Who is Wonder Woman?



On the way home from Albuquerque, my car-mates and I killed well over an hour discussing the possibilities for a Wonder Woman movie. It all came about from my panel chair announcing that the only way a Wonder Woman movie would ever get made was if Megan Fox was “in that outfit” and there was a good script.

There are several things I love about that comment: first, that “the outfit” has become a personified object of fantasies everywhere instead of a costume/uniform whatever; second, that Megan Fox’s involvement precedes the requirement of a good script.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that a Wonder Woman movie most likely will never get made and if it does, it will be awful. There are several reasons for this: 1) they’re going to cast a “sex kitten” who looks appropriately hot and vulnerable while fighting in high heeled boots; 2) they’re going to write some god awful script that revolves around her “discovering the world” with Steve Trevor who also happens to help her discover his bedroom. No way, no how that works, but Hollywood is going to bank on sex selling and that’s the product that’s going to get produced. The best part is, when it fails miserably, executives will just say “told you it couldn’t be done” instead of thinking about what they did wrong.

It gives me heartburn just thinking about it.

What was most fun about this conversation in the car, though, was trying to figure out who we would cast as Wonder Woman. It was also the most disheartening. Specifically there are some actresses that would have made a great Wonder Woman, but they’re all too old now. Whoever plays Wonder Woman needs to be tall, buff, and look most certainly like a woman, not a girl. That means we need someone at least 5’8”, preferably 5’10”+ and between the ages of 27 and 37.

Here is a picture of Wonder Woman as currently portrayed in the comic books:



And were this 1997 instead of 2010 the following actresses would have been awesome:

Lucy Lawless



She was Xena. Clearly she’s got what it takes.

Angela Bassett



There’s no reason Wonder Woman needs to be portrayed by a Caucasian, and Angela Bassett is an Amazon from way back.

Carrie Ann Moss



Her portrayal of Trinity convinces me she would be much more warrior than fantasy.

Michelle Yeoh



Come on. Crouching Wonder Woman Hidden Badass? I think so.

And that’s a requirement with Wonder Woman that cannot be forgotten. She’s a warrior. She’s not just an Amazonian Princess who can fight; she’s not just a beautiful woman with superpowers. Whoever is cast needs a Matrix/300 style work out prior to filming and she needs to be athletic enough to be a believable fighter. Sienna Miller is, therefore, out. (Did you see her as the Baroness in G.I. Joe? No one’s believing that woman is a warrior.)

No one wants to see a warrior woman:



They want to see this:



I should have been using pictures a lot time ago. They make the case for me so much easier.

All the major actresses around now, Megan Fox, Sienna Miller, Kirsten Stewart are too young, too thin, and entirely to waifesh to pass for either an Amazon or a warrior. The closest would probably be Emily Deschanel (at least she’s got the structure) but I don’t know that she’d be willing to undergo a 300-esque transformation to look the part.

Maybe Lena Headey could get it done.



I at least believe she’s got the attitude.

And then there is the problem of the script. The movie needs to be about Wonder Woman--not about her love life and certainly not about “her mission.” The whole “bring peace to mankind” thing needs to be tossed immediately. No one’s buying that one and there is, literally, no way to make that plot line work in a way that isn’t awful. The gods make excellent villains, Ares and Circe specifically, and the best bet would be to make use of Greek Mythology. Hercules fights for the common person, protects them from the gods and all that, and they definitely don’t want to rip that off, but the gods screwing up mortals lives is not a plotline unique to Hercules in any way. There have been several storylines that have involved Wonder Woman fighting for mortals against the gods already--any one of those could be appropriated.

None of this will happen, though. The first and most obvious reason is because there are entirely too many pictures of Wonder Woman looking something like this:



The second and more insidious reason is that no one (aside from maybe Joss Whedon) has ever tried to write a strong female protagonist without compromising. (Check out Halle Berry’s Storm from X-Men. I still get mad about it.) Instead we end up with Amazons playfully splashing each other in a pond (see the latest animated Wonder Woman) and an infantilized Wonder Woman who needs big, bad Steve Trevor to show her the ropes of this complicated world.

Wonder Woman might have a chance if her biggest obstacle was only finding an engaging plot; with all the gender issues added to the chaos it’s almost inevitable she’ll end up the pin-up doll of the superhero genre.

Man...that’s depressing. I suppose I can hope that someone has the guts to just write it (and cast it) the way it deserves, though, but who wants to watch a movie about a warrior woman that actually is the biggest and the baddest?

