movie coming out June 21. Those are pretty much all men-only screenings. Besides a brief stint in the silent movie era, almost all of cinematic history has been defined by male movie successes, and even those that flop – “Green Lantern,” “Batman v. Superman” or the Tom Cruise “Mummy” reboot to name a few – are usually given another chance to wow us or, more likely, flop again.

So shut up, sit down, get used to it and let the power of Lara Croft (and Diana of Themyscira) be with you.

Oh and Rocksteady? Don’t think this lets you off the hook. I’m still waiting for a Wonder Woman video game to match your Arkham series.

wonder woman unlocked