Is Wonder Woman a good movie?!

1) Loved Wonder Woman. Even the third act that gets so much bad press. Her job was to fight Ares. She did. & Won.
2) Had no problem with Diana being slightly off in the world of men since she had a sheltered upbringing. Takes time in a new culture/country to learn things. Let alone coming from a magical island where there's no men to a dirty non-controlled violent existence.
3) I've never understood why it's not OK to admire beauty, either male or female. Beauty fades in time. It's like admiring a flower or a wonderful sunset. What's NOT OK, in most circumstances (exception is play parties & etc), is to make sexual comments or demands. Big difference between admiration of something/someone that brightens day and being a predator (even if it's the early stages of being a predator).
4) In Batman v Superman, Diana states she killed an alien before. There is also the fact that she stops defending humanity for several decades. Be great if in WW2, tell story set in WWII, about alien & how the bomb/halocaust lead Diana into semi retirement because of her disgust of humanity's warring.

Well, if we're changing the scope of that aspect of her character from "wonder woman is a paragon of this convolutedly strong/submissive feminine ideal" to "wonder woman is sexually submissive, independently of her day job..."

Honestly, this movie didn't contradict that. Diana's sexuality isn't explored; the closest we get is during the boat scene, in which she seems uncomfortable about going into any detail. You could say that that itself is undermining an important part of WW's character, but then, this is supposed to be a young and sheltered version of her who is still discovering herself.

If Diana gets a love interest in the Justice League movie, and we find out that she's a sub, that could be a nice touch. I doubt they'd have the guts to do it, but I'd certainly appreciate it, along with approximately 100% of the kink community.


EDIT: out of curiosity, did any of Marston's ideas about gender make it into the DISC system? If not, you're basically doing the same kind of appeal to authority as the people who try to confront atheists with "Einstein was religious. Do you think you're smarter than Einstein?"

I don't think I really follow you guys here. I always thought that a submissive was proud or enjoyed their part of a relation. By that I mean willing subs, because an unwilling sub I assume would be a slave held captive, right? So if WW would enjoy being a sub, why wouldn't everything be fine? It would be on her own terms and she'd get what she wants, right? I don't see willing spankees as victims. How would enjoying being a sub undermine her character?

To be honest, I'm not an expert with the DISC system - but is one of those axis based systems. Here's what I have about some of his basic work:
In 1928, he published Emotions of Normal People, which elaborated the DISC Theory. Marston viewed people behaving along two axes, with their attention being either passive or active; depending on the individual's perception of his or her environment as either favorable or antagonistic. By placing the axes at right angles, four quadrants form with each describing a behavioral pattern:

Dominance produces activity in an antagonistic environment
Inducement produces activity in a favorable environment
Submission produces passivity in a favorable environment
Compliance produces passivity in an antagonistic environment

-----

To me that implies that his dominant / submissive theories made it into the DISC.

And I'm sorry if you thought I was trying for a cheap "gotcha" moment. You said:

My point (and again, sorry if this didn't come across) was that he had a very organized view of Wonder Woman, one based on his understanding of psychology. Since we are talking about someone who worked decades ago (and our understanding of psychology keeps moving forward) I listed some of his achievements - including something that is still in use today - to illustrate that he wasn't some crackpot.

Just so I'm clear - the creator of Wonder Woman was considered a renown expert in his field of psychology in his day. His theories of the human mind included how most women and many men could achieve happiness by learning to loving submit. He based the character of Wonder Women around these theories, building them into her origin and the basic character. Elements of bondage in his work including the Lasso of Truth, Bracelets of Submission, and many Women In Peril situations. I feel that if you try to have Wonder Woman without those elements you are basically getting Super Girl, Ms. Marvel, or countless other super heroines who lack the Wonder Woman mystic. Just as if you try to have Batman without Bruce Wayne being an Orphan to drive the character you don't have Batman. You might have The Green Hornet or one of the other "playboy by day, crime fighter by night" gadgeteers, but you don't have Batman without the Waynes dying in front of Bruce.

