The LA Times has an article up describing how the cast of Wonder Woman downplayed the feminist aspect of the movie at a recent premier:
Despite the obvious girl power on display, many of the film’s stars and creators shied away from identifying it as a feminist film, hoping not to isolate the male fans in attendance.
This is very wise, but not just to make sure the movie appeals to men. Modern audiences love feminist heroines, but both men and women want their feminist heroine to be hot. This was the real problem with Ghostbusters. No one, neither men nor women, wanted to go watch four butch women in dumpy jumpsuits and combat boots save the world.
The makers of the upcoming Wonder Woman movie seem to understand this, and have so far avoided running into the ditch ugly feminists keep demanding they aim for.
Predictably, there were calls to make Wonder Woman an in your face lesbian:
“The character has to stand up and say, “I’M GAY!” in all bold caps for it to be evident,” he said. “For my purposes, that’s bad writing. That’s a character stating something that’s not impacting the story.”
When that failed, the call was to ensure that Wonder Woman had (you can’t make this stuff up) hairy feminist armpits.
Through careful analysis, the internet has exposed a perhaps, not-so wonderful aspect of DC Comics’ newest incarnation of the classic, girl-power superheroine: She has no armpit hair.
But the studio responded to the controversy by digitally evening out the skin tone on Wonder Woman’s armpits-of-girlpower, instead of giving her pits a set of CGI dreadlocks.
Lastly, instead of a dumpy feminist jumpsuit and combat boots, the movie’s creators wisely gave her a sexy costume, including high heeled fashion boots women are bound to envy.
All of this will give Wonder Woman a chance at success that Ghostbusters never had.
Sex sells. It’s a wonder that Hollywood forgot that for even a single movie.
Still not going to see it.
Pingback: Rescuing Wonder Woman from the Ugly Feminists. | @the_arv
You forgot to mention the feminist “women only” screening of Wonder Woman: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-womens-only-screening-texas-alamo-drafthouse-1008043
Note the lying mock tone of this misandrist article:
It’s time to pour one out for the countless male tears that are being shed in Austin, Texas over a grave injustice some men feel is being committed against the fragile male species. A movie theater in Austin is daring to host — gasp — a women-only screening of Wonder Woman.
This potential threat to world order is tremendous and truly terrifying for some men in Texas (or at least, trolls on Facebook) who are absolutely aghast that the Alamo Drafthouse theater is trying to celebrate the biggest female icon in the comic book world.
I’m not aware that any men are “aghast” or “shedding tears” over the women only screening. Maybe some griping at the hypocrisy of feminism. (Imagine a male-only anything.)
The author, Lorena O’Neil, is a nasty piece of work.
But she’s not alone. If you Google, you’ll find tons of articles about the supposed “male outrage” over the women-only Wonder Woman screening.
I hope men give women the courtesy of nothing but women-only screenings of this film.
“Modern audiences love feminist heroines”
I disagree with your premise. Modern audiences love movies, and tolerate the overt feminism as the price to pay to see movies in the theater. To a degree. However, movie theaters are closing all around the country. These two points are related.
Hollywood would sell more movie theater tickets if they stopped making feminist heroines altogether.
Gadamer (student of Heidegger) wrote about the work of art as an avatar of being. Unfortunately, there is no originality any longer. Filmmakers are now imitators, and postclassic cinema has reduced the film to a mere thing. Cinema is technologically overburdened: which makes it merely a technology, with no spontaneity. The film is no longer a work of art.
To me the ultimate power girl normal guy show was I Dream of Jeannie. Granted most guys would wife her straight up if it includes unlimited wishes but its clear who has the power. What sets it apart and is the guy is in control more or less.
No one wants to see “message” movies that are sometimes anti male sometimes anti white and always anti white male. Movies now come in two flavors – promoting girl power or interracial crap or both. Won’t see either one. If I want to see propaganda I’d rather even see old Soviet flicks that that crap.
I will never see this film, as I never saw the GB remake. I do not do loud boycotts, but I do engage in quiet ones. I saw the previews for this in the theatre and it was clear from the first moment that this was feminist propaganda. No Thanks, Ma’am.
