Gotham City Sirens

Christina Hodson is writing Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn spin-off movie

By

·

November 11, 2016

If you go by her IMDb page, Christina Hodson is fairly new to Hollywood with just two movie scripts under her belt. But according to a new report from Deadline, Hodson wrote a fantastic script for Bumblebee, the first Transformers spin-off from Paramount Pictures.

So what's this have to do with Batman or DC Comics? Well according to Deadline, Hodson is writing a movie for Warner Bros. that'll be set in the DC universe. No other information was given.

So what movie could it be? My guess is Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn spin-off movie, which will feature a cast of female DC Comics heroes and villains. Back in May we learned that it was being written by a woman, but we didn't have a name. Could that name be Christina Hodson?

Update: According to The Wrap, the movie Hodson is writing for Warner Bros. is in fact Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn spin-off movie.

SOURCE: Deadline

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

91 comments

AyaanTheBatmanFan
November 11, 2016
Good news!
residentgrigo
November 11, 2016
"Fantastic" writing and Bayformers?
https://media.giphy.com/med...
These movies depend on NOT being well written to make their billions. RLM put it best when they called them Bollywood films for every audience possible, including the US.
1. Verbal Kint
  November 11, 2016
  Lol, "Bayformers" makes billions. Or are huge box office numbers only impressive when those corny ass disney movies make them?
  1. residentgrigo
    November 11, 2016
    I find their success very impressive. Their toys make even more money. I wouldn´t be surprised if if the DCEU never "caught up" to both in term of money and arguably popularity, as Bayformers fans come back for a reason.
    1. Mario
      November 11, 2016
      I think you two didn’t start off good, but mr grigo here is a force to be reckoned with, and he is for sure a DC enthusiast, i think the Transformers stuff is the deal here, keep it light guys
  2. Zoom
    November 12, 2016
    lol yeah the DCEU wishes they would make Transformers money. but you know DCEU fanboys and their neverending bitterness towards everything else.
    1. Verbal Kint
      November 13, 2016
      Yeah, the DCEU is a flop. They should just stop making movies. Leave cbms to Disney. That safe formulaic kid-fluffy drivel will destroy the genre.
Kerk Lastnameless
November 11, 2016
They need to get a good jokes writer, just to write jokes.
1. Zoom
  November 12, 2016
  ah yes DCEU fans and their neverending allergy to actual fun in films. God forbid watching a movie being a fun time for people. Can't have that.
Seb
November 11, 2016
Let's see how she does with Transformers... If she's a good writer, I'm happy. If they chose her deliberately because she's female, nope.
1. Mario
  November 11, 2016
  Why? what is wrong with deliberately choosing a woman???
  1. Seb
    November 11, 2016
    Would you agree it's wrong to deliberately choose a man? Equality is a 2 way street I'm afraid.
    1. Mario
      November 11, 2016
      Depends on the context, for example, some labours are so heavy that only big strong man can actually perform them, the military has this issue sometimes, there are very few women who has the body frame of the man, and have greater risk of injury or death in some specific combat situations, and that is why most of military personal are man, do you think this is wrong and "non equal"? Should we send more girls there to get killed for equality?.
      Equality is a very complicated matter that has to be moulded to our ways of life, i believe.
      I think is great to choose a woman for a story of mostly women, and deliberately, nothing to do with "chick flicks"or shit like that, but in a righteous way.
      1. col42
        November 11, 2016
        Well said.
      2. Seb
        November 11, 2016
        You are arguing AGAINST your own point, I hope you realize that. Of course men are stronger, which explains why they dominate the military. However, that doesn't mean we have to pander to women, and lower the female military requirements. If they want to achieve the same status as men, then they need to pass the same tests. By making this point, you are arguing directly AGAINST preferential treatment and gender quotas.
        "I think is great to choose a woman for a story of mostly women"
        But if someone were to make the point that "Avengers / JL" is a mostly male team, therefore it should be written by a man - they would be called Neo-Nazi loving sexist misogynistic patriarchal white supremacist bigots. It really comes down to this: Women are SO equal, they deserve special treatment. You cannot possibly claim to be in favor of equality, by openly discriminating or favoring the opposite gender. That's not how it works. And you can say "we need to advantage women to right the wrongs of history" (an "the end justifies the means" argument) and I would severely disagree and call that immoral and unethical of the highest order, but at the very least, I expect the people in favor to admit they don't give a damn about actual equality.
      3. Mario
        November 11, 2016
        The problem lies in those folks who will go " you Neo-Nazi loving sexist misogynistic patriarchal white supremacist bigot!", that is not our issue, they have to learn that the world is not black or white.
        And as i said, the biology of most women and man are not something you can beat with 'will power' like in an 80's movie, with a rocky soundtrack in the back while they try to "pass the same tests", trust me, it has been studied, its not wrong, not in those scenarios.
        My example was to show you that is not wrong to preference over gender when the "game" focuses on other skills, as in this case, writing, what is the problem with a woman writing a mostly women movie??? the problem is people who cant see past their own issues.
        You have a problem with a woman writing for a mostly women film and talk about equality...
      4. Seb
        November 11, 2016
        Broad rules can never be applied to individuals. Again I ask, would you think male writers are better at writing male-character films? Or is it the SKILL of the individual writer - and not their gender - that truly matters?
        Why would I care that the writer is male or female. I only care that they are the best people for the job. Gender is NEVER a deciding factor. Many would argue Joss Whedon has written some of the best female-lead action characters in movie / TV history... You know, despite the fact that he's a "white male". Or what about Lord of the Rings? Mostly male characters, yet all the movies (including Hobbit) were written by a female. What does it matter? Your entire argument hinges on the baseless assumption that either women or men are inherently better at writing female or male lead movies respectively. Even if such a rule were true, this would surely not be applicable on an individual level. So why would you ONLY look at female writers whilst ignoring that there may be far superior male writers? Meritocracy rules mate. Best man.. or woman for the job. End of story. Only looking or hiring one gender, is by definition, discrimination.
      5. Mario
        November 11, 2016
        "If they chose her deliberately because she's female, nope"....
        "Why would I care that the writer is male or female. I only care that they are the best people for the job"....
        Your words........talking about being against your own argument....
        Relax, i know what you mean, and yes, it shouldn’t matter if the writer is a man for a women movie for example.
        But it shouldn’t be wrong either to actually choose a woman for an all women movie as to choose a man for an all man movie, that's when equality becomes real, and not just politically correct BS to makes us look good.
      6. Seb
        November 11, 2016
        "Your words........talking about being against your own argument"
        Nonsense, as I basically made the same point twice. "relax I know what you mean" no you don't if you misrepresent and "misunderstand" my arguments.
        1 "If they chose her deliberately because she's female, nope" -> If they only picked BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, and not because she's a good writer, then I'm not interested, as skill was NOT the deciding factor, gender was.
        2 "Why would I care that the writer is male or female. I only care that they are the best people for the job" -> If they have a woman, but they picked her because she's the best person for the job, then I'm happy.
        This is making the *exact same* point twice.
        "But it shouldn’t be wrong either to actually choose a woman for an all women movie as to choose a man for an all man movie"
        By saying this, you are ethically speaking in favor of gender prejudice and inequality and discrimination.
        It is stupid to pick a woman for an female lead movie. Please explain in detail WHY the gender of the writer matters in any way. There are dozens of examples to prove gender is completely irrelevant when writing a script (LotR, Hobbit, Buffy, etc). Until you can prove, with evidence, that women are better at writing female movies, just like men are better at writing male ones... your argument is completely baseless, I'm afraid.
        And in the off-chance you're able to prove your point, it still wouldn't matter... Because general rules are NOT applicable to individuals.
        Men are better at maths, science, spatial reasoning etc (as studies have consistently proven). Does that mean it is fair to only hire male engineers because "generally speaking" male engineers are more likely to be better? Well, statistically speaking, there are far more male engineers, and males ARE better at it. But it would be nothing short of discrimination to ONLY hire men, or hire men specifically BECAUSE they are men. Why? Because you never know if a woman happens to be better than all of them.
        "and not just politically correct BS to makes us look good."
        Well, in case you haven't noticed, I've been arguing AGAINST PC this entire freaking time.
      7. AquaCthulhu
        November 11, 2016
        Men are better at maths, science, spatial reasoning etc (as studies have consistently proven)
        What consistent studies are you referring to? (Is there a source to this?)
        http://www.apa.org/action/r...
      8. Seb
        November 11, 2016
        Read Neuroscience of sex differences and in particular, cognitive tasks.
        https://www.researchgate.ne...
        http://www.sciencedirect.co...
        https://www.researchgate.ne...
        The ONLY people who deny the biological fact that men are (on average) better at spatial tasks and mathematical abilities are SJWs and people who claim "gender is just a social construct". Except it isn't. There is a very good reason why engineering is 95% male. Why the best Chess players in the world are only men. Why the smartest people in the world are men.
        If you're going to cite a source, make sure you read it first instead of using a title as proof. Your source literally mentions that indeed, men DO perform better when it comes to spatial abilities. They also state that the difference is minor (and of course it is), but does claim the reason may be "cultural" yet fails to prove even that baseless claim.
        Men and boys also score higher and broader on the IQ test. These are not socially constructed. You can't teach people to be smart, you're born that way.
      9. AquaCthulhu
        November 12, 2016
        I did read the article, thank you very much.
        You believe this minor difference alone is why a staggering majority of engineering jobs are held by men?
        And this slight difference is due to cultural discrimination and they didn't need to prove it because people who really know their culture would know. Women have been subject to decades of under-nutrition just to stay in a sexy figure when they're young. Only an ignorant inbred would deny that this hasn't been prevalent in every major culture in one form or another. Being underfed in their formative years can cause serious ramifications within that generation itself—common sense dictates that, and to do that for decades would mess up the genotype inconceivably (this isn't even Neo-Lamarckism).
        If anything, your sources reinforce that men and women are smarter in different ways, not necessarily one over the other.
        Great show of hypocrisy when you cite the claim that men are smarter at navigation tasks (based on a bunch of studies) that also claims women are smarter at verbal memory tasks (also based on a bunch of studies). And then you pretend like you refuted the latter conclusion by bringing up a comparison of the language centers in the cerebral cortex and the lack of much difference there. The fact that there wasn't much difference and yet women performed better proves that this isn't a concept you could conclude with a bunch of studies.
