Wonder Woman (2017)

[dahj]

I asked why it took so long...

And it's still been 12 years...

Never said DC was great, but it's a bit disingenuous to bring up stuff 40 years ago and compare it to now, it's an undeniable fact that DCEU started way better than MCU when it comes to diversity and inclusivity.

You can deflect the issue all you like, doesn't change the fact that 20 male lead movies in a single universe before a woman gets a turn is a fucking disgrace...

 

[Tosk]

Never said DC was great, but it's a bit disingenuous to bring up stuff 40 years ago and compare it to now, it's an undeniable fact that DCEU started way better than MCU when it comes to diversity and inclusivity.

I mentioned 40 years because DC has had that long to make their movies. Marvel has not. Catwoman was a female superhero and she was black, so WB were already trying in 2004, which is good. Pity the movie was absolute garbage.

You can deflect the issue all you like, doesn't change the fact that 20 male lead movies in a single universe before a woman gets a turn is a fucking disgrace...

It's not deflecting, it's just pointing out that WB/DC are hardly paragons here. Wonder Woman making mad bank is good for us all, and it finally helps buck the idea that female-led superhero films can't succeed. You just need to make a good one.

 

[Kirk Prime]

I gave my review in the other thread, but one thought here...

When it comes to Wonder Woman's power level, the only thing that bothered me was that in the battle on the beach between the Amazons and Germans, Diana was cut on her shoulder. While that makes sense if she were human, if she could bleed that easily, how could she do the things she did not just in this movie, but against Doomsday? Bullets really shouldn't bother her, bracelets or not.

Which leads to another weakness--they didn't really explain her abilities very well. They should have done more with her bracelets. Also, why does everyone shoot her where her bracelets can block? Shoot her in the leg or the head or the back--if she is vulnerable to bullets of course.

The bracelets, if she is vulnerable to bullets, would have a tough time against bombs and flame throwers, not to mention poison gas.

Very good movie, but they should have done a better job breaking down her abilities.

The Amazons themselves also seemed weaker than their comic/cartoon counterparts. Do they have immortality too? They seemed quite human. How long was Diana's childhood? She was the only child on the island, so that means that it's quite possible Amazons don't age. Shouldn't they have a level of invulnerability? Otherwise, they should have been slaughtered a lot more easily. No matter how great a fighter you are, guns > arrows.

 

[Skipper]

The best female super-hero movie before Wonder Woman was probably Elektra. The bar was set incredibly low.

 

[Tosk]

The best female super-hero movie before Wonder Woman was probably Elektra. The bar was set incredibly low.

I even kind of liked Elektra. But you're right about how low that bar was.

 

[Turtletrekker]

(I don't usually care how much money a movie makes(as long as it's enough to get a sequel ) but I'm hoping Wonder Woman makes it by the truckloads just to rub it in Marvel's face for waiting 21 movies to put a woman in the lead )

Well, let's be honest, Marvel doesn't have any female solo heroes nearly as iconic or as marketable as Wonder Woman. Most of their major female heroes are more identified by the team they're on (Sue Richards, Wasp, Jean Grey, Storm, Black Widow*, Scarlet Witch) rather than their solo efforts. Ms. (later Captain) Marvel was their first attempt at a solo female title and it didn't roll out until 1977, and her book didn't exactly set the world on fire. To their credit, Marvel never gave up on the character, and she has honestly only in recent years been high profile enough to warrant Marvel even considering committing the resources to a major motion picture about the character.

*I know that a lot of people think that Black Widow should have gotten a solo movie before now, but I honestly don't think that it would be as great a thing as people think it would be. As mentioned up-post, she's never really been a solo character, and none of her solo efforts in the comics wind up very compelling in the long term. There aren't any classic "Black Widow" stories to draw upon. What would a Black Widow movie bring to the character and the larger MCU table? You could tell a spy story, but Agents of SHIELD has that niche covered. Her backstory is largely covered. She's gotten ample character development and story progression. I'm not saying it couldn't be done well, I just really don't see the need for that particular character to have her own movie.

Meanwhile, on the TV side, Marvel women are well represented. Two female leads on Agents of SHIELD who also brought Mockingbird into the fold, and starring vehicles for Peggy Carter and Jessica Jones, none of whom could carry a blockbuster movie.