“But she’s not alone. If you Google, you’ll find tons of articles about the supposed ‘male outrage’ over the women-only Wonder Woman screening.”
The gender discrimination on the part of the theater owners was a publicity stunt. It’s unfortunate to see so many men taking the bait.
Movies now come in two flavors – promoting girl power or interracial crap or both.
It’s very true. I was re-watching some scenes from La La Land (a movie I liked a lot, despite its immoralities), and in the “someone in the crowd” sequence, it seemed that almost every other couple was interracial, specifically black guys with white or asian girls. It was odd in juxtaposition to the main characters, who are of course white, and in Emma Stone’s case, lily-white (of course she’s a dyed-in-the-wool progressive, so that atones for her original sin of being born with that lovely alabaster skin). It’s obviously intentional as well, but it didn’t stop “professional ethnic minorities” from criticizing the film for “white people appropriating jazz”. Apparently only Denzel could have played the male lead — anything else is racist appropriation (and I think honestly that’s why Gosling didn’t win the Oscar he well deserved for the role, while Stone won hers … she was working against privilege while he was working for it, in the eyes of the new progressive moral orthodoxy).
Don’t even care anymore. Shit is shit. won’t spend a dime on it.
I do not see any feminist themed movies, period.
The Lasso of Truth
It’s interesting that as feminism reaches its screaming climax, Hollywood answers by drowning us with endless Comic Book and Star Wars movies. Long gone are the days when The Long Kiss Goodnight and G I Jane heroines would be even remotely believable, let alone acceptable.
They now have the convenience of stories where these broads all have magical powers that level the playing field and make the idea of them kicking a man’s ass more palatable.
Yet, I believe even this is running out of juice, as the scene with Scarlett Johanssen whipping 30 trained killers compared to Tony Stark’s head of security’s ONE is STILL mentioned with the appropriate amount of eye rolling and head shaking.
Hollywood is on the razor’s edge of over-playing their hand in this area, because even Scarlett Johanssen in skin-tight leather is not enough for people to not notice the ludicrousness of these scenarios.
I used to wonder why they don’t make westerns anymore. Now I know. You can only take so much of anything.
The creeping liberalism, SJWism, and you-go-girrrrl-power has ruined the genre for me.
I’m ready to give superhero movies a rest for a while.
Same for the Star Wars movies; for the same reason.
Reading the LA Times article, the cast and crew keep reassuring us that the movie is NOT about feminism, but EQUALITY. If, as the movie implies, it takes super powers for an Amazonian woman to fight next to American male soldiers, are they not admitting something they would rather NOT shine the spotlight on?
as the movie UNWITTINGLY implies, I should have said.
Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chief Executives
https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-ceos-dont-get-paid-less-than-men-in-big-business-they-make-more-1496223001
“I used to wonder why they don’t make westerns anymore. Now I know. You can only take so much of anything.”
I think Westerns were replaced by Science Fiction movies, as they allowed for a darker, dystopian nightmare future, as well as writing the rules to be anything you want them to be. The Old West, after all, became the Modern West, where everything basically turned out OK. “You’re doing it wrong! Do it the way I tell you to do it” doesn’t translate that well with Westerns, since we know the outcome. Science Fiction can be anything.
But, SciFi has become predictable. Either Future Utopia with perfect equality among the many sentient entities, or Dystopian Nightmare Postapocalyptic Horror. The zombie movies became an analogy for that when SciFi began to run out of new ways to sell “You’re doing it wrong! Do it the way I tell you to do it”.
The Old West is the past, which turned out OK.
Science Fiction is the future, which whenever they stick a date in it, fails to become Dystopian Nightmare.
Super Hero movies are the present. Hollywood is doubling-down on selling “everything is awful, right now” as hard as they can, because their message is ugly and no one believes it anymore. They’re going to go bankrupt trying to convince people that their own lying eyes are lying, and “You’re doing it wrong! Do it the way I tell you to do it”. Most people don’t trust them anymore.
Which is why those movie theaters are closing.
Yeah, the modern audience don’t want feminism. They’ll gladly buy a ticket for gender-neutrality–“Alien”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, “The Silence of the Lambs”–but even feminists won’t pay to see feminism.