        Oh, men perform better on IQ tests?
        Yet a meta-analysis focusing on gender differences in math performance found nearly identical performance for boys and girls.
        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
        There is a slight difference but it is due to Artificial Selection.
        Oh, let's blame the gender gap on women as well and not the prejudiced men that hire (oh, because sexual tension and whatnot), while we're at it. Out-of-context statistics make us sound like geniuses!
      10. Seb
        November 12, 2016
        "You believe this minor difference alone is why a staggering majority of engineering jobs are held by men?"
        Of course.
        Your mistake is looking at averages too much. Look at IQ, you may deny it for some ludicrous reason, meanwhile research has *consistently* shown men score 3-4 points higher. Again, this difference is almost meaningless (meaning, a boy with 103 IQ is not by any means dramatically smarter than a girl with 100 IQ). However, once we look at it broadly, we see that men occupy both ends of the IQ scale. In other words, men are far more likely to score high, but also more likely to score low.
        https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net...
        http://www.sciencedirect.co...
        This is the ONLY reason why most geniuses (IQ > 130) are men, because it is statistically far more likely to happen.
        As for women in engineering... I am an engineering student myself, and still to this day the gender ratio (5-7% women) has not changed in 50 years, despite women achieving total equality AND preferential treatment in education. For YEARS, there has been a massive push to have more women in STEM, this has lead to ludicrous gender quotas and affirmative action. This has gotten so bad, there is a 2:1 faculty preference for women in STEM
        http://www.pnas.org/content...
        And in the UK, female-post graduate engineers receive 15k more salary per year, for no other reason than they are female.
        https://j4mb.wordpress.com/...
        Then there is the massive societal push to have more women. All of it has failed... In fact, the number of women in "equal" and developed countries has actually gone DOWN since feminism in the 60s and gender equality. When you look at the numbers, women in undeveloped countries are actually MORE likely to do scientific studies. This is because women in the west simply don't care about STEM, just like men do not give a shit about nail polish.
        If the only reason was "cultural discrimination" like you think it is, then surely we would see a growth of women in STEM by now. Surely we must agree society has gotten more equal in the last 50 years. So please explain why women STILL do not choose STEM?
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        The research is really black and white, and the assertion that the difference is socially constructed is also directly refuted here.
        Furthermore, I've seen that you cited a study which mainly tested children. The IQ differences in males and females actually grow larger the older they get. The same is true for race. So it is naturally more accurate to perform this research on adults.
        "And this slight difference is due to cultural discrimination and they didn't need to prove it because people who really know their culture would know."
        We don't live in a patriarchy. Women are not oppressed. If that were the case, we wouldn't favor them 2:1 in STEM. That would be ridiculous. Not to mention, women are treated far better at Unis and college than men. They are more likely to be accepted. There are women-only scholarships. They are the majority of students, and they receive better grades. But there is "cultural discrimination" you say? Give me a break.
        "Only an ignorant inbred would deny that this hasn't been prevalent in every major culture in one form or another."
        I fail to see how the 1950s are relevant in this discussion. We live in 2016. Stop dwelling in the past none of you experienced anyways.
        "common sense dictates that, and to do that for decades would mess up the genotype inconceivably (this isn't even Neo-Lamarckism)."
        Suppose you're right, then you prove my point that it is biological. There is actually truth behind your statement, but this goes waaaay before education was even properly established. A hypothesis is that men and women evolved different mental abilities to adapt to their different roles in society. This goes back to the dawn of humanity.
        http://www.sciencedirect.co...
        http://rspb.royalsocietypub...
        "If anything, your sources reinforce that men and women are smarter in different ways, not necessarily one over the other."
        Well, that's the point dumby. If you acknowledge that - as you have - then you prove my point. I've never even claimed nor implied men are smarter "as a whole". I always specified spatial abilities, mathematical skill, and IQ. Btw, IQ has the mis-understanding of being labeled "intelligence quotient" - when it really should be specified. IQ tests the very things males often exceed in. But IQ is obviously not the only form of intelligence. For example, memory is not tested, yet women show a distinct advantage in memory. But we have to be honest here and acknowledge biological factors and not be PC.
        "Great show of hypocrisy when you cite the claim that men are smarter at navigation tasks (based on a bunch of studies) that also claims women are smarter at verbal memory tasks (also based on a bunch of studies)."
        How is that hypocritical?? I just proved my point. Hahaha.
        "Yet a meta-analysis focusing on gender differences in math performance found nearly identical performance for boys and girls."
        I can give you quotes from Wikipedia as well asserting the direct opposite. What would that prove?
        "Oh, let's blame the gender gap on women as well and not the prejudiced men that hire (oh, because sexual tension and whatnot), while we're at it."
        Yeah, you just proved how ignorant you are. The gender fucking pay gap? Only morons believe this actually exists. If you account for job, education, hours worked, etc, the pay gap disappears.
        http://www.aauw.org/files/2...
        http://ec.europa.eu/justice...
        Thanks for proving you are nothing more than a SJW who is absolutely oblivious to reality. Let me guess, you still think "women are so oppressed" don't you?
        "Out-of-context statistics make us sound like geniuses!"
        Projection, thy name is MaybeCuckatooCanHelpYouWiThat
        This is what you have consistently done by looking at averages too much and ignoring the nuances (for example in IQ), not to mention you actually used the gender pay gap (the ULTIMATE example of out-of-context stats) as an actual argument.
      11. AquaCthulhu
        November 12, 2016
        My point was that IQ isn't a be all and end all for intelligence. It's just a type of grading that some men came up with. Thank you for addressing this later on. Also, STEM isn't the be all and end all of intelligence, either, which seems to be what you think so it'll be really pointless arguing with you. I'll give it a shot.
        This pefectly sums up what I think about IQ tests: "Feynman wore his low IQ test result of 125 as a badge of honor, he made sure everyone knew about it.
        It showed how absurd the notion of an IQ test is.
        Feynman intuitively knew that a three digit score from a short duration subjective test could not accurately quantify the complexity of human intellect. In fact only idiots would posit human intellect to be reduced to a three digit score.
        He was the walking counterargument to the absurdity of the test.
        The IQ test should be called the aptitude test for quickly solving a large set of trivial logic problems .
        A higher score just means you can answer more small problem faster, it tests aptitude not Intelligence.
        Intelligence is observable but not readily measurable or quantifiable, it is foolish to posit that a weakly understood subjective attribute could be objectively measured.
        If you think critically, the IQ test fails every aspect of the scientific method in correlating intelligence to test scores as there is no other way of measuring intelligence than the IQ test.
        The IQ test measures how well you do on the IQ test, nothing more, nothing less.
        It DOES NOT MEASURE Intelligence.
        IQ Test scores != Intelligence
        The origins of the IQ test lie in Eugenics and racism, Darwin's feeble
        minded envious cousin. Ironic how one on of the most brilliant and
        intelligent minds was closely related to someone indirectly responsible for such pain and suffering.
        They took the age-old definition of Intelligence, designed a biased test and sold it the unsuspecting public as 'science'."
        James Watson wouldn't have discovered the Structure of DNA with Crick if he was too stuck-up about his IQ score.
        Wait a minute, so your master-argument is that centuries of prejudice and ill-treatment towards woman should have been compensated for in a few decades? That's your big point? Great, good to know who I'm dealing with.
        I'm pursuing Engineering right now as well and in my classroom, the ratio of boys to girls is 1 to 3. I wonder what that proves. Nothing.
        Again, get your head out your ass: STEM isn't the only career option there is.
        This is because women in the west simply don't care about STEM, just like men do not give a shit about nail polish.
        This lays bear what you are. I could tell someone that Donald Trump's son said that and they would most likely believe it; not to bring politics into this—Trump's son isn't in politics—but that's who this statement reminded me of when he said women should just quit their jobs and become elementary school teachers if they get sexually assaulted.
        I'll go ahead and skip that video. I prefer not to contribute a view to every damned video on YT, especially one with such a persistently click-bait title. If there's any actual points in it and I'm sure you believe there are, list them out. Like I clarified, I don't believe IQ is a measure of what it claims to be and so that Wikipeida quote was just something I was throwing at your face. I was hoping you'd scroll down and see the 'Criticism and views' section.
        Not to mention, women are treated far better at Unis and college than men.
        Maybe that's why campus-sexual-violence against women is at an all-time high. They get treated far better after all.
        I fail to see how the 1950s are relevant in this discussion. We live in
        2016. Stop dwelling in the past none of you experienced anyways.
        It was centuries leading upto 1950's, not just that generation. I don't know where you live and maybe it's all glorious over there and it looks like women are having the time of their life, but I live in a developing country and it's nothing like that here. I'm also well aware that a dissapointing amount of the current feminists slander what the First-Wave stood for: demanding that women be treated as human beings since they were (surprise!) human beings.
        There is actually truth behind your statement, but this goes waaaay before education was even properly established.
        Oh, I'm well aware of the truth. What you're referring to here is the education-system. Before that men were still home-tutored (because they were men) and this is just one of the many discriminations openly prevalent back then.
        The gender-roles assigned by men, right? Right?
        "If anything, your sources reinforce that men and women are smarter in different ways, not necessarily one over the other ... The fact that there wasn't much difference and yet women performed better proves that this isn't a concept you could conclude with a bunch of studies.
        Don't you know to read the entire paragraph before you respond to the first sentence? You know, to get a perspective? You wouldn't be Hahahah-ing if you read the whole thing.
        http://www.sciencemag.org/n...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
        Bottom-line: The brains of males and females aren't that different and definitely not binary like you'd love to believe.
        Your point (that you insist you proved) is based on a bunch of studies. The same studies that were conflicted before and would be challenged again when some new studies are reported. I guess the joke's on you now.
        Yeah, you just proved how ignorant you are. The gender fucking pay gap?
        Only morons believe this actually exists. If you account for job,
        education, hours worked, etc, the pay gap disappears.
        Who the fuck was talking about the pay-gap myth? Not me. How you even associated sexual-tension with pay-gap is what I'd like to know.
        I said gender-gap, referring to the glass-ceiling in certain work-areas that women can't seem to break no matter how much they try. Of course, their competence gets blamed here because isn't that just convenient?
        On the contrary, I wish I was an SJW but women are still oppressed around the world, maybe not in your neighborhood but there's a whole world out there. And it isn't all pretty.
