I have to ask the women here - Would you recognize your own boobs in a similar situation?

And that was my objection. I felt the article was wrong and that they DID nail it and that their attempts to say that they didn't nail it were based on a faulty premise. I object to the points brought up in the article. I find them to be nitpicking, so small and idiosyncratic as to be unworthy of serious criticism.

I'm saying the film's politics nailed it so any criticism is rooted in the reality that "nothing is ever good enough."

That sounds vaguely hostile. I suppose you're free to debate that opinion to your heart's content, of course. What are you trying to imply? That because my opinion could be questioned or disagreed with, I shouldn't offer it? I wasn't saying the reviewer shouldn't speak their minds, just that in this case their point…

I just found out last week I went to school with Heinberg. I had never put 2 and 2 together.

Fair enough. I see it as complaining that nothing is ever good enough and making points that I don't think would have actually improved the movie.

I'm saying we can't enjoy the step forward without saying that it wasn't a big enough step. To be hyperbolic, it's like landing on the moon and people saying, 'yeah, but it wasn't Mars.'

I guess I find the critique nitpicky to the extreme. It goes beyond analysis to wish fulfillment. So, in short, there's nothing wrong with critiquing, just this critique seems to me to be unenlightening in the whole.

Why?

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but this seems to be a pretty minor point on which to invest much emotional energy. Why does it bother you so?

It's the same trope. Starman was an alien with special powers and Zorn is a superpowered cartoon barbarian, and Big portrays a magically transformed youth. All of these are supernatural, super powered beings who need escorted by females into the ins and outs of the modern world. I know I'm forgetting a more obvious…

That was not my impression.

I strongly disagree.

Starman comes to mind as well, Big has the innocent led by the women as to the proper way of managing society. I don't know. It seems like I'm missing an obvious one.

I think that's a pretty well trod trope, a woman leading a superhero or otherworldly guy through the intricacies of the modern world. The TV show Son of Zorn was an entire weekly serving of exactly that trope.

I think I agree with you. This film is a giant step forward. Can't we enjoy that?

But she was operating in his world. And notice she kept changing his lead, making sure that he was leading where SHE wanted to go (the front), not where he wanted her to go. She decided when to attack, when to fight, because that was her area of expertise.

Sure. But in a movie where you're telling a story, the action communicated that Diana was out of her element and that Steve was taking care of her, just as she took care of him. Also, it communicated that she was a bit awed by her first exposure to Man's world. I'm good at weaving through crowds, so I direct my wife…

I don't know. She'd never seen modern architecture, roads or automobiles. he was escorting her through his world, just as she escorted him through hers, I thought.

We all need our nits picked every once in awhile, but is this level really necessary? It was a great movie that handled everything just about right. People like romance, men and women. So, there was a little romance. What is this criticism?