It will be interesting to see what happens with “Wonder Woman”. Because the first two DC comics movies were kind of a train wreck, if WW is merely okay that might be enough for most viewers.
This is the problem with giving into any feminist tropes – you do end up alienating people. DC and WB should have always done everything they can to fight against this. You have people on the website refusing to see a movie about Wonder Woman because of the nasty taint of feminism. As for me – my boys and I see every super hero movie, but only one in the theater each year and Spiderman was the unanimous winner.
I’ve sworn off modern movies totally. There’s a small handful that I’ll tolerate the B.S. in because I like the film enough, but seeing any new ones in theater? Forget it.
No matter the small aesthetic tweaks they make for palatability, this will still be stinking feminist tosh. Into the darkness with it alongside that Ghostbusters abortion and Mad Maxipad: Fury Road.
Chris says: May 31, 2017 at 10:44 am
It’s unfortunate to see so many men taking the bait.
it’s unfortunate that you think seeing women crowing about men “taking the bait” means that … men have taken the bait.
On some of the ads, she is definitely depicted in a masculine manner, though, with her sword as a kind of phallus symbol:
http://imgur.com/Guun0ui
This is why I always say that our world has in many ways not become “feminized” but has actually become more masculine. For one, there is far more brutal economic competition today. Boomer’s apple pie conservatism can’t change the fact that there’s much more competition for every job these days, much harder to find employment let alone afford a freaking HOUSE.
Furthermore, while pretty much all political movements accept or even celebrate the female pantsuit, the female politician (in Europe, many right-wing parties are led or co-led by women while in the USA, Ivanka can easily be used as a tool to make her father bomb whole countries) – but they do NOT accept the feminine men.The masculine women of today do NOT accept the feminine man, quite the opposite! They have degenerated into pervert BDSM whores who need to get tortured sociopathic billionaires or by ghetto thugs and Syrian radicals to get off.
Wonder Woman will be declared a rousing success no matter what actually happens. My personal lack of participation will be labeled misogyny, or fear of strong women, which are the ones I’m told I “can’t handle”. Is that the same as simply being tired of them?
Wonder Woman herself will be such a [Strong Woman, Independent, Fierce, and Tough], that we will have to modify the nomenclature to accommodate this new dynamic from now on. SIW to SWIFT, as in “she’s a SWIFT”.
These can be sold alongside the WW T-shirts with SWIFT spelled out in sequins. To be worn with appropriate high heeled fashion boots.
Now that I think about it for a minute, I guess they can be [Tough Women, Independent and Tenacious]. Maybe some re-branding is in order.
So long as DC doesn’t fuck up the franchise (like it normally does) and create at a 2 hour movie about ‘girl power’ and ‘male bashing’; then I’d wager that this movie will do just fine financially.
Marvel seems to tone that feminist shit down……for fear of ruining the move franchises. It’s also interesting to note that in backstage interview clip of the filming of ‘Avengers: Infinity War’ that not a single woman was on the set to be interviewed. The brain-trust of Marvel movies seems to be predominantly male.
I suspect that Marvel keeps the meddling hands of pro-feminist morons out of their movie productions when it comes to any real ‘decision making’ power.
Ghostbusters never had a chance, and when called out on his stupid direction Paul Feig doubled-down on his feminist agenda………….and promptly ruined the Ghostbusters franchise & his career.
Back to the minors for you Feig.
In the new Guardians of the Galaxy movie there’s a pretty, sweet, submissive female character. In context she’s a slave of the villain, but she’s there and the other female characters are revolting in comparison, except for the tall, slutty, evil supermodel.
Pingback: Rescuing Wonder Woman from the Ugly Feminists. | Reaction Times
Guys tuned into the old “Wonder Woman” to see Lynda Carter’s massive natural cleavage (you can get a full view in the obscure movie “Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw.” Take away that, and you lose a significant portion of the male audience. I’ve noticed that not only is the new Wonder Woman not as endowed as Carter, but the character’s new outfit doesn’t show any cleavage and is in fact somewhat prudish up top.