        This is what you have consistently done by looking at averages too much and ignoring the nuances (for example in IQ).
        Oh, yeah, because IQ isn't an average of a perceived-intelligence. *sigh*
      12. Seb
        November 12, 2016
        "My point was that IQ isn't a be all and end all for intelligence."
        Of course it's not. It's meant to test very specific mental capabilities that indeed men (generally speaking) excel at relative to women. To suggest IQ is the all encompassing measurement to determine one's intelligence would be naive and silly at best. Like I said before, it doesn't test memory, as well as emotional intelligence, etc.
        "It's just a type of grading that some men came up with."
        Please don't make this into a "men made this, so it obviously favors them" type thing. Idk if that was your intent or implication, but it seemed like it. Not everything men make is to privilege themselves and to oppress women.
        "Also, STEM isn't the be all and end all of intelligence, either"
        Of course it's not. You missed the point. STEM is a particular field where mathematical skills, spatial abilities, etc are required and needed. And as we've already discussed and somewhat agreed on, these are things men are "better" at. So is it any surprise that men also dominate this field? That was my point. And I highly recommend you watch the video that I've provided. Idk I've you've seen the entirety, but it is extremely interesting as it presents both sides of the argument and explains with scientific evidence and research why only one is the correct answer.
        "which seems to be what you think so it'll be really pointless arguing with you. I'll give it a shot."
        I won't respond to any of that, because it wasn't something I was arguing in the first place.
        Although I'd like to make one point. IQ tests always get a bad rap: "How can you reduce human intellect to a simple score?" and I actually agree... to a certain extent. There is a very good reason why the smartest people in the world (top scientists, Nobel prize winners, legendary composers, intellectuals, etc) ALL score very high on the IQ test, while people with mental disabilities score very low. This isn't some mere coincidence.
        So when you say "IQ Test scores != Intelligence", I agree and disagree. Scoring high on the IQ test does not necessarily mean you are smart. But if you're mathematically intelligent, you are going to score very high on said test, EVERY time.
        "The origins of the IQ test lie in Eugenics and racism"
        Oh please, is this another one of those "it privileges X group" type argument? Then please explain to me why Asians outperform whites? If it was down to racism, surely "racist white people" would mess with these numbers.
        "Wait a minute, so your master-argument is that centuries of prejudice and ill-treatment towards woman should have been compensated for in a few decades?"
        Last time I checked, there have been numerous female scientists throughout history. Was there a bias against them? Of course, but that does NOT explain why still to this very day the number of female scientists and mathematicians hasn't increased (in fact, it's gone down in the last 50 years). Explain that. And btw, how many years does it take for "prejudice and ill-treatment towards woman" to disappear? 50 years? 63.26553 years? 1651231.0000163 years? Go ahead and answer that question friend.
        MAYBE you'd have a point if we saw a slow and steady increase of female engineers in first world / developed countries. Except this is universally not the case.
        If you're going to say prejudice "must" still be prevalent, then show me who these individuals sexists are? Can you name these "prejudiced" men? Ultimately, what do you achieve simply by saying "prejudice exists". Nothing at all... Until you can point fingers to ACTUAL prejudice and sexism, your white knight behavior is redundant and shallow.
        "That's your big point? Great, good to know who I'm dealing with."
        Who said anything about that being my "ultimate point"? Mate, you just used the fucking "patriarchy" and "rape culture" as an argument. You are not in a position to be condescending.
        "I'm pursuing Engineering right now as well and in my classroom, the ratio of boys to girls is 1 to 3."
        I'm pretty sure you're lying, as this is universally not true. Engineering in Europe varies from 5-10% and in the US it's about the same. Maybe you're an exception but I severely doubt it.
        "I wonder what that proves."
        That women don't give a shit about engineering.
        "Again, get your head out your ass: STEM isn't the only career option there is."
        And did I ever say it was? You don't have to be a genius to connect the dots between IQ, mathematical skills and STEM. The connection is obvious.
        Let's give another argument then... Women, as we know, are better at recognizing emotions, faces, and whatnot. Is it any surprise they also dominate psychology? The same reasoning can be applied to most gender dominated fields.
        This is because women in the west simply don't care about STEM, just like men do not give a shit about nail polish.
        "This lays bear what you are."
        If you imply I'm a sexist, at least have the balls to use these shaming tactics... Or maybe, YOU are a dickhead for implying I'm sexist with no evidence to support your irrational claim.
        I was talking in a general sense. To suggest it's wrong to say "men don't care about nail polish / fashion - just like women don't care about STEM" is ludicrous and idiotic.
        How many men do you know who take great interest in fashion? I personally know... ZERO men who care and furthermore, they ALL either did engineering, physic, or IT / programming (in other words, they all landed in STEM. Imagine my shock). Equally, if I ignore the female students at my school (I barely know them) and just take into account my close(st) female friends, NONE of them even remotely care about engineering. They either went to or studied biology, law school, medical school or some other random major.
        That doesn't mean I think "ALL" women are less capable. Nor do I think it's fair to assume "ALL" men are more interested in engineering you moron. You are just incapable of looking at broad rules. I have said before, these rules can NEVER be applied to individuals.
        It was only a matter of time before you started using pathetic shaming tactics. It also comes as no surprise you haven't even tried to refute any of the cited sources and instead chose to focus on misrepresenting my arguments to justify your self righteous rhetoric.
        "I'll go ahead and skip that video."
        Willful ignorance at its best. It's clear I won't agree with someone like you... But that video is absolutely one of the best sources of information, on this particular topic. If you don't want to convince me anymore, that's fine. But at least watch that video, for YOURSELF. To ignore opposing evidence in favor of a baseless narrative is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.
        "persistently click-bait title."
        The uploader is NOT the maker of the video. I agree it's a dumb title, but you should not use these petty reasons as an excuse not to consider opposing evidence.
        "If there's any actual points in it and I'm sure you believe there are, list them out."
        No, don't be lazy and watch the video. As I said before, it's very educational and despite what you may think, it's not "anti-feminist" bs. The uploader just made it so.
        "Maybe that's why campus-sexual-violence against women is at an all-time high. They get treated far better after all."
        Oh my fucking God... Is there no limit to your ignorance? Please don't tell me you believe the whole "1 in 5" stat BULLSHIT. Do you even know where that number comes from? Do you even know the criteria they used to achieve such a ludicrous stat? Rape and sexual assault on college campus is NOT "at an all-time high". How brainwashed are you? Rape and sexual assault has decreased *dramatically* the last 20 years.
        http://www.motherjones.com/...
        And if you want an ACCURATE study, here you go:
        http://www.bjs.gov/content/...
        This study is longitudinal and was researched by 2 women no less.
        What have we found? The actual number of rape victims on campus is 2 women.... PER THOUSAND. If you include attempted rape / assault and completed assault this number rises to 6 women per thousand. What else? This number is actually LOWER than the surrounding Urban areas, meaning women are statistically less likely to experience sexual violence on college campus. And quite frankly, I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to "men are better at spatial reasoning". Which is the only point I made initially. Seems to me you're just here to make a retarded statement.
        "I don't know where you live and maybe it's all glorious over there and it looks like women are having the time of their life"
        Yes. Women in the West are THE most privileged group in the entire world.
        "but I live in a developing country and it's nothing like that here."
        And I'm talking about the West. Maybe that's why our experience is different, but I've specified this before.
        "dissapointing amount of the current feminists slander what the First-Wave stood for: demanding that women be treated as human beings since they were (surprise!) human beings."
        Oh sure, because women were treated as human meat before feminism right? WRONG. Last time I checked, men had to sacrifice themselves for "WOMEN and children" when a boat sank. That's a strange kind of horrible treatment if you ask me... Now of course women were disadvantaged, but the idea that women were treated like trash is absolutely false when it was completely socially unacceptable to even lay finger on a woman (even more so than today).
        And guess what... You are no better than those feminists by pushing LIES like "rape culture" and "patriarchy" down our throats. These arguments shame, and are inherently demeaning towards men.
        "The gender-roles assigned by men, right? Right?"
        The gender roles assigned by our BIOLOGICAL inclinations. "Right". You clearly always assume that everything men do is to benefit exclusively themselves. This is the thinking of an ideologue.
        "Don't you know to read the entire paragraph before you respond to the first sentence?"
        Yes I do, but you said "you pretend like you refuted the latter conclusion by bringing up a comparison of the language centers in the cerebral cortex and the lack of much difference there." even though I never did.
        "Bottom-line: The brains of males and females aren't that different and definitely not binary like you'd love to believe."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
        Nope. You still haven't been able to even refute anything.
        "The same studies that were conflicted before"
        Not true.
        "How you even associated sexual-tension with pay-gap is what I'd like to know."
        Okay I made a mistake there. When people refer to "gender gap" it's always about pay... But you're right, that's not what you said. Although I do not agree with "associated sexual-tension" when this argument rests on the baseless and sexist assumption that men who hire "must" be prejudiced. If that is your claim, provide at least some legitimate evidence.
        "referring to the glass-ceiling in certain work-areas that women can't seem to break no matter how much they try."
        Like what? There is absolutely no field that women can't be successful in, in this day and age. The "glass ceiling" or "patriarchy" is a myth only perpetuated by feminist idiots.
        "Of course, their competence gets blamed here because isn't that just convenient?"
        The fuck does that even mean?
        "On the contrary, I wish I was an SJW"
        So you wish you were a self-righteous, disrespectful, delusional, hugely sexist and racist bigot? I truly feel sorry for you. Then again, you already achieved 50% of that criteria so you're not far off.
        "but women are still oppressed around the world"
        But NOT in the West. NOT on "college Campuses". NOT "in STEM". These are ALL LIES with absolutely NO evidence to back them up. Again, women are THE SINGLE MOST PRIVILEGED group in the WHOLE freaking world. They have more rights than men, they are treated better than men, they have more opportunities than men. It is ASININE to claim they are "oppressed" in the Western World. And of course women in developing / 3rd world countries are not by any standard "equal" to men. But I've never even claimed such a thing. I am talking about Western Europe and America.
        "Oh, yeah, because IQ isn't an average of a perceived-intelligence."
        Indeed it is NOT. It is not by any means "an average". "Sigh".