 

[Skipper]

I don't know if this question need a poll, but in this forum users' opinion, what is the best female super-hero movie excluding Wonder Woman..? I kinda liked Supergirl (1984)...

 

[Tosk]

I don't know if this question need a poll, but in this forum users' opinion, what is the best female super-hero movie excluding Wonder Woman..? I kinda liked Supergirl (1984)...

Overall, I prefer Elektra to Supergirl, but I'll take either one (and Tank Girl too) a hundred times over before Catwoman. Either way you slice it, it's a pathetically small list full of mediocrity.

 

[Mudd]

Well, let's be honest...Marvel has only two iconic superheroes, Spider-Man and Captain America. DC has three - Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

 

[Christopher]

I doubt anyone would hold up Supergirl or Catwoman as quality films. (Although I do have a soft spot for Supergirl.)

I think Supergirl is underrated. It actually does a pretty good job of capturing the feel of Silver Age comics; the only problem is, it came along after the Silver Age, when that approach was outdated. But in retrospect, in the right mindset, it can be enjoyed for what it is. And Helen Slater is actually pretty excellent in the lead role. (More thoughts on my blog.)

At the end of the day, Marvel and DC both doing well means we all win.

Yes.

And was released in a time when superhero movies were 'for kids'.

Is there something wrong with that? I think part of the problem with modern superhero fiction is that it's become too self-consciously adult and excluded the very people that superheroes are supposed to inspire. I've seen so many online photos of little girls dressed up as Wonder Woman and being incredibly thrilled to see this movie, because the media give girls so few role models like this. And a key part of the popularity of recent breakout comics characters like Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl -- not to mention the Miles Morales Spider-Man -- is their appeal to young readers, their ability to get a new generation excited about comics and heroes.

There's nothing wrong with some superhero comics and movies being aimed at adults, but they shouldn't all be. I think we're seeing the end of the era when comics were so self-conscious about being "grown up" that they overdid it and alienated younger readers. Hopefully we're entering a more balanced era when they can have broader age appeal -- some welcoming for kids, others just for adults, and neither category stigmatized.

I don't know if this question need a poll, but in this forum users' opinion, what is the best female super-hero movie excluding Wonder Woman..? I kinda liked Supergirl (1984)...

There really aren't a lot to choose from, are there? How about The Powerpuff Girls Movie?

I suppose you could stretch the definition by counting action movies with female leads having special abilities, like Underworld, but I haven't seen any of those and I doubt they'd be on many "best" lists. Or maybe wuxia films? There might be a couple of Michelle Yeoh movies you could count.

I actually think Elektra is kind of underrated too. It's certainly flawed, but I think it's visually and stylistically quite impressive, with excellent action choreography. I'm not a huge fan of Jennifer Garner's acting, but I admire her dedication to the physical training, the fact that she did almost all her own stunts and fight work and did them well.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Is there something wrong with that? I think part of the problem with modern superhero fiction is that it's become too self-consciously adult and excluded the very people that superheroes are supposed to inspire. I've seen so many online photos of little girls dressed up as Wonder Woman and being incredibly thrilled to see this movie, because the media give girls so few role models like this. And a key part of the popularity of recent breakout comics characters like Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl -- not to mention the Miles Morales Spider-Man -- is their appeal to young readers, their ability to get a new generation excited about comics and heroes.

There's nothing wrong with some superhero comics and movies being aimed at adults, but they shouldn't all be. I think we're seeing the end of the era when comics were so self-conscious about being "grown up" that they overdid it and alienated younger readers. Hopefully we're entering a more balanced era when they can have broader age appeal -- some welcoming for kids, others just for adults, and neither category stigmatized.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I do think the 'kiddy' mindset probably prevented studios from taking a chance and putting some real effort into unproven characters, especially if they would be at all expensive to film. There is a reason the superhero boom happened around the same time that studios and audiences started taking superheroes a little more seriously.

I actually think Elektra is kind of underrated too. It's certainly flawed, but I think it's visually and stylistically quite impressive, with excellent action choreography. I'm not a huge fan of Jennifer Garner's acting, but I admire her dedication to the physical training, the fact that she did almost all her own stunts and fight work and did them well.