I've been following your discussion and I find it fascinating. I thought that I was the only one who had dug himself down in comic book history, but in this field I have to my utter shame admit that I had one big blank. Is there somewhere I can read about Marston's ideas about WW and how he reasoned?

There are several places. There are books and this fall there will be a movie released. I've seen various shows that touched on his believes (including some footage of the woman who lived with him and his wife, had 2 of his children, and wore "slave bracelets" that served as the inspiration for the bracelets of submission), but during this discussion I've been using Wikipedia as a source. If you search on Wonder Women Wikipedia you'll reach the main page about her. The main page has some of the information, and there are links to Marston's wiki page, which links to his wife's page and the page for woman who lived with them.

I haven't mentioned it because it has nothing to did with Wonder Woman, but as a husband and wife team the Marstons did some of the first serious work on Lie Detectors, and their live-in was also involved in as research. They were an interesting threesome.

And great gift to the comic world. At a time when comics were seen only as a frivolous distraction they had a physiologist from Harvard telling people that comics could be used to advance society. Quoting again:
Given the go-ahead, Marston developed Wonder Woman, whom he believed to be a model of that era's unconventional, liberated woman. Marston also drew inspiration from the bracelets worn by Olive Byrne, who lived with the couple in a polyamorous relationship. Wonder Woman debuted in All Star Comics #8 (cover date Dec/Jan 1941/1942, released in October 1941), scripted by Marston.

It's a fascinating part of comic history.

Didn't Marston also in part base the character of WW on Olive? He also used certain ideas and scenes in the comic to see how much he could get away with from the Comics Code back in the 50's as a thumbing his nose to the entire ridiculous concept.

So it seems that not only was the uniform and the era off in the most recent movie; following this thread it seems as if there is almost nothing left of the original character. It's up to everyone I guess to feel if it was a good or bad modernization. I'm a bit old and stiff. If it's not the WW I know, I think they could have made the movie naming her something else to not violate the original character so deeply, Astonishing Woman or whatever and let the real WW be. But I guess I'm a minority here, complete remakes that changes everything but the name of the lead, be it Bond, Star Trek or random superhero(ine) seems to be the melody of today. Time to lock myself in with my old movies and stop going to the cinema.

It seems like newer movies always drastically change what the original movie or its character was like. Certainly seems the case with the new Wonder Woman from what people are saying.
And of course we know what liberties screenwriters take when they adapt a book for a movie. A prime example are the Tarzan movies. None of the Weismuller and other films are anything like the Tarzan of the Edgar Rice Burroughs books. Tarzan and Jane never lived in a treehouse after they were married, in any of the books, to give one example.
Relevant to the discussion of Marston and the psychology of the Wonder Woman character is the fact that Frederic Wertheimer in his anti-comics crusade of the 1950s(which led to the creation of the infamous Comics Code) singled out Wonder Woman in one of his attacks, claiming the comic fostered lesbianism. The 1950s brought a greater awareness of homosexuality - and a rampant homophobia.
I too am one that generally prefers the older movies. For example, have little interest in the 20 th century version of Sherlock Holmes. Will stick to Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, thank you very much.

Yes, I can't help to snigger when I read the original Tarzan books, "Jane looked respectfully at her lord and master..." Not from this side of the millennium exactly, but I loved that story when I was young. Yes, some reboots are good, but I'm not certain about WW just yet. It's quite okay an action movie, but it's not WW to me, she is too different. Not as cataclysmic a change as Sherlock Holmes though, that I agree. I like both the new and the old incarnation of Doyle's creation (or three incarnations if you count Downey's action movies), but they have nothing in common but the name. Might have been better releasing them as different detectives. To me Daniel Craig would have worked better as 008 for example, as he is no Bond to me. It's just as if Diesel's xXx had been a Bond movie.