      13. AquaCthulhu
        November 12, 2016
        You brought up IQ scores while talking about a woman's capability to write the script for a film. And proceeded to claim a woman shouldn't be allowed to write women characters just because she's a woman. A man could never write a book like Gone Girl, he simply wouldn't know how to. So a Harley Quinn spin-off warrants a female writer to be true to this female character. Or perhaps she should be a sex-object like in the Arkham games?
        My emphasis was on some when I said 'some men', implying nobodies. I just don't think solving a problem within a limited time constraint is in any way better than solving the same problem a little later. I believe what matters is if the problem is solved.
        Well, it sounded like you were belittling women just because they weren't gaining numbers in STEM.
        By clicking on that video I'm generating revenue for that uploader, not the person(s) who made the video. Find an original source and I'll definitely watch it.
        Can you provide a credible source for composers with high IQ's? I'm talking about composers that actually took the tests and not just saying Brian May because he has a Ph.D in Astrophysics. And what kind of intellectuals? Please be specific, I don't want another misunderstanding.
        Oh please, is this another one of those "it privileges X group" type argument? Then please explain to me why Asians outperform whites? If it was down to racism, surely "racist white people" would mess with these numbers.
        I was quoting someone else and more than racism, I'd argue elitism. But you do realize people can prepare for these tests, right? There are hordes of people literally training to master aptitude tests all around the world, maybe even in Europe and America.
        And btw, how many years does it take for "prejudice and ill-treatment towards woman" to disappear? 50 years? 63.26553 years? 1651231.0000163 years? Go ahead and answer that question friend.
        Considering how we're talking about centuries vs. decades, maybe at least a single century?
        If women don't want to pursue STEM, then they don't have to. I mean I don't necessarily believe your 50% claim but I don't care. You know why? Because STEM isn't the be all and end all of intelligence, if I do repeat myself.
        Listen, I was speaking with the whole world in mind, not just America, not just the European countries. 'Rape culture' is a real thing in a lot of (other) countries. I know because I live in one of them.
        I'm pretty sure you're lying, as this is universally not true.
        Engineering in Europe varies from 5-10% and in the US it's about the
        same. Maybe you're an exception but I severely doubt it.
        Who's looking at averages too hard now? When did I ever claim I live in Europe/America? Doubt it all you want, I don't need to lie about a thing.
        That women don't give a shit about engineering.
        Make that most women in Europe/America don't give a shit about Engineering, and I won't have a problem with it.
        And did I ever say it was? You don't have to be a genius to connect the dots between IQ, mathematical skills and STEM. The connection is obvious.Let's give another argument then... Women, as we know, are better at recognizing emotions, faces, and whatnot. Is it any surprise they also dominate psychology? The same reasoning can be applied to most
        gender dominated fields.
        Why not start with this? Why say nail-polishes? If you said more women care about psychology rather than engineering, it wouldn't have come off as an offensive statement. You didn't even say fashion at first! Nail-polish makes it sound like girls just wanna sit in their home and apply nail-polish. So forgive me if I mistook that.
        How many men do you know who take great interest in fashion? I personally know... ZERO men who care. Equally, if I ignore the female students at my school (I barely know them) and just take into account my close(st) female friends, NONE of them even remotely care about engineering. They either went to or studied biology, law school, medical school or some other random major.
        Law and Medical school is some random major? There you go with your tunnel-vision. It doesn't matter what the few people around 'you' aspire to be, they will never represent the whole world.
        You are just incapable of looking at broad rules. I have said before, these rules can NEVER be applied to individuals.
        That's funny, considering you're the one that couldn't stop talking about what your male friends talk and do, what your female friends talk and do. That's a very indivudualistic outlook. This is the hipocrisy I was talking about.
        It was only a matter of time before you started using pathetic shaming
        tactics. It also comes as no surprise you haven't even tried to refute
        any of the cited sources and instead chose to focus on misrepresenting
        my arguments to justify your self righteous rhetoric.
        Says the one who worded his statement along the lines of women are better off applying nail-polish rather than engineering, which is somehow not sexist.
        I already covered my stance on the video.
        How narcissistic are you? You pretty much think the whole world is America and Europe, don't you? There's this new thing called the rest of the world. Check it out some time. And to the stats you provided, I'd add this: You're gullible enough to believe rape/sexual assault always gets reported? Rape on college campuses apparently only gets reported 17% of the time. Why? A person could have upto 11 accusers and still become President of a developed country.
        Also, that governemnt report only covers upto 2013. These 1 in 6 claims (which I haven't heard of until you mentioned) all start from 2014 to a recent report in the June of this year with several universities reporting the highest annual total going upto 43 in Connecticut. The University officials say they’re happy that the incidents are being reported as that means confidence on the authorities. Let’s live in 2016 when it matters, shall we?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Are you telling me all these reports are just a conspiracy whipped out by the UN? That tinfoil hat is really shiny.
        Oh sure, because women were treated as human meat before feminism right?
        WRONG. Last time I checked, men had to sacrifice themselves for "WOMEN and children" when a boat sank. That's a strange kind of horrible treatment if you ask me... Now of course women were disadvantaged, but the idea that women were treated like trash is absolutely false when it was completely socially unacceptable to even lay finger on a woman (even more so than today).
        And guess what... You are no better than those
        feminists by pushing LIES like "rape culture" and "patriarchy" down our throats. These arguments shame, and are inherently demeaning towards men.
        Rape culture is demeaning towards men who are rapists. I don't get why men that aren't rapists even feel offended by this. If you've never raped, you're not being blamed for anything here.
        You're absolutely right! How rare it was to find a female victim in a case of domestic violence back in those days. Oh, wait, the victim almost always was a woman.
        Not as a human being doesn't automatically mean trash. Men treated, and still do to this day (in most parts of the world), women as lesser beings. It's not a 'biological inclination' for a woman to cook, to raise children, to not go to work, to not vote! It sucks so bad when people try to use science to justify their discriminatory tendencies.
        Bottom-line: The brains of males and females aren't that different and definitely not binary like you'd love to believe.
        I was talking about the anatomical differences of the brain, the organ brain! Did you even read the article that followed? http://www.sciencemag.org/n...
        "The same studies that were conflicted before" "Not true."
        If you read the article, it recollects how people used to claim they could tell a male human brain apart from a female human brain. And that was the norm back then.
        Later on it was believed that men had larger amygdalas but more recent studies, thanks to advanced scanning methods like MRI which allow for a more objective approach, show they're not that different. So, yeah, it's been pretty conflicted over the course of time.
        Like what? There is absolutely no field that women can't be successful
        in, in this day and age. The "glass ceiling" or "patriarchy" is a myth
        only perpetuated by feminist idiots.
        The glass/bamboo ceiling is not about being successful but climbing higher up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... (These myths have citations at the end of the page)
        On the contrary, I wish I was an SJW.
        I must confess I'd never come across this term before and when I googled it, I got this: https://uploads.disquscdn.c... I missed the word pejorative and only read individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics. If I didn't care about my views, I wouldn't be arguing online about them with strangers. Trust me, I get no enjoyment out of this. And to clarify, when I talk about rape I meant the female-male rape as well.
        But I've never even claimed such a thing. I am talking about Western Europe and America.
        And I've never claimed I was talking about women in just one country or a union.
      14. Seb
        November 12, 2016
        "You brought up IQ scores while talking about a woman's capability to write the script for a film."
        Except I didn't.
        "And proceeded to claim a woman shouldn't be allowed to write women characters just because she's a woman."
        Except I didn't.
        "A man could never write a book like Gone Girl, he simply wouldn't know how to."
        Except I didn't.
        "Or perhaps she should be a sex-object like in the Arkham games?"
        Get over yourself, lots of fans love how she looks, including female fans.
        "My emphasis was on some when I said 'some men', implying nobodies."
        I have no idea what you're talking about.
        "I just don't think solving a problem within a limited time constraint is in any way better than solving the same problem a little later."
        I know what you mean, however... If you truly are a engineering student, you know that processing speed matters. In fact, it matters in almost any field or job. I agree that it ultimately matters not "that" much... (except in extreme cases of course. If one person does it in 2 seconds, while the other needs 2 hours - that's a clear difference). But that is simply how IQ tests work. And we can discuss IQ, and how it's fundamentally flawed in many ways, and I would agree in some aspects... But the FACT that men and women score consistently differently is enough to prove there is a biological difference between a male and female brain. I can link you a video (I know you "don't consider that proof") but it's another documentary type thing, explaining that men indeed score higher, and this is true across the world, regardless of culture or race.
        "Well, it sounded like you were belittling women just because they weren't gaining numbers in STEM."
        Of course not, why would I care? I care that the people doing STEM are good at their jobs. Why would gender matter?
        "By clicking on that video I'm generating revenue for that uploader, not the person(s) who made the video."
        LOOOOOOOOOL. This has got to be the laziest excuse I've ever seen. Just watch it dude. Who cares if you give him money? I've searched for the original video, but I can't seem to find it.
        "Can you provide a credible source for composers with high IQ's?"
        No, it was just something off the top of my head. However, there is a link between composing skill and mathematical ability. In other words, composers or musical prodigies are also very likely to be mathematically gifted. As someone who does engineering, and music on a semi-professional / amateur level, this link is obvious to me. The best musicians I know are generally speaking extremely bright. But this example was more anecdotal.
        "I was quoting someone else and more than racism, I'd argue elitism."
        Okay, but what's the point then?
        "But you do realize people can prepare for these tests, right?"
        True, but again, we can discuss just how flawed IQ tests are... But we're losing track of the conversation and ultimately, it barely matters.
        "Considering how we're talking about centuries vs. decades, maybe at least a single century?"
        Haha, I appreciate you at least answered the question. People always refuse to answer this specific question because it shows even they don't know if or when "sexism and prejudice" will be over, or if it's already over. So you think it's a century. Fair enough, but that's based on what? Ultimately, when women are favored 2:1 (source already provided) in STEM, when they receive more pay simply because they're female... How can you argue this is still a problem?
        "If women don't want to pursue STEM, then they don't have to."
        I completely agree.
        "I don't necessarily believe your 50% claim"
        Idk what you're referring to tbh. 50% what?
        "Because STEM isn't the be all and end all of intelligence"
        Again, I agree with that. No need to repeat it.
        "'Rape culture' is a real thing in a lot of countries."
        OF COURSE it is, and it makes me angry knowing feminists are doing NOTHING about it, yet they bitch and moan about the non-existent "rape culture" in the West.