I always thought Elektra could've been a good movie (maybe not a great one) if it had just had another 30-35 minutes to flesh out the villains and make the 'war' really pop in the audience's mind. But the studio cut its legs out from under it and it was released as an underdeveloped disappointment.

Of course, I never followed Elektra in the comics, so I don't compare the movie to the source material. Most of its biggest critics seem to be the ones who do do that.

 

[wew]

I mentioned 40 years because DC has had that long to make their movies. Marvel has not. Catwoman was a female superhero and she was black, so WB were already trying in 2004, which is good. Pity the movie was absolute garbage.

It's not deflecting, it's just pointing out that WB/DC are hardly paragons here. Wonder Woman making mad bank is good for us all, and it finally helps buck the idea that female-led superhero films can't succeed. You just need to make a good one.

But, one could point out that films about Marvel characters have been around longer than 10 years. In fact, Howard the Duck, a Marvel character had a film in 1986 and Blade came out around 1990. So arguing that DC had forty years while Marvel only had 10 years is somewhat disingenuous.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well, let's be honest...Marvel has only two iconic superheroes, Spider-Man and Captain America. DC has three - Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Add Wolverine to that list. Wasn't always on there, but -- Hugh Jackman.

 

[Kirk Prime]

I think Supergirl is underrated. It actually does a pretty good job of capturing the feel of Silver Age comics; the only problem is, it came along after the Silver Age, when that approach was outdated. But in retrospect, in the right mindset, it can be enjoyed for what it is. And Helen Slater is actually pretty excellent in the lead role.

My problem with Supergirl: The Movie--is that they didn't do her origin very well, and of course, not having Superman in it was a big problem. I think Superman III should have been about Clark meeting Kara.

But I did like the movie to an extent.

 

[Mudd]

Up until Burton's Batman folks in Hollywood really couldn't break free of the influence of the 1966 Batman television series, most notably with regard to campy humor and continual winks to the adult audience over the heads of the kiddies. No one had any confidence that a different tone and approach would sell.

There is odd humor in Burton's films, but it comes out of his own off-kilter vision of things rather than being directly borrowed from the TV series.

 

[Skipper]

I suppose you could stretch the definition by counting action movies with female leads having special abilities, like Underworld, but I haven't seen any of those and I doubt they'd be on many "best" lists. Or maybe wuxia films? There might be a couple of Michelle Yeoh movies you could count.

Well, in this case the best movie would be probably Mad Max, but I was referring to movies from comics books

 

[Grendelsbayne]

But, one could point out that films about Marvel characters have been around longer than 10 years. In fact, Howard the Duck, a Marvel character had a film in 1986 and Blade came out around 1990. So arguing that DC had forty years while Marvel only had 10 years is somewhat disingenuous.

Except that Marvel's characters were at the mercy of other movie studios choosing to do them. The relevant fact is not that DC has had 40 years - both Marvel and DC have had longer than that, theoretically. The relevant fact is that WB has had 40 years and Marvel Studios has had less than 10.

But it is also true that WB 40 years ago is hardly the same as WB today. One could argue that we should just compare the MCU to the DCEU, but that of course ignores some very recent and arguably relevant data points about the modern WB for no other reason than because Marvel started later. A fairer comparison would perhaps be Marvel Studios vs. WB since ~2000 when the superhero craze started. By that standard, you could argue a female character was their very first movie, except that they completely threw out the character and just stole the name for a totally unrelated movie. After that it still took them 10+ movies and almost fifteen years to get Wonder Woman made. Marvel, for comparison, will have made Captain Marvel (a far less well known character) at a little more than twice as many movies but still a few years less. Which basically boils down to both studios have a poor record and need to step it up. Which they both seem to be trying to do, theoretically, and DC is probably in a stronger position to do thanks to characters like Batgirl, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Supergirl, etc; but I'll hand out accolades when they (either studio) start making good female led movies on a regular basis.

 

[Skipper]

Ehi, do you remember this?