When you couple all that with the “Grrrl Power” element the ’70s “Wonder Woman” didn’t have, I doubt anyone but women will see this film. I could be wrong. It doesn’t appeal to former teenager in me, anyway.
@Red Pill Latecomer
You forgot to mention the feminist “women only” screening of Wonder Woman
I actually hadn’t heard of this yet, but it doesn’t make me angry. In fact, after reading that article, I find it absolutely hilarious. Feminists have done a lot of screaming about the need for “gender parity” in every aspect of life and culture, and apparently that now includes comic book movies. So as soon as get their fondest wish of a film featuring a “strong female heroine” who holds her own against the men, they react by . . . barring half the potential audience from buying a ticket to see it and thus encouraging the possibility of more being made. And don’t expect it to end with that! Large audiences of men going to see this film are still going to make feminists deeply unhappy because they already suspect that those men aren’t doing this because they want to see a strong female character so much as they want to see the strong female character’s sexy outfit. So expect to see a round of articles and public lectures shaming this movie for “objectifying” women and criticizing the men who might consider watching it as perverts and sex fiends, right up until the point that they belatedly realize that a whopping chunk of the movie’s potential paying audience is now gone. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, feminists!
This movie is a perfect example of why feminism is ultimately doomed to complete failure unless men swoop in for the rescue and provide it with a “victory.” As Dalrock has put it before: Feminism would work perfectly if only weak men weren’t screwing it up. And by “working perfectly,” I mean crashing and burning like a jumbo-sized Hindenburg.
@Nova
I dig it; though I boycott loudly to family, friends, and coworkers. Now that I’ve read that Guardian article, they’ll all be told that it’s actually a laughable Wonder Dyke they’re celebrating.
@Casey
Too late. Marvel has already eaten the lion’s share of the comic movie market. DC’s whole approach is to grab the margins by explicitly appealing to SJW fantasies.
@Patrick
The submissive female’s whole purpose in the film is to subvert and display empowering rebellion. Note that she is like a geisha. She is the female counterpart to the other display of rebellion: Star Lord rejecting and killing his father. Of course Dad was evil. We always are.
Smultronstallet @ 1:10 pm:
“This is why I always say that our world has in many ways not become “feminized” but has actually become more masculine. For one, there is far more brutal economic competition today.”
Unrestrained power is much more feminine than restrained power. Even in B-grade action movies the protagonist isn’t killing for fun and profit. He works toward a worthy goal. Women prefer the casually violent man because that’s who she would be if she had masculine power. She envies men our strength without caring much about the responsibility that comes with it.
The Anglo-Saxon is therefore the most masculine race, because we’re the most principled and directed at the use of violence. This is confirmed by our crippling inability to thrive in a female-primary environment.
“…while in the USA, Ivanka can easily be used as a tool to make her father bomb whole countries”
You mean, her husband? That’s an improvement. The last US Prez bombed whole countries because he was on a literal jihad. Gaddafi, you deserved a better fate and that’s saying something.
Really? A female only screening of Wonder Woman? Boy, that triggered my feelings….of apathy and indifference.
Off topic, but good reading: “How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus”.
http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/
“Singer recognised that philosophy faces a vexing problem in relation to the issue of human worth. The natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place.
I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth, or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realise that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear.” ~ Sarah Irving-Stonebraker
Peter Singer, by the way, is an Atheist, utilitarian philosopher who argues in favor of parents’ “right” to kill their infant children AFTER they are born.
“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons… the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” ~ Peter Singer, 1979
http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
If the God of the Bible exists, then humans are created in His image, and are therefore endowed with inherent worth. I God does not exist, then humans are not created in His image, and therefore possess zero inherent worth.
If there is no God, who’s to say that Singer is wrong?
@ Gunner Q says:
May 31, 2017 at 2:35 pm
“Unrestrained power is much more feminine than restrained power.”
Prov 16:32 Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty,
and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.
….
Prov 25:28 A man without self-control
is like a city broken into and left without walls.
