It is definitely the mouth-froth of someone in a berserker rage.
What fighting ability does Mystique have?
Of course. They absolutely do. It’s especially common with popular characters, thanks to the shock-factor, and especially effective with traditionally dominant (mostly male) characters. If someone like Superman has been beaten to a pulp on the cover of your comic, you’ve just introduced a very serious and powerful bad guy/threat. Or if you want to go all-out, just have one especially terrible foe hold your entire team of heroes in the palm of their hand. In this case, Mystique (the character) and Jennifer Lawrence (the actor) are both popular. Meanwhile, Apocalypse is the new danger/enemy, so you have both depicted in the ad.
X-Men is a pretty popular franchise and for the majority of people who have followed it (either the movies or books), this isn’t abnormal villain vs hero(ish) treatment. I don’t see it as promoting hatred of women, either. But then, I know the Apocalypse character, I understand the context of the phrase and I know that Apocalypse wouldn’t give a damn if Mystique were male or female. I can see how the ad can be interpreted otherwise, but when I don’t understand context, I first try to seek it.
That said, could they have presented the threat of Apocalypse in any other way, which wouldn’t have gained this response (intended or not)? For sure.
No context? There’s a big alien-looking guy wearing some slick armor choking a blue, topless girl. Clearly not domestic abuse.
Anyway, Fox has apologized thanks to the outcry.
Thanks–I’m finding myself more and more persuaded. The nail in the coffin of my doubt would be an example or two of movie posters or billboards with this sort of art. This’d be significant both because there are (I think) a lot fewer of them with a much larger audience for each and much larger budget behind them, and because they’re more analogous to the billboard in question.
Or someone being choked to death
I’m not a comics geek but my understanding from the films is that she’s an experienced hand-to-hand fighter but doesn’t have any signature powers in that regard.
No problem.
I think we’ll find fewer big-screen examples, because there are less of them in existence, plus big Marvel/DC movies like this have only recently hit their stride or grown in popularity (relatively speaking, and in this form). I think another key difference, is the fact that a given actor just as well sells the film, arguably as much as the franchise/character they’re portraying. Many times, you can promote a movie simply by placing a big name actor front-center on your posters. For this reason, I think the traditional approach to movie promotion has worked very differently than books, so I’d, at least, have trouble finding as many examples.
In comics, you have established characters, throughout decades worth of storytelling, who occasionally need something to shake up their books, so you’ll see these types of covers (which also have to compete among a sea of other books, not just one or two other big-budget films). I think this particular Apocalypse/Mystique ad is an extension of the same desperation we often see depicted in books, but it’s more of a parity thing when placed in other mediums, at least in my opinion. Likewise, as films mature or expand beyond summer action flicks, you may see them go into more of the depth that the books do. In other words, the promo material and content (movies) may start to more closely mimic the source material in its presentation, as time goes on (but that’s just my guess).
Regardless, I think it’s fine for people to have different opinions on it. I think any strong fictional work will cause discussion. I’d say this ad is still unique among movie posters and billboards, though, whether or not it has a man or woman in the position of desperation. I think society also has to answer the question of how much adversity it expects or is willing to tolerate from its female characters, while at the same time, wanting more female leads/representation. A few of the covers I linked are iconic/powerful, but only work because of the characters significance, and thus, the helpless position they’re placed in. IMO, the two concepts work together to evoke emotions and it’s worth exploring if others are willing to see women in those same roles. Maybe this is too soon for a movie ad, but it has been explored in books, for a while, now.
Edit: I see your edit and I think we’re somewhat on the same page, with the point you’ve raised.
That image reads a lot more like terror than “berserker rage” to me. Wolverine looks scared as fuck.
In the comics, she’s an expert martial artist with superhuman reflexes and agility. She’s also a crack shot, and is an accomplished assassin and terrorist with over a century of experience. Also one of the first queer characters in mainstream comics. Comic book Mystique is pretty awesome. But I’m a little so-so on the movie version.
In other words, you can make nonspecific attacks on me but go hiding in the weeds when called on it. So don’t make excuses, make your allegations plain. Or be shown for a passive-aggressive attack monger.
Passive aggressive attack monger? Ouch. I strive for passivity in all my dealings here, so I can’t have myself regarded as such. I really wasn’t trying to attack you. You and I disagree on this matter, and our disagreement is more than just comics vs real life.
My statement wasn’t intended as innuendo; it was pretty obvious what I meant. I think most people understood without a cheat sheet.
But I’m feeling charitable, so I’ll help you out. You said the reason you don’t have a problem with the ad is that you know the difference between comic book characters and real life. So tell me, if an ad for a drama or documentary used an image of a woman being choked, would you be petitioning for its removal, or commenting that it was a big kerfuffle over nothing? Because calling domestic violence a “completely manufactured” stereotype and reducing Rose McGowan to “a woman who made a career of parading her naked ass on film” suggests the latter.