Leaked Sony Email Confirms Marvel’s Just as Clueless About “Female Movies” as You Thought

Email being email, let’s put aside the surface issue that the CEO of Marvel doesn’t know how to spell Elektra’s name and deal with the matter at hand: his “argument” that these three “female movies” provide part-and-parcel proof that (presumably) female-driven superhero films don’t work. The newest of the titles he mentions is Elektra — which came out in 2005. Catwoman came out the year before, in 2004. And Supergirl came out in 1984, for Christ’s sake. Pro tip: When you’ve gotta go back more than three decades to dig up proof for your argument, it’s time to abandon your argument.

 

[Christopher]

There's nothing wrong with it, but I do think the 'kiddy' mindset probably prevented studios from taking a chance and putting some real effort into unproven characters, especially if they would be at all expensive to film. There is a reason the superhero boom happened around the same time that studios and audiences started taking superheroes a little more seriously.

And see, that's just the attitude that shocks and disturbs me -- that if something is for children, there doesn't need to be any effort or care put into its quality. I mean, think about that. It's depraved! What kind of sick, twisted society doesn't care about the quality of the things we do for our children??? Surely our children deserve nothing less than the absolute best effort and quality we're capable of giving them. The idea that adults should hog all the good stuff to themselves and just toss inferior scraps to their kids is horrifying. How can any adult with a shred of decency or responsibility imagine that's okay?

And, heck, some of the best SF/fantasy/superhero fiction out there in the past few decades has been made for children, but made with the quality and intelligence that children's programming rightly deserves -- things like Batman: The Animated Series, Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Legend of Korra, How to Train Your Dragon, books like the Harry Potter series, and comics like Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl. There's a lot of children's fiction out there that's immensely smarter, more sophisticated, and better-made than a large percentage of adult fiction. (And, yes, a lot of those were made to appeal to adults too, but that's just the point. Well-made, smart children's fiction can be eminently enjoyable for adults, because good stories are good stories.)

A fairer comparison would perhaps be Marvel Studios vs. WB since ~2000 when the superhero craze started. By that standard, you could argue a female character was their very first movie, except that they completely threw out the character and just stole the name for a totally unrelated movie.

If you mean the Halle Berry Catwoman, that wasn't entirely unrelated. It's subtle, but that film is an indirect sequel to Batman Returns. It gives Berry's Patience Phillips the same basic origin as Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle (meek woman who's killed, surrounded by cats, and resurrected with a more feral personality and feline abilities), and establishes that this is a supernatural legacy that's been endowed upon many women over the ages. So it's retroactively, implicitly establishing that Selina was just one of many inheritors of the "Catwoman" legacy and Patience is her successor.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

And see, that's just the attitude that shocks and disturbs me -- that if something is for children, there doesn't need to be any effort or care put into its quality. I mean, think about that. It's depraved! What kind of sick, twisted society doesn't care about the quality of the things we do for our children??? Surely our children deserve nothing less than the absolute best effort and quality we're capable of giving them. The idea that adults should hog all the good stuff to themselves and just toss inferior scraps to their kids is horrifying. How can any adult with a shred of decency or responsibility imagine that's okay?

And, heck, some of the best SF/fantasy/superhero fiction out there in the past few decades has been made for children, but made with the quality and intelligence that children's programming rightly deserves -- things like Batman: The Animated Series, Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Legend of Korra, How to Train Your Dragon, books like the Harry Potter series, and comics like Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl. There's a lot of children's fiction out there that's immensely smarter, more sophisticated, and better-made than a large percentage of adult fiction. (And, yes, a lot of those were made to appeal to adults too, but that's just the point. Well-made, smart children's fiction can be eminently enjoyable for adults, because good stories are good stories.)

Again, I'm not advocating the idea, just talking about my impression of what the movie studios at the time seemed to be thinking.

If you mean the Halle Berry Catwoman, that wasn't entirely unrelated. It's subtle, but that film is an indirect sequel to Batman Returns. It gives Berry's Patience Phillips the same basic origin as Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle (meek woman who's killed, surrounded by cats, and resurrected with a more feral personality and feline abilities), and establishes that this is a supernatural legacy that's been endowed upon many women over the ages. So it's retroactively, implicitly establishing that Selina was just one of many inheritors of the "Catwoman" legacy and Patience is her successor.

Fair enough.