I do!

The Top Ten Worst (but hottest) Fictional Husbands Ever

We need something funny. I’m right, right? I thought so. In honor of such needs (because I’m such a giving, caring person) it is time for a new top ten list. Therefore I offer...

The Top Ten Worst (but hottest) Fictional Husbands Ever

(I promise to follow with a top ten worst wives soon.)

10. Will Turner



The Why: Orlando Bloom might not seem like an obvious choice, but I defy any woman with half a libido to maintain a frosty visage when he pops up on Davy Jones’ boat at the end of the third movie wet, looking like a true pirate, and sporting a nifty scar where his heart used to be.

The Problem: You get to see him for one day every ten years and he doesn’t age. That means about three days of sexy time for the rest of your life. I don’t care how hot the scar--that’s a bad deal.

9. Mr. Rochester



The Why: I’m imagining a Timothy Dalton and/or William Hurt portrayal with this one. But either way we’ve got brooding, dark good looks, and falling in love with the “plain girl.” Every girl who didn’t have a date to the seventh grade sweethearts dance is bound to fall in love with this guy.

The Problem: Possibly he’s going to lock you in a closet. Or secretly make you his second wife. I know marriage is about compromise, but that seems a little extreme to me.

8. Any Werewolf Anywhere



The Why: How much better can angst be? A man whose animal side is LITERALLY UNCONTROLLABLE once a month? Talk about the beast within.

The Problem: That very same beast that lends him all of his hairy hotness might also maul you, eat you, or at the very least get you arrested for bestiality. Hard to work through that.

7. Anakin Skywalker



The Why: Episode 3. He wakes up from his nightmare in pajama pants and no shirt. I rest my case.

The Problem: Psychopathic serial-killer personality and a tendency to be controlling makes him difficult to live with. Assuming he doesn’t kill you in a fit of rage he might go after the kids while partaking in his genocidal spring cleaning.

6. Dracula



The Why: Gary Oldman showed us that the only mind-tricks Dracula needs are his suaveness and sophistication. Plus, he’s loved the same woman for hundreds of years. That’s serious commitment.

The Problem: Again with the multiple wives, though he does promise to make you wife #1. The bigger issue is that you have to sell your soul to the Devil. Eternal damnation is a lot to ask of a girl.

5. Sir Guy of Guisborne



The Why: Stupid manly jaw with his stupid manly stubble and stupid blue eyes.

The Problem: Not only will fidelity always be a problem, but he will use your child for bait and kill you if you lie to him. That’s a lot of stress to carry around in a marriage.

4. James Bond



The Why: Dude. He’s James Bond.

The Problem: I’m not sure you can count on James to be faithful. And there’s the issue of his possibly hitting you depending on his incarnation and your tendency towards hysterics. Most importantly, however, if James loves you--really truly loves you--you will die. Consider it the universe’s way of keeping balance.

3. The Phantom



The Why: Sure his face is a little messed up. I mean, he makes babies cry, but that voice and that body! (I’m going with the Gerard Butler incarnation here.) And this man can LOVE like no man has ever loved before! Mental neuroses make a guy passionate.

The Problem: Intense jealousy issues followed with probable strangulation. Hard to feel safe in an environment like that.

2. Batman



The Why: He’s honed his body to its absolute peak of perfection. He’s honed his mind to its absolute peak of perfection. He’s the world’s greatest detective. Consider the possibilities for a game of hide and seek...

The Problem: Even assuming you don’t die (because Batman’s need for on-going pain dictates that you must) he brings new meaning to the term “workaholic.” You’ll see him maybe twice a week for about two hours if you’re lucky. And you can’t even complain about it because he’s out saving babies all night.

1. Any Character Portrayed by JCVD



The Why: Have you looked at pictures of JCVD? I think the why should be fairly obvious.

The Problem: If JCVD marries you, you will die. It’s been proven. Consider it a law of physics like gravity or the unattractive result of wearing spandex.

The Story of Trust...I mean Us

This is going to be sort of a weird one. Part of it is my mood (it’s late, I’m tired, and anyone that knows me understands how sharply my moods shift (that last is a joke...I hope)) and part of it is that I’ve spent the day reading four-hundred-year-old texts actually looking for gender discrepancies to be angry about. I know; I could simply continuously cut myself with a dull razor and I would probably be less upset. But education is pain! Or is that love? I can so rarely keep them straight.