I don’t know if unrestrained power is feminine, but ain’t masculine, at least not in the classical Roman sense in which masculinity is called “virtus”, from which we get “virtue”. It’s also antithetical to the Biblical concept of masculinity. This dovetails with what Scott wrote on his blog:
“… it is important to understand that the Christian faith is a constant battle with the self. It is rarely a battle with nebulous forces of injustice and evil. Those forces exist, and have always existed. God calls us to do battle elsewhere.” ~ Scott
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/the-conspicuous-absence-of-love/
As Chesterton said; what’s wrong with the world? Me.
Our primary battle is to crucify the flesh, but the flesh doesn’t want to be crucified (who does?), so it tempts us to direct our efforts externally. Ironically, winning the battle with the flesh would make those other battles much easier to win.
“The submissive female’s whole purpose in the film is to subvert and display empowering rebellion. Note that she is like a geisha. She is the female counterpart to the other display of rebellion: Star Lord rejecting and killing his father. Of course Dad was evil. We always are.”
I agree its the same basic recipe, but it has a different feel to me. Even though she ultimately does rebel as per the norm, the character is still sympathetic and likable as sweet and submissive, instead of pathetic and beaten down. My point is just in reference to the mood around the character not the film as a whole because the patriarch oppressor script does fit perfectly.
The reviewers I can generally trust to have similar tastes are in the “it’s not bad” camp. Some of the ultra-high praise is coming from a place of Progressive politics, but they do seem to have turned out a competent movie.
She appears to be the daughter of Zeus and half-sister to Ares (the main antagonist of the film). Though there’s some for some nasty assaults on the movie for making WW1 Germans into Nazis, from a few random comments I’ve seen.
“The last US Prez bombed whole countries because he was on a literal jihad. Gaddafi, you deserved a better fate and that’s saying something.”
Never forget, it was (Ready For) Hillary who pushed hardest for the destruction of Libya, and the ruination of millions of human lives that entailed. That’s why it was particularly frightening to see her chomping at the bit to confront Russia militarily. She’s crazy enough to do it.
I am not quite sure how we have arrived at Libya but I feel compelled to observe that the parents of the Manchester bomber were refugees from Gaddafi. Thankyou Mrs Clinton for the enrichment.
“This is why I always say that our world has in many ways not become “feminized” but has actually become more masculine.”
I don’t know who said it, but they were spot on.
Today’s female superheros are simply men with tits.
Let me see: ”Ghostbusters” had an all-new female staff. ”Suicide Squad” had Harley Quinn as the brains of the outfit.The new Star Wars had Rey. Mad Max: Fury Road had Charlize Theron as some sort of heroine whose role I couldn’t tell you as I stopped watching. Wolverine in X-Men is being replaced by some chick with the same mutation.”Terminator: Genesys” had a beefed-up Sarah Connor, who only needed Kyle Reese as sperm donor, not to save her. Even Karate Kid III had a new female student for Mr Miyagi.
All of these movies have received a lukewarm response from the public.
I imagine that Hollywood hasn’t hit peak feminism yet. A few more flops and it will.
Spike @ May 31, 2017 at 10:24 pm:
“I imagine that Hollywood hasn’t hit peak feminism yet. A few more flops and it will.”
They’ve already hit peak feminism and see the writing on the wall, but they’re handling it by seeking foreign markets instead of looking in the mirror.
Has the Marvel / DC universe been tapped out yet????? For the past decade and a half it seems every other movie is about one of these characters taken from comic books that go from the end of the 1930’s to the mid 1960’s.
Either that, or its a “remake” of a classic film that is usually ruined.
@ Jason says:
June 1, 2017 at 10:05 am
“Has the Marvel / DC universe been tapped out yet?????”
Nope. Marvel and DC have been publishing comics once a month, every month since the ’30s. That’s a lot of material to work with. Plus, there are many characters that are popular with the fans (though not as well known as the big characters like Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) that the movies haven’t gotten to yet. Deadpool was one such character, and that movie was wildly successful.
Plus, there are other, smaller comic book publishers – like Dark Horse and Image – whose characters are very popular, but Hollywood hasn’t gotten to yet.
Hollywood’s been trying to tap into this vast reservoir of source material for decades with very limited success. Now that they finally figured out the formula (for the most part), they’re determined to suck that reservoir dry, and they’re just getting started.