If we’re stripping all context from the ad, it looks like a monster choking a pre-pubescent, blue skinned, red-haired boy to me. Won’t somebody think of the children?
I didn’t.
Still don’t, for that matter.
What? How much abuse does Wonder Woman have to get on the business end of before I’m allowed to call it Tuesday? And how many manly men have to tame her and take off her girdle before I can call her a stereotypical Amazon?
Finally. Something I can respond to.
I would neither be petitioning nor calling it much ado about nothing in that case. If it involved no effort other than signing the petition (i.e., someone walks it up to my door and asks for my signature) I’d have no problem with doing so, but I don’t have the time to chase down every instance of things I don’t like, especially when I’m certain that there are plenty of other people opposed to it who might be motivated to make a greater investment of time.
Domestic violence is not a ‘completely manufactured stereotype.’ Claiming that a (clearly) male cartoon figure attacking a (clearly) female cartoon figure in a mythos that is utterly divorced from the real world is. At its base, it’s ‘good vs. evil,’ not husband/boyfriend/SO vs. powerless woman. Extrapolating a comic-book superhero fight to domestic violence is very much in line with the video-game analogy I made. It’s completely PC, completely manufactured by people who have their own agenda, and complete bullshit.
Well aren’t you the enlightened feminist. I apologize for disparaging your good name.
Wonder Woman: She’s strong. She’s independent. She kicks ass. Then you beat the crap out of her, because she has it coming. Then she marries you.
Mystique: She’s strong. She’s independent. She kicks ass. Then you beat the crap out of her, because you’re a villain. Or because there’s a legitimate conflict of ideologies, where both sides have a point. Or because she’s the villain. Then she doesn’t marry you, she tells you to get lost. Then she goes and does something else.
mbh, from your quote:
I guess the Amazon stereotype still doesn’t sit well with me. It’s still such a male construct. OK, fine: If it’s about taking possession of a stereotype, owning it, and using it for good, as it were, I get that side of it. “You’re calling me a man-hating lesbian? I’ll *be *a man-hating lesbian, for the benefit of humanity.” Just like: “You’re calling me [racial slur]? I’ll own the word [racial slur].” Except that it’s not about humanity, it’s us vs. them. I guess the “sisterhood” thing bugs me. It’s adversarial. I mean, I get it, and I’m not bringing out the pitchforks, or telling people what do think about anything. It just bugs me a tiny little bit. I can’t be in your sisterhood? I don’t even get to play? Just because I have a schlong?
And, anyway, is it fair to demand that Mystique spends all of her time thinking about feminism? “Let’s make sure I get beaten up by Apocalypse in a feminist kind of way.” I don’t know. I think she’s a bit busy right there, with all the getting beaten up by Apocalypse.
BTW, about heroes and villains in the X-men movies: I saw someone complain about how the X-men movies don’t make any sense. Powerful mutants are threatening to destroy the world. Magneto blows up bridges and makes the president wear a stadium for a hat. And you’re telling us *not *to pass a mutant registration act? Professor X just expects us to sit back, and let the X-men deal with it? Give me a break. But I thought that was kind of the point. Who’s really the villain? Magneto? Senator Kelly? Or professor X? The X-men aren’t necessarily in the right. They may well be in the wrong six ways from Sunday on this one. Maybe those sentinels aren’t even that bad an idea.
What are you saying? In comic book land the characters sometimes fight for any number of reasons. Sometimes the comic book characters hook up. And some of those links don’t even look official.
There is nothing in those links that supports the idea that the purpose of Wonder Woman is to be nothing more than a symbol of a violent, rapey patriarchy keeping womyn in their place. In proper context, Wonder Woman is known to be one of the strongest of the non cosmic DC characters. And strong in the sense of fighting. Since that’s what comic book characters do.
I know, they’re not official. I’m just going a bit beyond official. I’m not a comic book geek, so some of the “unoffical” images are what I’m seeing on my end. Also, Amazons.
Wait. Did I just say: “This looks different, when taken out of context?” Maybe I did.
Martian, you seem to be taking it for granted that the concept of “Amazons” is inherently sexist or anti-feminist, or at least problematic in someway for modern audiences. Can you unpack that a little bit? It’s largely counter to my own experience of the myth, and how feminists tend to regard it.
Now that I’ve seen the movie, yeah that scene was really heroic of mystique.
This whole thing is absurd. You might as well claim any movie that has male on male violence for whatever reason (which would include pretty much every movie rated PG-13 or higher) as promoting domestic violence among gay men.