Most superhero origin stories only have the one, though. X-Men and Guardians are the rarer examples, I think.
Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Most superhero origin stories only have the one, though. X-Men and Guardians are the rarer examples, I think.
So far it's doing amazing, it only dropped 29% this weekend and made over $41 million in its third weekend in the US. For comparison sake, that's more than all Iron Men, both Guardians, Civil War and Age of Ultron made in their third weekends. In fact the only comic book movies that made more are Spider-Man, The Dark Knight and The Avengers.
This link discusses WW's week 1 to week 2 drop and has an amazing chart comparing said drop vs other "superhero" movies.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekend
What's wrong with being predictable? She sets of to confront Ares, so naturally that's how it's gonna end, it'd be kinda weird if the big finale was that she has a dance-off with Doctor Poison.
As for "dramatically hollow", I disagree, the entire movie is about Diana getting to know mankind's good and bad sides, and in the final confrontation she has to choose where she stands, and what she stands for in this world. The movie builds up to it both narratively and thematically.
"Being predictable" makes me think of Leonard Nimoy. He was being introduced to a college crowd where he was to speak about directing his newest feature, "In Search of Spock". After looking at the trailer that announced the movie, he turned to the crowd and claimed, "Sorry. We never found him!"
And now... teasing for a sequel.
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/j...onder-woman-sequel-justice-league-1202471557/
I re-watched Batman Vs Superman last night, loved all the Wonder Woman foreshadowing. Especially the painting in Lex's mansion!
Not too crazy about the jaded, sexualized Diana of BvS, but I guess it's inevitable after a century around our world
Not too crazy about the jaded, sexualized Diana of BvS, but I guess it's inevitable after a century around our world
There's common ground between the characters for sure (I've already said as much more than once) but I think it's very disingenuous to assert that the one was patterned off the other.
What I saw was a faithfulness to the source material, both from creator William Moulton Marston and George Pérez's now legendary run in the late 80's, with a bit here and there from the various more modern versions (there's been several in this decade alone, so I loose track.)
That both Diana and Steve Rogers got their start punching Nazis is more a product of the time in which they debuted than any kind of direct influence (they both first appeared in 1941, only 9 months apart.)
'Captain America: The First Avenger' may have given DC & WB confidence that a superhero in a period war movie could work, but the very fact that they deliberately chose WWI instead says to me they didn't want to retread what's already been done in that regard.
Great, except Diana is *literally* a god. No "kind of" about it and it doesn't stop her being in the trenches with the normal people (again...literally!)
The difference here is that Snyder's version of Superman seems to define himself by his power, which is not something that's really meant to be key to his character. But Snyder's apparently an Ayn Rand fan and so here we are.
You seem to mistake "realistic behaviour" with "cynical behaviour". The latter is more common in the real world, to be sure, but these characters aren't meant to be reflections of what we are, but ideals to aspire to.
The setting is bleak, but the tone certainly isn't. Diana is a beacon of hope and compassion amongst the death and despair. That's kind of the whole point of the character.
That's more an issue of editing and framing than the number of players.
The Taken movies have only one "superhero" and yet one often has no idea who's doing what and where. Why? Because bad framing, skakey-cam and undisciplined editing.
Compare that to 'Mad Max: Fury Road' that has multiple characters and parties simultaneously engaged in elaborate action set-pieces and yet you always know what's going on at any given moment. Why? Because George Miller knows how to frame action and hired an editor that can construct an action scene.
Bringing it back to Wonder Woman, she was by no means the only meaningful player in those action sequences. Jenkins was always careful to makes sure we knew what Steve was doing, where Hippolyta and Antiope were on the beach battle and where Sameer Charlie and The Chief are at all times in relation to the action.
Pretty good film, a step or two above MoS and BvS (which I didn't hate, but didn't feel particularly inspired by either). Hopefully its success will pave the way for more female -led superhero films.
Diana's charge on the front lines was spectacular. Explosions and people being thrown around, but also some genuine emotional content. That's the scene that'll stay with me, the one where I found myself cheering her on. I kinda like how for all her bravery and power she's not shown as totally indestructable there - her advance is halted by the machineguns, but the example she sets inspires Chris Pine and the rest to join her attack.
Also liked: the misdirection with fake-Ares. I was disappointed for a moment after the brief battle with Evil German General, then you realise oh shit, no, *here's* ares. Although it's kind of funny when his helmet gets knocked off his powered-up form and... it's still David Thewlis under there. Who looks more like an accountant than the god of war.
