• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Wonder Woman (2017)

JD said:
I understand it's to tie it in to Justice League, but it's still weird to see them talking about "the future of justice" while promoting a movie that takes place mostly around 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the full tagline is "The future of justice begins with her." I kinda like that. It's establishing Wonder Woman as the first superhero in the DCEU, the one that all the others follow (which is traditionally Superman's role in most versions of the DC Universe, but Snyder ruined Superman here). And it's logical from a promotional standpoint for the reason you say, because it makes it clear that this is setting up future movies despite being in the past.

I also think there's a bit of a metatextual element to it -- they're basically admitting that the future of the DCEU as a film franchise, or at least the critical approval thereof, rides on whether this movie is any good. And more than that, if it succeeds, then it will help convince studios that female-led superhero/action movies can work, and we'll get more of them, and that greater equality will be justice in real-world terms.
 
Christopher said:
IIRC, the full tagline is "The future of justice begins with her." I kinda like that. It's establishing Wonder Woman as the first superhero in the DCEU, the one that all the others follow (which is traditionally Superman's role in most versions of the DC Universe, but Snyder ruined Superman here). And it's logical from a promotional standpoint for the reason you say, because it makes it clear that this is setting up future movies despite being in the past.

I also think there's a bit of a metatextual element to it -- they're basically admitting that the future of the DCEU as a film franchise, or at least the critical approval thereof, rides on whether this movie is any good. And more than that, if it succeeds, then it will help convince studios that female-led superhero/action movies can work, and we'll get more of them, and that greater equality will be justice in real-world terms.
Click to expand...
Or
Wonder Woman: The First Avenger.

Lol
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I kinda like that. It's establishing Wonder Woman as the first superhero in the DCEU, the one that all the others follow (which is traditionally Superman's role in most versions of the DC Universe, but Snyder ruined Superman here).
Click to expand...


How did Synder "ruin" Superman? By making him a complex individual, instead of a cardboard fictional hero?


Or Wonder Woman: The First Avenger.
Click to expand...

More like Wonder Woman, the first Justice Leaguer.


I understand it's to tie it in to Justice League, but it's still weird to see them talking about "the future of justice" while promoting a movie that takes place mostly around 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Marvel was doing the same thing around 2011. People were anticipating "The Avengers" even before the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger", which was set nearly 70 years earlier.


I also think there's a bit of a metatextual element to it -- they're basically admitting that the future of the DCEU as a film franchise, or at least the critical approval thereof, rides on whether this movie is any good.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not with fans already anticipating the November release of "Justice League".

I think Warner Bros. should stop longing for critical approval. They're wasting their time. If they continue to worry about what the critics will say, they'll end up trying to imitate the MCU's house style. And that is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. Regardless of the bashing, their past three movies had made a good deal of money for them and have attracted a great number of fans. They should really continue doing things their way without worrying about the critics.
 
Last edited:
LJones41 said:
I think Warner Bros. should stop longing for critical approval. They're wasting their time. If they continue to worry about what the critics will say, they'll end up trying to imitate the MCU's house style. And that is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. Regardless of the bashing, their past three movies had made a good deal of money for them and have attracted a great number of fans. They should really continue doing things their way without worrying about the critics.
Click to expand...

You say this as if there are only 2 styles of film making, what you consider a Marvel style and what DC has done the last few movies.

It's very possible to not copy anything Marvel has done AND be a hit with both fans and the critics. Ask Christopher Nolan if this is true if you don't believe me, please.
 
LJones41 said:
Then I guess Christopher Reeve wasn't the "real" Superman any more than Henry Cavill, considering what happened to Zod in "Superman II". Apparently, neither was the "Golden Age" Superman - https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/superman-165/golden-age-superman-was-no-boyscout-623752/.
Click to expand...

John Byrne's post crisis Superman in the 1980s is the real Superman for me.

(Yes, I know that John is a scoiopath, NOW.)

In the Richard Donner cut of Superman II, which I never bothered to watch, because how the damn different could it really be? Superman melted the fortress, because Luthor knew where it was, and then he turned back time, so that Zod never escaped the Phantom Zone, and nothing in the movie actually happened (Lois finding out, and Zod conquering the world) anywhere but Clark's memories.

Why did he melt the fortress, if he was just going to turn back time? Oh! Zod, Ursa and Non were alive, and once they climbed back up the slides they slid down, they just had to ask Jor-El for their powers back, because Fortress is not password protected.

They might have been dead during the fight, but they were definitely dead if they were inside the fortress when Superman melted it, but how hard would it be to kick them outside and let those three terrorists walk back to America? Or at least get as far as they can before Superman wound back time?

As a kid, I never thought that they had been killed in the original cut of the movie, but yes it's possible they did not survive the drop, which might have just been 10 feet, into a sludge flurry that absorbed their impact... I think there was a Robot Chicken where Superman shows that they didn't die, and then he feeds Zod, Ursa and Non to his pet polar bears, but that could be my imagination.
 
LJones41 said:
More like Wonder Woman, the first Justice Leaguer.
Click to expand...

fireproof78 said:
The first Justicer...something.
Click to expand...

Nerys Myk said:
The First JLAer. (Maybe a little too inside)
Click to expand...

Just doesn't have the same ring to it. Like there is no JL battle cry to match "Avengers Assemble!"

Nazis Beware!

tumblr_opm969uOXd1r4pq4io1_500.jpg
tumblr_omyumchimK1ss4n0do4_500.jpg
 
Nice trailer, but the Suicide Squad trailers were great too, and that didn't reflect at all on the movie's quality. The buzz is good, but I'm still nervous, given how much is riding on this film.

And I wish they were playing up the "warrior" angle so much, with the trailer title and the song and all. Wonder Woman was created to be a symbol of peace and love, a nonviolent alternative to other superheroes. That's why her only non-defensive implement was a lasso. I prefer the post-Crisis/pre-New 52 idea of Diana as an ambassador for peace, only fighting when necessary. I gather from interviews that the movie is going for a similar angle, but the trailers are just playing up the violence, and I hope that's not representative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top