Seriously, though, I just watched The Story of Us; it’s a delightful little movie starring Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer, directed by Rob Reiner, about marriage--specifically the day to day of marriage and what happens when the romance disappears. As I watched it this time I found myself thinking a lot about trust. Michelle Pfeiffer’s character has a great line in the movie where she says “there are some hurts that never really go away;” I like that line because I think it’s true, but as I watch these two characters play out and I think about that line, I started thinking about the reality of it. Specifically, when trust is lost--when you no longer trust someone you care about to listen to you, to know you, to love you--how do you come back from that?

I think this idea is applicable to all relationships, marriages, friendships, family--that’s why I’m considering it here. The really odd thing is that while it can happen all at once, the most dramatic examples are those where one painful act destroys everything, it can also happen slowly over time. A little pain here and there; a thoughtless comment that really hurts; a dismissal of someone else’s dreams or joys; an enduring selfishness that disallows one party to see or understand the world through the other’s eyes.

None of those things have to be big deals right? How often does someone you love say something that really hurts your feelings? And I’m not even talking big things like, “my you have certainly gotten fat” but something small like, “you were at that wedding?” when you were a bridesmaid. And it all plays into this vortex of emotional slop: you feel like you’re constantly being taken advantage of, like the person you used to trust doesn’t actually understand you at all, like they never actually paid attention to what you said or who you are, like the onus is always on you to keep things going, steady, calm, on and on and on.

Meanwhile, most likely, they’re experiencing some variation of the exact same cycle or, even more likely, they have no idea that all the little things they do are constantly ripping you apart but they know you keep getting angrier with them, colder with them, irritated with them. And then, before you’ve even finished your Big Mac you’re sitting there in awkward silence wondering when it stopped being fun to be around each other wishing desperately it would all just go away.

This movie does a really fantastic job of portraying all of this, and as I sit here with all these thoughts running through my head I can’t help but ask how do you come back from that? I honestly don’t know. It’s hard to be a good friend (and I use “friend” here to cover everything from lover to family member); relationships take a lot of work, and when that moment hits, the little thing that feels kind of like a heart attack, and you realize you don’t trust them at all with anything you say, do, or feel, how do you continue to do the work of the relationship? How do you even know if you want to do the work of the relationship?

I’ve been the person on the hurting end more than once in my life and I always hated it; it feels awful to hurt someone like that, even when you know you have to. But having been on the other side I’m not sure if I don’t quite envy the hurter. For one, if you’re the one that hurts you know whether you’ll do it again (assuming you aren’t a complete idiot); for another the hurter has a sense of closure following whatever episode occurs. If you’re the one that suddenly realized you can’t trust anymore you land in this horrible limbo of “what the hell do I do now?” Even if you know the other person is really sorry, that they didn’t mean to do it, that it wasn’t intentional, [fill in the blank] some part of you is broken that never heals right. Just like the movie, “some hurts never really go away.”

And it isn’t like keeping score, though, I think a lot of people mistake it as such. I think I would draw the line between the two with the oh-so-concrete concept of perspective. I know; perspective is such a subjective measurement to use, but I think it is the right one. Mostly I think it’s the right one because the only difference between keeping score and breaking is the person, the context, and the hurt; that has to be decided subjectively case by case. And a whole host of other things get mixed into the slop like self-awareness, thoughtfulness, loyalty, affection, genuine feeling, etc. I mean it’s such a mess right? There is no way to parcel this out neatly; there is no way to say “here are the 12 steps of trusting someone again.” When you are literally struggling with yourself you cannot ever get away or get enough distance to figure it out.

And this goes back into that post a long time ago about knowing when to walk away from someone; when they are good for you and when their brokenness is simply shredding you by proximity. I mean, that’s part of the trusting right? In agreeing to trust someone you accept that they won’t destroy you, or, at the very least, they won’t make your life so painful you wish they could destroy you. But once you reach the point where every moment spent with them is pain, how the hell do you fix that?

It was a good movie. Probably no one else has ever thought this hard about it. It’s the curse of being an English major movie watcher.

Inappropriate Facebook Status Updates

Due to the awesomeness of my roommate I was recently introduced to a website called Lamebook.com. There at ye ol’ Lamebook they take the best of the best, and the best of the worst, of Facebook and post it for the world to see. Be warned: this isn’t for the faint of heart.

There is everything from the hilarious to the offensive to the just plain odd, but after spending no small amount of time on this website myself (insomnia is a harsh boyfriend) I find myself contemplating the lure of the inappropriate Facebook status update.

