Gal Gadot cast as Wonder Woman In ‘Batman Vs. Superman’

His "motivations" were just progressions of a single, simple theme. Worked for me.

What's the problem with this? Who would really commit to haring off to space if they could convince themselves -- as Krypton's Council had -- that there was nothing really wrong with their home planet? (Also note that aside from the parallels to climate change denialism, the withering of Kryptonian space travel alluded to in the film has other parallels in our real history -- in this case of space travel, to the withering of NASA, and in the case of Krypton's voluntary self-isolation to preserve stability, various "hermit kingdoms" of Earth history.)

 

A quick google search informs me that at 5'9" she's taller than 95% of American women.

 

But Wonder Woman is not American.

 

Yup, almost 1/2 a foot taller than average height for American or UK Women

 

Gigantia.

80 feet tall.

When every other week you have to go toe to toe... Toe to face with somebody 74 feet taller than you are, what the frakk matters a couple inches?

(She used to date the Atom. Size IS everything.)

 

If Wonder Woman isn't 6' 7-3/8", I'm boycotting the movie! Don't those fucking monsters know the horrendous crime they're committing by hiring a 5' 9" actress!!!

 

I said this above, and I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

The denial claim, the idea that there was nothing wrong with Krypton, was the case in the Donner films.

This film, they knew and chose to nothing. Jor-El tells them that the core has become unstable and they don't deny it.

 

Well if they did know, they still didn't do anything about it (hence the anger and frustration from Zod and Jor-El). And again, they might have thought the planet was doomed but I doubt they thought the planet was literally days away from destruction.

I doubt even Jor-El would have expected it to happen so soon.


For me, the only plot point with regard to Krypton that really nags at me is the idea of their colonies somehow drying up and dying off without the support of Krypton. With all the incredible technology they had, I just have a hard time believing these colonists wouldn't have been a lot more self-sufficient than that. Or that Krypton would just give up on space exploration after making it as far as they had (the parallels to NASA I don't think really apply, seeing as we've only made it as far as our own moon).

 

The original film handled the Krypton thing much better, and even in that film, it didn't quite feel right. It seemed kind of abrupt to go from sentencing Zod in once scene (Oh , by the way, having the council being projected on the wall looked far more awesome) to talking about the destruction of Krypton in the next, but at least they were two distinct issues, and one was resolved before the other. In the new film, Goyer took both of these plot elements, along with about a half a dozen others, threw them up in the air, and hoped that he could catch them all. As a writer, he has no elegance as a story-teller. Which makes me believe that WW's introduction will be ham-fisted into the Batman/ Superman narrative.

 

No, they deny that it's a problem because they figure they'll invent a way to fix it. Again -- and I don't see why this is so hard to grasp -- it's recognizably an analogy to denialism about climate change. The denialism isn't about whether it's happening, it's about whose fault it is and whether anything should be done. It's hard to sell this element as being unrealistic when we see the same mentality all around us every day.

I mean, don't get me wrong: the screenwriting in Man of Steel has flaws. But I think claiming this or the delivery of Zod are those flaws is getting entirely the wrong end of the stick. Those are both things it did right.

 

What??

Are you kidding me?

They know the planet will blow up!

They know it!

And:

They have space craft!

They have time!

They have other habitable worlds they can go to. Even this stupid Phantom Zone was habitable. More habitable than a planet about to be because, uh, wait...

it was going to blow up!

The council just said, well, there's nothing we can do!

This analogy for climate change denial is crap, especially when the story here doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Even when I was 11 years old, I could have written a better story than this. Please.

 

Well, in that case I'd like to read it. Is there any place where I can buy your book? Or watch the movie they made from it?

Oh.

I see.

 

I've written more than you'd know lol

 

I couldn't get over how they decided to punish Zod and his group for overthrowing the legitimate government of Krypton and starting a small war by ... saving their lives.

 

No. I'm telling you, accurately, that it's a precisely analogous mentality to one we see every day. Especially when the ships are mothballed, the planet has a complacent mentality and it's easy to tell yourself it's tomorrow's problem*. It may frustrate you that it is illogical behaviour, but it is realistically illogical to a far greater degree than is usual for a comic book movie. There's no getting around that.

(* As someone else already mentioned, it wasn't a case of everybody agreeing the planet was going to blow up that day. Nobody agreed when it was going to happen and the Council specifically says their projections don't agree with Jor-El's and that they think there's plenty more time to solve the problem... and that it's therefore hasty to contemplate a halt to "mining the planet core" that powers their whole way of life. Again... sound familiar? It's not a case of them really saying anything unbelievably irrational, is it?)

 

if Earth was going to blow up but we had ships and oteher worlds to go to, I guarantee that people would want to leave. They wouldn't be in denial about that.

And despite the fact we too, might cause problems (like the Kryptonians causing the core to collapse) I think we might have at least the common sense to at least consider the issue realistically if it came to the end. We might not be able to solve the problem, but I think, if the evidence was there and we were near the end, we simply would not act like morons.


The film is indefensible.

 

That's the origin, Krypton blows up and he's, more or less, the last Kryptonian. That's not the film's fault.

 

The Kryptonians don't have much in the way of ships, their space program has been mothballed for millennia. Nor is there any guarantee of other worlds to go to, their colonies have been out of contact for just as long... and in fact, we learn later, are dead (turns out colonizing space is hard, another believable touch).

IOW their situation in practical terms isn't really all that much different from our situation in which denialism (about climate and ecosystem in our case) abounds and nobody shows any hint of being ready to abandon their lifestyle and flee the planet. The comparison is very close to being one to one. So I don't see on what grounds you can complain it's "untenable."

 

Yes, that's the backstory.

But they paid the screenwriter to write this origin in a way that at least would seem to make sense. Instead Goyer made it so convoluted, confusing, and illogical.