        "Who's looking at averages too hard now? When did I ever claim I live in Europe/America? Doubt it all you want, I don't need to lie about a thing."
        Because that number is not true anywhere... But again, I said you may be the exception. The reason why I take this with a grain of salt is because when I reference my engineering studies, people - for some reason - feel "threatened", and then they claim they as well did engineering. It's always just "such a coincidence" that I'm "only" talking to engineers. But whatever, this point is trivial and I'll take your word for it.
        "Make that most women in Europe/America don't give a shit about Engineering, and I won't have a problem with that."
        Okay then. Most women in Europe/America don't give a shit. Happy? :p
        (Btw, everything I say about women, is strictly applicable to the West in case that wasn't clear enough by now).
        "If you said more women care about psychology rather than engineering, it wouldn't have come off as an offensive statement."
        I had absolutely no idea that comment could even be deemed as offensive. Psychology is 70% female I believe. Fashion, nail polish, hair stuff, etc is 99% female. That's the only reason why I used that example.
        "There you go with your tunnel-vision. It doesn't matter what the few people around 'you' aspire to be, they will never represent the whole world."
        Actually they do (AGAIN, in the West). I agree personal anecdotes cannot be used to reflect whole societies, but in this particular case, it just so happens to be the case that it is indeed so. Most of my male friends did STEM... while most of my female friends did medical school, etc. This aligns perfectly with the ratio on a societal scale.
        "That's a very indivudualistic outlook. This is the hipocrisy I was talking about."
        Normally I'd agree... But again, in this specific case, it was an accurate reflection of reality.
        "Says the one who worded his statement along the lines of women are better off applying nail-polish rather than engineering, which is somehow not sexist."
        Sorry... But I can't change how you perceive my comments. That's what YOU made of it, and I didn't even remotely imply it. It didn't even cross my mind that anyone could take it that way. I am not responsible for your interpretation of my comment. It seemed it was all just a misunderstanding, so I apologize for being rude. It's just that I am sick of being called a sexist or a racist for no reason.
        "You pretty much think the whole world is America and Europe, don't you?"
        Yep. That's EXACTLY what I think. -__-
        The only reason why I talk about the West in particular is because I live in the West, and I can't speak for other countries. I don't know the stats, neither do I know the details... I only know it's bad (or at least, far worse than the situation here). Me only talking about the West is my way of admitting I don't know everything. That's not in any way narcissistic.
        "You're gullible enough to believe rape/sexual assault always gets reported?"
        As if I haven't heard that argument a thousand times before.
        Let me just say this, the "only X % of rape is reported" SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt. There are so many different studies that claim a different percentage. Ultimately, even if it's only around 20% - that would mean around 10 women per thousand are raped on college campuses - or 1% obviously. HARDLY the "epidemic" is it? Of course we agree 1% is still too much, but it is NOT a "rape culture" (IN THE FUCKING WEST). That's such a ludicrous belief.
        And if you're going to use "unreported rape" as a possible factor, then you should also include false rape accusations. These vary anywhere from 10 to 40%. Again, these stats should be taken with a huge grain of salt (and I can provide you the studies if you want) but it's all just a matter of finding excuses why "women are raped SO MUCH" - even though they aren't. (in the WEST).
        "A person could have upto 11 accusers and still become President of a developed country."
        If you're referring to Trump, I can explain in detail why nearly all these allegations have already been proven false. Besides, don't tell me you don't know these allegations are purely politically motivated?
        "Also, that governemnt report only covers upto 2013."
        So what? They covered nearly 20 goddamn years, is that not enough? So you expect me to believe only 0.2% (or 1% if we choose to believe your "unreported" stats) of women were raped from 1995 to 2013... and then magically that number increases a hundred fold to 1 in 5 in the last 3 years? Are you seriously suggesting this LUNACY?
        "Let’s live in 2016 when it matters, shall we?"
        No, let's live in fucking REALITY, "shall we?"
        I see you cited India... Okay, I don't dispute any of that. Again, everything I say is only true in the West.
        "Rape culture is demeaning towards men who are rapists."
        Bullshit... Absolute nonsense. Feminists consistently say we should "teach boys not to rape" as if 1, rapists don't know they're doing a bad thing 2, this will stop rapists from raping and most importantly 3, the imply only men have the natural inclination to rape, and if it weren't for feminism they would go on a raping rampage. Then they shame "toxic masculinity" and silence anyone who dares disagree with their horseshit.
        "I don't get why men that aren't rapists even feel offended by this."
        And I don't get why you feel offended when I say nail polish is dominated by women.
        You want to know why? Because feminists don't simply shame rapists. They shame ALL men. Because #KillAllMen, that's the only way to smash the "patriarchy".
        "You're absolutely right! How rare it was to find a female victim in a case of domestic violence back in those days. Oh, wait, the victim almost always was a woman."
        And this is actually not true at all... The majority of victims were women, of course. But men who were beaten by their wives were socially shamed and the men beating their wives were severely punished.
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        Yeah... Chivalry was still a thing.
        "Men treated, and still do to this day (in most parts of the world), women as lesser beings."
        Okay, but not in the West. AGAIN, everything I say is only here. In fact, men in the west are by far treated as the lesser socially valuable sex. And historically speaking (not just in the west) men have ALWAYS sacrificed themselves for the lives of women. Last time I checked it is not women who fought wars. Women always got a free ticket in dangerous situations. Biologically, this makes sense... Men can impregnate hundreds of women, meaning they are less valuable. But if you say "lesser beings" in the sense that men are seen as superior (like in Muslim countries) then I agree.
        "It's not a 'biological inclination' for a woman to cook, to raise children, to not go to work, to not vote!"
        Actually, it IS very much a 'biological inclination' for a woman to raise children. The other examples, not so much. And concerning the vote, this is yet another feminist myth that "only men were allowed to vote". Women voted LONG (centuries) before men (as a group) were legally allowed to vote.
        http://womenshistory.about....
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
        http://www.nationalarchives...
        http://breakingtheglasses.b...
        And even then this was not afforded to men "because they're men". This was a reward for the DUTY of the draft. Even when women got the vote, they didn't have to potentially sacrifice their lives.
        Here's something I think you should read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
        Maybe history isn't so one-sided after all.
        "I sucks so bad when people try to use science to justify their discriminatory tendencies."
        And who actually does this? I'm not saying "because women are more inclined to do this...." that it is therefore okay to assume they are better at it than men (or vice versa). I'm saying because they are more inclined to do [insert whatever] - that explains WHY that area is dominated by women. That's it.
        "I was talking about the anatomical differences of the brain, the organ brain! Did you even read the article that followed"
        Yes, but even that is not entirely true. Male brains are larger (although this has nothing to do with intelligence). There are differences in grey and white matter. Men have around 10% more grey matter, while women have 10% more white matter. Men also have more connections between the hemispheres, which results in an increased ability to translate perception into motor skill and ability. In contrast, women have more connections between the frontal lobes, which translates to increased empathy, social and nurturing skills. Yes, the actual difference is minor... but it is still there, and it DOES explain different gender roles and how they are rooted in biology. Saying the difference is "so small is hardly matters" is naive if you know anything about biology. We share about 98% DNA with apes, does that mean "the difference is so small it hardly matters"? No. In biology and genetics, these minor statistical differences, can have huge impacts.
        "it recollects how people used to claim they could tell a male human brain apart from a female human brain."
        And we still can to this day. Again, just because the difference is minor, doesn't mean it isn't there.
        "The glass/bamboo ceiling is not about being successful but climbing higher up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "
        So now you DO cite the gender freaking pay gap.
        Already provided sources to debunk this. Besides, women in their 20s and 30s actually earn more than men by 8%. yep, explain that.
        http://content.time.com/tim...
        The "glass ceiling" is hardly a factor anymore. Also, it's not that women are less likely to be promoted. It is that women are less likely to ASK for a promotion. There's a big difference.
        "I must confess I'd never come across this term before and when I googled it, I got this:"
        Consider yourself lucky. SJ is a cancer on the world... How can you not know what that meant? Anyways. It doesn't matter what the definition is when that does NOT reflect the actions SJWs take. You can claim to stand for equality and inclusion all you want, but SJWs are the MOST divisive, racist and bigoted people who walk this Earth. Here's some examples of them:
        Social Justice Courses (this is indoctrination at its worst)
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        "And I've never claimed I was talking about women in just one country or a union."
        But you must admit it was blatantly obvious I was talking women in the West. I've said this like 30 times already.
      15. AquaCthulhu
        November 13, 2016
        If they chose her deliberately because she's female, nope.
        My argument is that there's nothing wrong with choosing a female writer for a completely female-centric film, the same way, I'd argue it's not wrong to choose a male writer for a completely male-centric film. Now whether or not the writer is talented is something that we should judge from the work—which seems to be what you meant in your OP, but I'm just clarifying myself.
        A man could never write a book like Gone Girl, he simply wouldn't know how to.
        No, this was my statement. I'm saying that.
        Get over yourself, lots of fans love how she looks, including female fans.
        I don't think I was clear. Compare the depiction of Harley in the Arkham games and Suicide Squad, and there's an immediate difference—I'm not takling about the character design. In the games, she's nothing more than eye-candy and would easily substitute for one of the Joker's thugs. In SS, she gets a more human treatment, even though she was written by a man.
        I have no idea what you're talking about.
        I meant to say I wasn't equating the origin of IQ tests to gender-discrimination.
        If one person does it in 2 seconds, while the other needs 2 hours - that's a clear difference.
        Which is why I said 'a little later'.
        it's another documentary type thing, explaining that men indeed score
        higher, and this is true across the world, regardless of culture or
        race.
        Maybe they do. I just needed to know you weren't claiming IQ tests weren't testing anything more than a very specific set of skills.
        LOOOOOOOOOL. This has got to be the laziest excuse I've ever seen. Just watch it dude. Who cares if you give him money? I've searched for the original video, but I can't seem to find it.
        What's lazy is uploading someone else's videos on YT and having a steady flow of money every month. I'm serious about it. You know when you search for a movie trailer on YT and the first hits you get are from the likes of MovieClipsComingSoon or Joblo? I don't click on them. I go to the YT channels of the production companies and watch them there. It's just how I am.
        Okay, but what's the point then?
        The point is, unlike you, most people do actually believe IQ tests to be the absolute measure of intelligence. The reason for that is that these tests were pushed for as just that. The elitism here is believing STEM is the only, or the greatest, form of higher education one could get. This doesn't lie in the test itself but how it'd been presented.