I don’t think I’m going to see the film. Gadot is not bad to look at. But Lynda Carter’s tits were bigger…..
The Wonder Woman TV show from the 1970’s was actually done pretty well for the time, considering it was the 1970’s (tackiest decade ever…..really tacky). Though every episode involved someone being bound and gagged……intro to S&M for countless people I am sure
“I imagine that Hollywood hasn’t hit peak feminism yet. A few more flops and it will.”
@Spike
I’m not that optimistic. For one, feminism is in many ways a huge success since the majority of people gladly support feminist politicians, feminist parties, feminist artists, actors, etc. For centuries, the opposition is telling us that SOON the tipping point is reached when the sheeple will finally wake up and the tides will turn. So far, it hasn’t happened yet and it getting only worse and worse and worse.
Furthermore, I don’t really see Hollywood simply as a business intending to make money. Say what you want about Richard Dawkins (I’m a servant of my King Jesus Christ, so…) but he still had a good idea when he described memes (e.g. ideas, cultural norms, ideologies, etc.) as cultural analogues to genes; both replicating, mutating and responding to selective pressures. Some having an advantage to replicate, some having a disadvantage to replicate. I don’t know his exact wording anymore but he says something along the lines of “turned up speakers.”
Teachers, college professors, journalists, “activists”, artists, etc. are essentially the “meme replicators” of the ruling class; the latter handing the former “turned up speakers” so they replicate those (and only those!) memes the ruling class likes. This is (at least PART) of their job description. They won’t simply go away if they don’t make money, they’ll just change the strategy, offer only different brands of feminism (just like you may choose between Pepsi and Coke you may choose between “second-wave” and “third-wave” feminism). OR they’ll simply get the money from the state and from the banksters. In Europe, the state is paying TV billions of Euros from tax money every year. All these TV stations in Europe are often better well-off than Hollywood studios. Might as well happen in the US. “Solidarity Tax against Fake News” or something they might name it….
It’s quite possible IMO that these events and stories are a growing phenom of extortion from movie studios and the like. If the studios don’t pay up, the SJWs will start a campaign to drive down attendance with this PC lgbt whinefest.
Eg. watch a month or so after some BLM protest/sit-in ends and you’ll hear about funds provided for diversity/education/awareness.
@Smulltronstallet
OT I agree that culture is getting more masculine. Taking care of a house is menial labor, no matter who does it. Being a homemaker used to be normal for women; now it’s something only old people do. Taking care of a home is looked down upon. Everyone who’s anyone has a “career” in which they compete for money. Feminine roles in general are cheap and their performers are disposable. Kids go to daycare and when parents move for career reasons, the daycarers are switched without a second thought. I mean, I’m not among those claiming we need to do this that and the other thing for the good of women and children, but when others do claim such things, it makes me laugh. Adults value the masculine, selfish roles, not the feminine, familial ones. Hence Wonder Woman is (I only assume) just a woman doing man things.
As a small child, I grew up watching Linda Carter, Maureen McCormick, and Lindsay Wagner, and lusting after all of them. Then Charlie’s Angels came out and the Dallas Cowboy’s Cheerleaders and I grew to manhood!
Gal Gadot is hot. They picked a great Wonder Woman. I’m going to watch it.
I looked into who the director of WW might be and what were her credentials. I was somewhat surprised to learn that although in the last decade and a half she has done a fair number of TV movies her only previous outing as a Director of a Motion Picture made for the cinema was back in 2003 with a movie (produced for $8 million) entitled Monster. That film grossed nearly $50 million so was highly successful. IMDb informs me that three of her efforts have Lesbian themes. Was the Director then hired purely on the basis of her genitalia? WW has pretty much the same price tag as GB but is clearly, relying on Box Office Mojo’s assessment, going to break even in a couple of weeks or so.
Rather disappointed that King Arthur has not fared well – would like to have seen that but I don’t live near a cinema.
http://ew.com/movies/2017/08/24/james-cameron-wonder-woman/
James Cameron thinks Wonder Woman is sexist men’s fault.