For example: if you are Girl A and your friend Girl B breaks up with her Boyfriend C, then A and C start dating, wouldn’t you, as A, remove B from your friend list? (If you’re confused just graph it out--I promise it makes sense.)

I mean, as I read some of the status updates and the exchanges happening on the internet--FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE--I have to wonder, do these people remain friends on Facebook out of spite, or are their profiles set to public? And either way, don’t you show a severe lack of intelligence, tact, class, and forethought to post personal business where anyone can read it?

We can all pretend like we haven’t seen them, but we know we have. Inappropriate status updates generally take the following four forms:

The Inappropriately Angry Update:
John Doe is so *BLEEPING* angry at the *BLEEPER DE BLEEPS* that made him go *BLEEPING* *BLEEP*.

The Inappropriately Personal Update (this one has two sub-categories):

Inappropriate about Self--
Janey Smiles wants you all to know that she has brain cancer and only five months to live.

Inappropriate Divulging of Information About Others--
Marjorie Black is sorry her neighbor’s little six year old daughter was also diagnosed with leprosy and must go live in a colony.

The Inappropriate Sharing Update:
Keith Brown hates Charlie Shore so much because he is such a *BLEEP* to steal my girlfriend. If your best friend is going to father three children on your girlfriend while you’re dating her, and she’s going to lie to you about being the father, he should recognize that he isn’t a friend at all!

The Inappropriately Passive-Aggressive Update:
Tina Red wishes she could stop crying. Why would he do that?!?!?!?!

And, of course, because sharing this sort of information with the world isn’t enough--almost always these updates are written in some horrendous form of text speech (Tboz thnkz u r stw a8f al08 lol haha!) or use ridiculous grammar.

And you know, on the one hand I sort of get it. When something happens, good or bad, you want to talk about it. You want to share with people. I totally get that impulse. You want people to know what’s going on in your life and in this modern era of the internet and Facebook the status update seems like a great way to get it done. But as I push ahead in my studies and I read more and more about the internet and the internet in classrooms and the internet and society and I (obviously) use the internet a lot I keep wondering if people have always been this unaware of decorum, if lack of decorum has always been prevalent but the internet makes it more visible, or if the anonymous nature of typing in your bedroom by yourself makes it easier to lose decorum.

And I recognize a lot of the irony in me remarking on this. I am not, nor ever will be, a lady (a fact I’m not worried about). But, I do try my darndest to have and demonstrate good manners. Anything less would simply disappoint my poor mother and I try my best to never disappoint my poor mother. And I (as evidenced by this post and the many that have preceeded it) use the internet to share my personal opinions and views as if anyone cares; all bloggers do, and certainly that runs the risk of tricking those of us writing from the privacy of our own homes into thinking our opinions matter in the grand scheme of things. I recognize this about myself and in case any inappropriate updaters are reading this and feeling offended I want you to know I recognize it about myself.

But I feel like there’s a difference between being censored and demonstrating tact, no? And facebook is not the place to “let it all hang out” right? You try not to make the family cry at Christmas dinner because it’s rude, and whether you care what they think or not if you’re there, being an adult means doing your best to be pleasant. Christmas Dinner is not the place to be a snot. That’s not censorship, it’s agreeing to live peaceably together for the time it takes to share a meal. Sometimes it feels like a plastic bag over your face, but gosh darn it you paste on that smile and get the job done! At least, that’s how we roll in the Midwest.

But I worry (and I know how old this makes me sound) about the kids (let’s hope Girls A and B and Boyfriend C are kids for goodness sake) who are sharing all manner of things with the world via Facebook and getting fired and never realizing that not every thought that passes through their mind at every moment of the day matters.

I mean, after I read Lamebook I overwhelmed by the whole bevy of people in the world that had no idea how much none of us care about their breakups, anger, or pain--at least not via update. Cause when you want to share that with people isn’t it worth the phone call? Or at least an email? This is why I despise Twitter. What do you possibly have to say to me, that is worth saying, that can be said in under 140 characters? I don’t care if you’re eating pizza! I don’t care if you’re shopping! I don’t care if you really like pictures of puppies!

Sorry...I think that’s been building for awhile.

So yeah, check out Lamebook.com if you think you’re up to it. I promise you won’t be bored; though, if you find yourself crying over the state of civilization don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Legion

All I wanted was to see some angels fight. That is not too much to ask for out of a movie. Paul Bettany was hot; I do appreciate that at least, but the movie...the movie was...I’m so irate with it’s failure that I find myself shaking with rage.