        Ultimately, when women are favored 2:1 (source already provided) in STEM, when they receive more pay simply because they're female... How can you argue this is still a problem?
        It is only not a problem in one field and in very few countries. We're arguing from two widely different perspectives so I'll leave it at that.
        Idk what you're referring to tbh. 50% what?
        Sorry, that was a typo. It's the 50 years claim but now it's clear you only meant in Europe. For contrast, 30 years ago the number of female engineers in my country (and it isn't a small one) could be counted on your fingertips.
        OF COURSE it is, and it makes me angry knowing feminists are doing NOTHING about it.
        I agree. That is why I only mentioned the First Wave of Feminism when I was supporting it.
        Because that number is not true anywhere... But again, I said you may be the exception. The reason why I take this with a grain of salt is because when I reference my engineering studies, people - for some reason - feel "threatened", and then they claim they as well did engineering. It's always just "such a coincidence" that I'm "only" talking to engineers. But whatever, this point is trivial and I'll take your word for it.
        I believe you simply happened across more people from Asian countries. Engineering is so common in some of them it's almost funny. As for my engineering studies, it's Biotechnology and I'm doing my 5th semester right now. The reason I brought up my classroom is to show how redundant individual stats can be. Almost all other departments in my university have a 50-50 split (give or take) with boys and girls.
        Fashion, nail polish, hair stuff, etc is 99% female. That's the only reason why I used that example ... I am not responsible for your interpretation of my comment. It seemed it
        was all just a misunderstanding, so I apologize for being rude. It's
        just that I am sick of being called a sexist or a racist for no reason.
        The misunderstanding has been cleared in the previous comment. I don't call you any of that if you didn't mean it that way. I still think you should've just said fashion instead of nail-polish. Is it not true that most fashion designers are male? The percentages are high because most of the business goes around female models, maybe?
        I only know it's bad (or at least, far worse than the situation here).
        Me only talking about the West is my way of admitting I don't know
        everything. That's not in any way narcissistic.
        All I ask is you mention you're talking about the west. I take back the n-word too.
        Ultimately, even if it's only around 20% - that would mean around 10 women per thousand are raped on college campuses - or 1% obviously.
        HARDLY the "epidemic" is it? Of course we agree 1% is still too much, but it is NOT a "rape culture" (IN THE FUCKING WEST). That's such a ludicrous belief ... And if you're going to use "unreported rape" as a possible factor, then you should also include false rape accusations. These vary anywhere from 10 to 40%.
        If it really isn't an epidemic over there, I'm glad. Yes, I do accept false accusations definitely exist—that misuse of rights is just inexcusable.
        If you're referring to Trump, I can explain in detail why nearly all these allegations have already been proven false. Besides, don't tell me you don't know these allegations are purely politically motivated?
        The motivation might be political but it doesn't concretely mean they weren't assaulted. I mean, the man's response to it was that they weren't hot enough for him to assault them and he pretty much explains himself how they let him do it. You gotta admit he's very likely to have sexually assaulted women, all things considered?
        So what? They covered nearly 20 goddamn years, is that not enough? So you expect me to believe only 0.2% (or 1% if we choose to believe your "unreported" stats) of women were raped from 1995 to 2013... and then magically that number increases a hundred fold to 1 in 5 in the last 3 years? Are you seriously suggesting this LUNACY?
        This is the report and it's only based on American universities. There is a mention of how the Universities' outlook has changed and how they're more open to actually reporting the incidents that were reported. Numerous accounts of University staff have been fired for not reporting what was reported. It might not be an epidemic but it is a problem. You yourself have said you don't talk to most of your female classmates? How could you be sure any of them haven't been assaulted? I'm just saying it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility.
        https://www.washingtonpost....
        Bullshit... Absolute nonsense. Feminists consistently say we should "teach boys not to rape" as if 1, rapists don't know they're doing a bad thing 2, this will stop rapists from raping and most importantly 3, the imply only men have the natural inclination to rape, and if it weren't for feminism they would go on a raping rampage. Then they shame "toxic masculinity" and silence anyone who dares disagree with their horseshit.
        I said it before, I only support the First Wave, mostly because their victory hasn't been achieved all over the world.
        And I don't get why you feel offended when I say nail polish is dominated by women.
        You
        want to know why? Because feminists don't simply shame rapists. They
        shame ALL men. Because #KillAllMen, that's the only way to smash the
        "patriarchy"
        I had no idea you meant the fashion industry until you cleared it in a later comment! That kind of generalization is toxic no matter what anyone's talking about. Remember how I said I don't stand with the so-called feminists that slander what the actual feminists stood for? These are the people I was talking about.
        And this is actually not true at all... The majority of victims were women, of course. But men who were beaten by their wives were socially shamed and the men beating their wives were severely punished.
        Maybe in most of the West.
        And historically speaking (not just in the west) men have ALWAYS sacrificed themselves for the lives of women ... But if you say "lesser beings" in the sense that men are seen as superior (like in Muslim countries) then I agree.
        Yes, that is an evolutionary impulse and you can find it even amongst ants. It's a natural reflex to want to ensure the survival of your gene-pool rather than your own set of genes.
        That's exactly what I meant and it is frequent in many Asian countries as well, at least subliminally.
        And concerning the vote, this is yet another feminist myth that "only men were allowed to vote". Women voted LONG (centuries) before men (as a group) were legally allowed to vote.
        A few high-class women during the Victorian era voting for something as obscure as Assistant Overseer of the Poor, or some Native American tribe-heads getting their say in no way relieves history of the fact that women (as a group) weren't legally allowed to vote even after men (as a group) had acquired that right long ago. Suffragettes aren't a myth. And this becomes further detrimental when you bring race into it down the line.
        Yes, but even that is not entirely true. Male brains are larger (although this has nothing to do with intelligence). There are
        differences in grey and white matter. Men have around 10% more grey matter, while women have 10% more white matter. Men also have more connections between the hemispheres, which results in an increased ability to translate perception into motor skill and ability. In contrast, women have more connections between the frontal lobes, which translates to increased empathy, social and nurturing skills. Yes, the actual difference is minor... but it is still there, and it DOES explain different gender roles and how they are rooted in biology. Saying the difference is "so small is hardly matters" is naive if you know anything about biology. We share about 98% DNA with apes, does that mean "the difference is so small it hardly matters"? No. In biology and genetics, these minor statistical differences, can have huge impacts.
        Like I said, I study both biology and engineering. Your assessment of the differences isn't true. The primary take-away from that article is that Most Brains are Both (Male and Female). I'm not saying the difference doesn't matter but asking you to look where the difference is. It isn't between the sexes but rather on a continuum. Like gender (you probably don't agree? Gender is very different from sex of a person), it can be anywhere on the continuum regardless of your sex.
        To break it down: sex is determined by phenotype and gender is determined by genotype. So the difference comes from where your brain is on the spectrum rather than if you're male or female. And as someone who studies biology, this seems completely natural to me.
        So now you DO cite the gender freaking pay gap.
        The pay gap is only one segment under the ceiling metaphor and it's something I don't fully agree with. I already made that clear. The source you provided also mentions this: "Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's
        known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide." And I fully understand why a company wouldn't want to pay a mother equally as a single woman or a man. When you need women to bear children to perpetuate our very species, I think it'd be more considerate to at least have proper maternity plans. Sounds like a day-dream, doesn't it?
        The "glass ceiling" is hardly a factor anymore. Also, it's not that women are less likely to be promoted. It is that women are less likely to ASK for a promotion. There's a big difference.
        More likely than not, those women that don't take promotions probably have other responsibilities that her male counterparts don't. This is exactly why Japan has a population implosion problem—the high-achieving women there identified the problem is within the companies that don't compensate properly the women with maternal needs and have simply refused to bear children. Imagine that happening all over the world and then the glass-ceiling becomes very significant.
        Consider yourself lucky. SJ is a cancer on the world... How can you not know what that meant? Anyways. It doesn't matter what the definition is when that does NOT reflect the actions SJWs take.
        No, even that definition is fine. I just misread it.
        I did see people using it on forums here and there but it was never directed at me so I never cared to check. Now that I did, it's not something I identify with and not something I'd like to be.
        But you must admit it was blatantly obvious I was talking women in the West. I've said this like 30 times already.
        Yes, but not at first which is when the misunderstanding happened. I knew the first time you said Europe that we were talking from two different vantage points and I addressed that in my very next comment.
      16. Seb
        November 13, 2016
        In my opinion, it is retarded to hire a female writer to write a female lead film, ONLY because she's female. I only argue that skill should be the only factor.
        Haven't seen Suicide Squad, but I really like Harley Quinn in the Arkham Series (especially Asylum and City). I can't compare it to SS, but the Arkham games are meant to explore the relationship between Batman and Joker. You can say "Harley was side-tracked"... but so were many other characters. Two-Face in City was a glorified cameo and served no purpose. Neither did many other male characters. This is not a gender thing at all.
        "What's lazy is uploading someone else's videos on YT and having a steady flow of money every month. I'm serious about it."
        Are you? Are you really such an idealist?
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        I don't know if this is "the original"... Just watch the video.
        "This doesn't lie in the test itself but how it'd been presented."
        I agree.
        "We're arguing from two widely different perspectives so I'll leave it at that."
        True, but as I've said before... I only argue from my perspective. And to this day, not ONE feminist has ever been able to give me one example of a field that is consciously or subconsciously prejudiced against them. This is not "just" true for STEM... It's true across the Western world.
        "That is why I only mentioned the First Wave of Feminism when I was supporting it."
        While I think first wave had some redeeming qualities, a lot of it was actually very much still based on man hating, and misandry. Although at the very least their problems were largely real and they actually achieved something.
        "I believe you simply happened across more people from Asian countries."
        I highly doubt it, since I'm mostly talking to Westerners. You are probably the first Indian I've ever talked to in my life. This is yet another reason why I only talk about the West.
        "Is it not true that most fashion designers are male?"
        Yes but you know what I mean.. The "girly" clothes stuff and whatnot. The "perfume" shops. The "manicure" things. I wasn't being specific, I was speaking in broad terms.
        "The percentages are high because most of the business goes around female models, maybe?"
        No, it is beyond obvious men just don't care about any of that stuff.
