C3PX said:
Kill Bill was unbelievable awesome! I always thought it looked like a dumb over the top action flick, but then I watched it and really enjoyed it. The camp is intentional, and the film actually had some decent emotional depth to it. I still maintain that Tarantino is style over substance, but his style contains a lot of substance, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, back to topic. I am very much on the side of TheBoost on this one. Female heroes are almost always sexualized in a way that makes it painfully obvious that these women are being written by men. Even from back in the days of Wonderwoman, all the other DC heroes were clothed from head to toe, it was the woman who showed all the skin. That ridiculous Catwoman is a perfect example of what TheBoost is talking about.
Another good example is the not so great film, King Arthur from a few years back. Keira Knightly, who I find to be extremely attractive, though perhaps a bit too thin, played the female lead in that film. She is well known for having a very flat chest, which I don't think makes her any less hot, but I have always kind of had a thing for smaller sizes anyway. On the American movie poster for the film, she has very large breasts. You can do a google search and probably find side by side comparisons of the poster used worldwide, showing her real chest size, and the American poster, which is obviously photoshopped. That is just really pathetic to me, that in order to get people to go see a film we fill the need to make sure her breats look big enough.
Here, even went through the trouble of googling it myself. I personally think she looks just find in the first pic.
It gets even creepier. Back in 2007 when Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix came out, WB tried to do the same thing to Emma Watson in its poster (and she was, like, 16 at the time). People did notice, cried child sexualization, and Watson's, um, artificial enhancements were removed.
But, yeah, this is a good topic, and it's so true. I especially do like the hypocrisy of Bat ass=bad, Lara Croft ass=good. I would barely consider what Schumacher did to be for titilation. I mean, yes, he does use the term "anatomically erotic", but that's more of a perception of the human form in general. Like TheBoost and others have said, aside from the bizarre batass shots (of which there are, what, one in Forever and two in Robin?) there aren't any gratuitiously titillating shots of Batman. He doesn't bend over. There's no Bruce Wayne shower scene. Like Rambo, Batman's and Robin's muscular bodies basically show that they're capable of being strong action stars. But in the same film, Batgirl is given extremely impractical high-heeled boots. Yeah, have fun fighting crime in those!