Let’s start with a simple logic problem. When writing a movie about angels, or any movie dealing with the Christian mythos for that matter, the first issue that must be addressed is the following question: is God all-powerful?

As a logic problem it would look something like this:

If God is All Powerful = True then Humanity Dies.

If God is All Powerful = False then Humanity has a Fighting Chance.

This is where you start because if you don’t have an answer to this question then you sure aren’t going to be able to write a movie about it. Whoever wrote this catastrophe of an apocalypse obviously grew up on The Prophecy and Constantine and was so excited about playing with ideas of angels, scripture, and Christianity that they apparently forgot you still have to have a believable mythos. The world you create must make sense.

I expected a particular level of suck from this film; let’s be honest about that. All I wanted was Paul Bettany with wings, preferably shirtless, fighting another man with wings, also preferably shirtless. I started to suspect there was trouble when the studio logo came up on the screen and it was BOLD pictures. Yeah. They call themselves Bold and apparently the best logo they could imagine for themselves was the world “bold” in bold font. Hyperbole is the BEST thing ever! We were off to a bad start, it was true.

Then the movie starts and the opening voice over is fine; not spectacular, but fine so far as movie about angels go. But then the music started. I pay attention to these things because music matters and when you’re making a movie about oh, say, THE FREAKING APOCALPYSE, you should have some pretty apocalyptic music--wouldn’t you agree? You better agree because I’m right. But still I thought to myself, Self--it’s gonna be okay. You aren’t expecting too much.

I feel a little bit like I’ve had a Dragon Wars pulled on me here. When I went to see that I expected dragons warring and was sadly (SADLY) disappointed, but this movie had Paul Bettany and in the end he is what saved it from being a total failure. I can’t even imagine what might have happened if they had to rely on Ashton Kutcher to carry that role. Probably I would have been in tears (but we all know I still would have seen it because the movie was about angels).

But even that part failed on many levels. The angels were sort of a part but not exactly. Because once again these people who thought they were so darned clever to present a new imagining of the Christian apocalypse couldn’t figure out which Christianity they wanted to present. After all, if God decides he wants to wipe out humanity and he’s all powerful then humanity doesn’t really get a say in the matter. If God decides he wants to wipe out humanity and he’s all powerful but the angel assigned to do the deed rebels perhaps, so long as it all happens in a short, finite amount of time, there is chance if said angel can reveal to God the error of his ways. If God decides he wants to wipe out humanity and he isn’t all powerful (or for some reason can’t use all of his powers to do so) then an angel absolutely can make a difference.

But if you present a God the audience is supposed to believe is all powerful and then there’s a baby that has to get protected for two days until it’s born and then has to be protected until it grows up...humanity is so screwed. Why? Because WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO FREAKING RUN FROM GOD AND HIS ANGELS? Kansas? Canada? Maybe New Zealand? What do all of these places have in common? Ding, ding, ding! They’re all on Earth and Earth is all under the jurisdiction of God! Hard to get away from a being that can literally see everything all the time. Hiding in the desert doesn’t exactly get the job done. Never mind the fact that he has a LEGION of angels at his beck and call. So one angel decides to rebel and won’t carry out the order? There are still thousands that must be fought off for an INDETERMINATE AMOUNT OF TIME.

You can’t fight the apocalypse because it’s the gosh darned apocalypse. By definition it happens everywhere at once. Even Iowa.

These are not questions that should stump screen writers. These are not even questions that are that hard if you’ve ever read a fantasy novel in your life. Even just reading Lord of the Rings would suffice. But apparently whoever wrote this monstrosity just assumed that because they showed us angels we wouldn’t think to hard about the physics of it all. Apparently they assumed no one would question the folly of trying to out run God.

I mean seriously. They try to out run God. I can’t...I can’t even deal with that right now.

I wanted angels. I wanted fighting. I wanted awesomeness. I would have settled for a few really cool scenes.

Instead I got a man and a woman climbing a mountain as the sun rises behind them literally hours after she’s given birth. Not even dealing with the fact that I have never known anyone that would climb a mountain after giving birth there isn’t even the pretense of subtlety in showing a man and woman carrying the savior of mankind coming over a ridge as the sun rises behind them. Like, I’m pretty sure that’s the visual equivalent of “Since the dawn of time love has been the greatest theme of all humankind.”

If this movie were one of my students’ papers I would fail it with malicious enjoyment. Malicious. I would make whoever turned it into me as a finished product cry with shame. And I would make sure they never, ever, did anything so silly again.

That’s how you keep the world safe.