        "If it really isn't an epidemic over there, I'm glad."
        It is not by any means an epidemic. It is literally the opposite. Women have never been safer, on college these crimes happen LESS often, and when it does happen the rapists are publicly shamed and dragged through the streets. These are not characteristics of a rape culture. In fact, many of these "rape instances" have been completely fabricated and false, yet the INNOCENT men still lose their social status, jobs, friends and family, etc.
        This is what false rape accusations look like:
        https://www.youtube.com/wat...
        Yeah, we really treat rapists like angels do we?
        "The motivation might be political but it doesn't concretely mean they weren't assaulted."
        Except evidence has surfaced to debunk all these allegations. That's the difference.
        "This is the report and it's only based on American universities."
        Yes, but the numbers are similar across the western world. In fact, in many places the statistics are even lower. (Europe for example).
        I acknowledged these numbers did not reflect other countries (like India).
        "It might not be an epidemic but it is a problem."
        No it really isn't. I mean, of course rape and assault will always continue to be problems. But this is not anywhere near the problem people make it out to be.
        "You yourself have said you don't talk to most of your female classmates? How could you be sure any of them haven't been assaulted?"
        Yeah, and I haven't talked to most my male classmates either (300 + students). How could we be sure any of them haven't been assaulted either? Why is this a gendered thing?
        You cited the Washington Post... First, they are beyond biased, but ignoring that... Did you know nearly ALL "reports" of rape, assault, "racism" and "sexism", harassment, etc turned out to be false? People constantly say just how "horrible" it is, yet they can't find any instances of this truly happening so they make up their own stories. You'd be surprised just how far people will go to legitimize their victimhood status.
        http://www.breitbart.com/mi...
        "I said it before, I only support the First Wave, mostly because their victory hasn't been achieved all over the world."
        Okay, but what are feminists doing in the rest of the world? Nothing. Feminism is not your savior, nor will it ever be.
        "Remember how I said I don't stand with the so-called feminists that slander what the actual feminists stood for?"
        Yes but that's the no true Scotsman argument. Unfortunately, the vast majority of today's feminists are sexist bigots of the highest order.
        "A few high-class women during the Victorian era voting for something as obscure as Assistant Overseer of the Poor, or some Native American tribe-heads getting their say in no way relieves history of the fact that women (as a group) weren't legally allowed to vote even after men (as a group) had acquired that right long ago."
        Of course not... But this is not simply a gender issue. It was more so a class issue. That was the point of that argument. And again, men were only afforded this right as they had to take on the duty of the draft. This was NOT "just because they're male".
        "Suffragettes aren't a myth."
        Umm, sure? Who said they were?
        "it can be anywhere on the continuum regardless of your sex."
        This is the famous "there are more differences within genders than between them". Sure, but that doesn't disprove the overall rule that one gender favors one end of the spectrum while the other favors the opposite end. This is not a social construct. These things are rarely black and white. Men are larger than women, but that doesn't mean every man is large, or larger than "all" women. Height is a continuum as well (regardless of gender) that doesn't mean it is unfair to say men are generally larger.
        "The pay gap is only one segment under the ceiling metaphor and it's something I don't fully agree with."
        Again, just talking about the West.
        "...applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities."
        Meaning, their life style choices dictate their earnings. NOT their gender.
        If women truly got less pay "for the same work" - then why would any CEO with half a brain, not hire only women? It would be extremely cost-effective.
        "More likely than not, those women that don't take promotions probably have other responsibilities that her male counterparts don't."
        Assume this is true, then gender is not the dominant factor. Again, it is lifestyle choices.
      17. Seb
        January 30, 2017
        This is the debate that proves "how naïve" I am?
        How I live in "an alternate reality"?
        How I use "alternate facts"?
        How I back my claims up with "crap written on vague websites."?
        How I can "come off as a reasonable person but that's all a ruse."?
        I cited facts, backed up by Pew Research you FAILED to address, nor refute.
        And this is the conversation you're now using to justify your horrid rhetoric? Wow.
      18. AquaCthulhu
        January 30, 2017
        Yes. You do realize that while those rich women were voting for whatever insignificant position, rich men weren't excluded, right? Claiming that that somehow relates to the Suffrage is indeed naïve to me. (I wasn't taught a thing about the Suffrage if you consider what country I'm from).
      19. Seb
        January 30, 2017
        Another fine strawman. Not ONCE did I use these FACTS to discredit the suffragette movement. I only presented these facts to prove history isn't as one-sided as you might initially think. And I never even remotely denied that the "men weren't excluded". I didn't even relate these points to the Suffragettes in the first place. YOU did.
        You are clearly delusional. I suggest you read the entire conversation again.
        It's actually amazing to see you consistently try. You put in very little effort and misrepresented my words (knowingly, I reckon). And now with each and every comment, you lose what little credibility you have left even more. I refuted every single one of your arguments (in both discussions) and I have the evidence to back it up. Your only form of a "defense" are personal attacks and strawman arguments. Clearly, you've lost (not that this pleases me. I find this tiresome). Grow up, and accept it. Stop whining like a child and projecting your emotional imbalance unto me. What is the point? I'm serious. Nothing you've said so far is true, or has significance... so what's the point? Why reply? What are you hoping to achieve? Emotional satisfaction perhaps?
      20. AquaCthulhu
        January 30, 2017
        Why'd you even mention it then? What was the point?
        I've lost? And you've won? Pardon me, but I read trying to have a discussion, not an argument. There's no victors in a disc(q)ussion.
        Why reply? What are you hoping to achieve? Emotional satisfaction perhaps?
        Why am I on a months-old thread that I obviously abandoned? Is it because you replied with a literal question, maybe? Maybe.
        P. S. Since you find it so incomprehensible: a few pompous women taking part in a selecting-committee, while it may be a fact, had no relevance to this discussion especially if you didn't relate it, in any way, to the Women's Suffrage.
      21. Seb
        January 30, 2017
        "Why'd you even mention it then? What was the point?"
        I already told you. Don't try to downplay your pitiful strawman. The word "suffragettes" was never even used (by me). I even responded to you saying it had nothing to do with the suffragettes.
        "I've lost? And you've won?"
        When did I say "I won"? Never.
        This isn't about "winning the argument". It's about you losing in trying to prove yours.
        "Why am I on a months-old thread that I obviously abandoned? Is it because you replied with a literal question, maybe? Maybe."
        Or "maybe"... just "maybe" I was referring to the other conversation? Perhaps I wasn't clear, I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing senselessly. You have no point to make. Nothing you are saying has merit or validity.
        "a few pompous women taking part in a selecting-committee, while it may be a fact"
        Exactly... A fact. Case fucking closed. You were wrong, indirectly acknowledged right here. Now I expect an apology for your baseless slander and lies. You can't even prove your bullshit when called out on it. You said it was an "alternate" fact. It wasn't, and you know that damn well.
        The entire narrative upon which you base the supposed claim that I'm not reasonable and naive, i.e. the suffragette argument, NEVER even happened to begin with. But you're not even man enough to face your mistakes and admit you were lying all along. You're only interested in making excuses and baseless assumptions.
        "had no relevance to this discussion"
        It did. It had everything to do with the IDEA that "women weren't allowed to vote before feminism". These FACTS disprove that.
        "especially if you didn't relate it, in any way, to the Women's Suffrage."
        Because it wasn't supposed to. Never were the words "Women's Suffrage" uttered. You've just sunk to such low levels, it seems to you the only thing left to do is to double down on your lies. You're making a fool of yourself.
Boo
November 11, 2016
That's not even your idea somebody on twitter guessed it.
1. BatmanNewsChris
  November 11, 2016
  lol! "Somebody on Twitter". No one else could have guessed the same thing?
2. Worlds Finest Comments
  November 11, 2016
  I know somebody on Twitter, is his name Roy? I bet it was Roy.
  Damn you, Roy.
krampe1995
November 11, 2016
not to much information about her.
Cant make a judgement upon that
Mario
November 11, 2016
I hope they work hard on getting a good story, "Harley and the Birds of prey" would be a nice combo for a spin off universe if you ask me, since this is another take on DC universe we can bend the rules a bit, and to have Canary and Batgirl/Oracle sounds more than cool to me. .
Theclaw Yaww
November 11, 2016
I swear if they make a Harley quinn movie im going to be so pissed. A Gotham sirens or a birds of prey movie? Sure, Harley is a good side character she should never lead a movie
1. Mario
  November 11, 2016
  Hey! you're here!, but you we're officially done with DC,.. last week....remember?
  Joking aside, i agree 50% with you,
  DCEU Harley has a presence with audiences and can lead a group of characters, this is why i thought of the Birds of prey as a good idea to play around,
  but a movie based solely on her? i don’t think so.
  1. Theclaw Yaww
    November 11, 2016
    Its true im done with dc movies till they get better but I was pretty pissed off last week so i overreacted a bit
Worlds Finest Comments
November 11, 2016
Halloween costume shops will stay in business for next 10 years now!
HARLEY
November 11, 2016
@BatmanNewsCom:disqus Yep it's Harley: http://www.thewrap.com/harl...
1. BatmanNewsChris
  November 11, 2016
  Thanks! Just updating my article now :)
  1. Thought you should know
    November 11, 2016
    No problem
  2. BatmanNewsChris
    November 11, 2016
    Life is good! :) I can't wait for Tuesday to watch the Suicide Squad Extended Cut.
2. Mario
  November 11, 2016
  Ha! Harley-Birds of prey! I guessed it Batman-News.com screw that Boo guy! im the man!
  1. Mario
    November 11, 2016
    Huntress could be out and Harley take her place, since we have Barbara Gordon there, Canary has to be there i think, Oracle, Canary ,and Harley make a hell of a girl trinity for me. Plus Katana, Poison Ivi, and even NIGHTWING could make an appearance,...the possibilities man...
    1. Mario
      November 11, 2016
      Well......Two Flashes........i don’t care anymore, it's earth 1 and 2 for me.
    2. Mark
      November 11, 2016
      Nothing about the way they treated Black Canary on TV makes sense.
      But I am SO HOPING that this turns out to be BoP Vs Sirens!
      1. Mario
        November 11, 2016
        And now time to cast a Catwoman.....
  2. AquaCthulhu
    November 11, 2016
    There's actually more rumors about Black Canary making it to the DC Films than the others. Even a Justice League cameo, somehow.
Daniel
November 11, 2016
It's not a "Harley Quinn spin-off" movie tho. It'll be Birds of Prey movie with Harley in it.
1. Verbal Kint
  November 11, 2016
  lol, Harley's the draw. Who are the other members of Birds of Prey anyway?
  1. JaymusYawsley
    November 11, 2016
    Batgirl/Oracle, Black Canary, Huntress, Katana, Catwoman, and Poison Ivy would be recognizable draws.
    1. Verbal Kint
      November 11, 2016
      Recognizable draws for who.... comic book nerds? They make up a fraction of the movie going audience.
      1. JaymusYawsley
        November 11, 2016
        You asked.
OptimistPrime99
November 11, 2016
Finally! I guess I'll be checking out that Naomi Watts Shut In movie, after all. Paul Dini's Harley and Ivy episode, would be great inspiration for Hodson's script. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
1. OmegaCorleone
  November 11, 2016
  We need Gotham City Sirens in this film.
2. AquaCthulhu
  November 11, 2016
  That was the Girl's Night Out episode, right?
3. Pinkie-Dawn
  November 11, 2016
  I wouldn't recommend watching Shut In:
  https://www.youtube.com/wat...
  After learning that Hodson's involved with that movie, I'm more concerned about the script quality for this one.
4. KelVintage
  November 12, 2016
  WB only cares about money, it's too bad Suicide Squad made money when it was such a God-awful film. Worse than Batman v Superman. Oh and Secret Life of Pets beat the crap that is Suicide Squad for those of you celebrating. Original property vs. DC property. You know which film is more impressive.
iAbeLincoln
November 11, 2016
She's writing a movie about Batman characters lmao
1. iAbeLincoln
  November 11, 2016
  Most of these characters have always been "powerless". Not sure what you mean
Drew Douglas
November 11, 2016
I keep reading this as Christina Hendricks.
Wazzapova
November 11, 2016
I can't wait for a new Poison Ivy and Batgirl!!!
I'm rooting for Rose Leslie (Game of Thrones) as Ivy!!!
Nahuel Benvenuto
November 11, 2016
a HQ movie is pointless, even less if they make her an anti-heroine
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
November 11, 2016
I cant get excited about this...mos 2 should be accelerated not this..and then a transformer writer..
1. KelVintage
  November 13, 2016
  YES WE NEED MOS 2!
Martinezxyz
November 11, 2016
I read another site stating it might be called Birds of Prey. They better NOT call it that.
YourGrace
November 11, 2016
Wait so its gonna be Sirens vs BOP? Thats really fucking lame and i hope thats not true. These two properties should be seperate it defeats the purpose of the creation of Sirens. They teamed up due to their hatred of men (heroes snd villans alike) and wanted to pull heist together. You know, girl power. Fighting another group of women makes 0 sense. They each deserve their own movies/shows.
Kyle
November 11, 2016
As long as the writing is decent and Black Canary, Katana, Catwoman, Ivy, Batgirl are in it. And don't make Harley the center of the story just because she's popular. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Kane
November 12, 2016
DC should wait and see how bad WW bombs before even thinking about this
1. ShatteredWorld
  November 12, 2016
  This is asinine logic. Especially considering none of the DCEU movies have bombed. Man of Steel and BvS did lower than expected, but they are still box office hits
  1. Kane
    November 12, 2016
    Not really
    7 - 800 million does sound a lot, but they aren't the success' that WB would have hoped for after production and marketing costs have been taken away (There was a site that showed this against the last Harry Potter film which I think did 900 mil and didn't break even)
    I liked BvS (ultimate cut) but the one released at the cinema was the shits - and that showed big time in the 2nd week drop off. I believe if they'd released the more coherent, longer cut it would have had a stronger performance - but that's just opinion
    I haven't seen SS yet; but from what I can tell there's mixed feelings about this too. An argument could be made for SS being an unknown quantity, but CBM's are in big time at the minute and there were a lot of stars and anticipation for it, yet it performed similar to BvS
    I don't think WW is going to do well. It looks alright, but I think people are overestimating the fan base and I think Gadot is going to struggle carrying the whole film
    1. Ezee23
      November 14, 2016
      Like ShatteredWorld said, "under-performed". But like he also said, none of them bombed, this is not an arguable point.
      1. Kane
        November 14, 2016
        Under performed is not a sustainable business model
        If they can't sell their main characters; then they are not going to throw money at their c-listers
    2. ShatteredWorld
      November 14, 2016
      "7 - 800 million does sound a lot, but they aren't the success' that WB would have hoped"
      For their budgets? Yes, it is a lot. Batman v Superman underperformed, but it still did good. A movie doing 800 million is nothing at ALL to sneeze at.
      And Suicide Squad, like I said, completely exceeded expectations, without good reviews, only decent word of mouth and no Chinese market release. These movies are successes, whether you believe it or not.
      From a monetary standpoint alone, Wonder Woman will do extremely well.
      1. Kane
        November 14, 2016
        Still no
        Here's a link to the financial report on Harry Potter & the order of the pheonix
        https://www.techdirt.com/ar...
        Now in comparison to BvS - it cost less, made more & still lost over 160 million
        These films are not performing well
        WW will do worse
      2. ShatteredWorld
        November 15, 2016
        Okay? You still aren't answering my points. That's Harry Potter, not the DCEU.
        Yes, BvS lost money. But it also gained the company a good monetary value. Suicide Squad has been called a financial success by both Kevin Tsujihara and the head of Time Warner. It made more than Captain America: The Winter Soldier and was only about 30 million shy of Guardians of the Galaxy, another smash hit.
        Like ANY good industry analyst will tell you, 600 million, 800 million and then 700 million are NOTHING to sneeze at. Especially seeing as those films not only set their own respective records (good and bad in BvS' case, but still), but had a good life span in theaters.
        Your assumption that Wonder Woman will "do worse" is premature at best, and heavily unfounded. Like many analysts (and Jeff Bewkes) have repeated, if these movies can churn out monstrous numbers like these with only decent word of mouth + bad critical response + no Chinese release (SS), then imagine the possibility of these films when audience enthusiasm is at an all-time high? Imagine when these finally get decent/good responses from the critical mass.
        All this nay-saying about the DCEU, at least from a financial aspect, is completely asinine. A franchise that has so far grossed about 2.1-2.2 billion dollars, one of the fastest earning franchises of all time, is by no means a failure and you'll look purely idiotic trying to explain that.
      3. Kane
        November 15, 2016
        I showed the Potter financials as that is one of the rare times that they are fully released to the public
        I'll say it again in comparison to BvS - it cost less to make, it made more money at the box office & it still made a loss of over 160 million
        Are you implying somehow that BvS had smaller marketing costs & a larger profit window than a cheaper, better performing film? As that would be asinine
        Tsujihara is hardly going to come and say "you know what? these films did crap - make sure you go and watch the next one with the less popular characters in"
        WW will be lucky if it breaks 500 million (pure guess on my behalf - feel free to hold me to it) as the popularity of the character is absolutely no way near Superman or Batman & the cast do not posses the same draw as the ones in SS
        I'll only look idiotic if I have a limited grasp on business' - one of us is failing to understand that cost/expenditures out weigh gross profits and one of us has a 10" penis
      4. ShatteredWorld
        November 15, 2016
        You're speaking in pure hypotheticals and using nonsense numbers man. These movies are not failures. I've already stated why. I can link to other analysts who agree and will tell you that a movie making 800 million/700 million WW is nothing to sneeze at, but again, you wouldn't hear me.
        And huh on your Wonder Woman reasoning -- the character is JUST AS iconic as Superman and Batman. People in droves have been waiting for a Wonder Woman movie - the fact that you're underestimating that so much is amazingly laughable, no offense.
        Even the notion that somehow, a Wonder Woman movie, good or bad, will do less than Dr. Strange, Man of Steel, Suicide Squad or GOTG is just so off the mark, it's ridiculous.
      5. Kane
        November 15, 2016
        How are you not understanding this?
        The potter film I linked is not hypothetical - it out performed BvS on every metric and still lost money; that's because loses and expenditures cancelled the gross profit
        You do understand the concept; that if you spend more money than you make - you are not earning money, regardless of how much comes in. As in; spending $10 to make $5 is a loss leader, no matter ho many times you repeat it
        WW is nowhere near the status of Supes/bats. DC has continually pushed the character on the same stage but seeing as how the brand has the numbers to sustain only one monthly title with varying degrees of success versus several for the other two; should be enough to convince anyone with common sense otherwise. Merchandising & cross platform media (T-shirts, videogames, TV shows etc) are of a similar nature; she is way behind Superman who is in turn massively behind Batman
        WW might have a vocal group of followers - but it isn't a large group
Richard Bachman
November 12, 2016
Not many favorable reviews for Hodson's Shut In. I know it was a horror film and this is a different genre, but I'd rather prefer they hire writers with talent.
GaboPSN
November 12, 2016
I hope they don't make a feminist movie or a movie to appeal to those girls who now think "it's cool to be like Harley". Make her crazy, violent, a maniac with a touch of innocence.
1. Ezee23
  November 14, 2016
  "a feminist movie or a movie to appeal to those girls who now think "it's cool to be like Harley""
  Dont worry, Wonder Woman will do that. It's cool to be whoever you want to be, wherther it's Harley Quinn or Wonder Woman, it doesn't matter.
IgboNation85
November 12, 2016
Hopefully they're making a Sirens movie. Don't make Harley the focus, balance out her time with Ivy and Catwoman.
Prise Fiter
November 13, 2016
Just... Just stop, DC.
Fix the movies you've already got money invested in before announcing spin-offs.
1. KelVintage
  November 13, 2016
  THANK YOU
  1. Prise Fiter
    November 16, 2016
    I was a champion of DC since Man of Steel. It's a fantastic movie about the man who would become Superman. I convinced everyone I knew to watch it, and to watch the Batman v Superman trailers because it looked so good and then... You know.
    And overall I enjoyed Batman v Superman. To me Affleck is the quintessential Batman, Gal Gadot was great as Wonder Woman... but DC/WB should have put someone in charge of the DCEU who is deeply intrenched in the lore with total veto power on the scripts.
    Suicide Squad had a fantastic cast, but just turned into a hot mess of generic 90's action movie tropes and needless slowmos.
    We'll see how Wonder Woman holds up. But as of now I'm can't in good conscious champion the DCEU.

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com