Diana's charge on the front lines was spectacular. Explosions and people being thrown around, but also some genuine emotional content. That's the scene that'll stay with me, the one where I found myself cheering her on. I kinda like how for all her bravery and power she's not shown as totally indestructable there - her advance is halted by the machineguns, but the example she sets inspires Chris Pine and the rest to join her attack.
Also liked: the misdirection with fake-Ares. I was disappointed for a moment after the brief battle with Evil German General, then you realise oh shit, no, *here's* ares. Although it's kind of funny when his helmet gets knocked off his powered-up form and... it's still David Thewlis under there. Who looks more like an accountant than the god of war.
Last edited:
Interesting to think that Miller (and Megan Gale, as I posted earlier) were lined up to do WW a few years back. Wish they had but much prefer what I'm seeing here.
I think there's a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition about that
Diana doesn't even embrace this mentality until after the events of "Batman v. Superman", Bruce Wayne's words about humanity, and after receiving that photo from him. The events of this movie led her into a state of grief over Steve's death and nearly a century of holding herself aloof from humanity.
Its a fact, and I'm far from the only one to point out how much of WW borrowed from Captain America: The First Avenger, or how the character's beliefs and motives are nearly the same--
CA: A young, inexperienced person seeks to enter a war as a way of stopping it, with others doubting his potential to be effective. Steve Rogers is presented as a young man with--almost--a physical revulsion of man's abuse of other men.
WW: A young, inexperienced person seeks to enter a war as a way of stopping it with others doubting her potential to be effective. Diana is presented as a young woman with--almost--a physical revulsion of man's abuse of other men.
CA: Dr.Erskine--who saw Steve's true, inner good, and believed that he had the right potential to become the Super Soldier (and all that the position means for the world)--is killed by a Hydra agent. His death (and faith in Steve) adds to Steve's already morally solid resolve to do whatever he can to work toward ending the global conflict.
WW: Antiope--who saw Diana's true potential is killed by a German soldier. Her death (and faith in Diana) adds to Diana's already morally solid resolve to do whatever she can to work toward ending the global conflict.
Those are the essential, borrowed character traits--that which shapes them in the film, and now that we have seen Diana in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, where she's even more world weary / no-nonsense, if not a bit jaded, that parallels Steve Rogers throughout Captain America: The Winter Soldier, where his initial world view was altered (by force of circumstance / experience). There's no shame in recognizing the seemingly deliberate borrowing from The First Avenger for Wonder Woman.
But she's not seen as a god or near god by the humans around her, and (so far) she's not displayed powers that are beyond the comprehension of man, or classified as otherworldy. That's the key difference of perception between the two
He's not defining himself by the power by power alone, but how it makes him different than his adopted family/species and the human values he sees as his own. He cannot possibly ignore that anymore than one can ignore any ability (natural or acquired) that separates them from others.
Superhero fiction is not cookie-cutter; there was never a blanket creative directive saying every character presented an image of where the audience would like to be--evident in characters as diverse as the Hulk, the Spectre, Batman, the Punisher, et al. There's noting cynical about that, if one does not expect all comic-based characters to be grinning their way though life and its problems.
Her "hope" status was steadily shattered by the war, Ares and in the most potent moment, Trevor waking her up to the fact that the idea of evil where men are concerned are in no way conveniently placed on sides and categories like toy soldiers. That the lesson comes toward the end of the film sets Diana up to understand that nothing is black and white where evil is concerned. Although she maintains a moral center, the "we can all walk together in peace" kind of attitude she had early in the film is not to be found in the finale, and its certainly not seen in her future in Dawn of Justice.
Just seen it. First impressions ?
It's a better film than BvS with far fewer of its glaring flaws and potholes. Well written, with some genuine emotion as well as plenty of action with a good cast, a great lead and a performance from Pine that I very much preferred to his Trek movies. Godot is fantastic. Not only gorgeous and great at the action sequences, but a very good actress to boot.
Having said that, it is something of surprise to me that I didn't enjoy it as much as BvS which somehow worked for me despite it's problems.
B+
It's a better film than BvS with far fewer of its glaring flaws and potholes. Well written, with some genuine emotion as well as plenty of action with a good cast, a great lead and a performance from Pine that I very much preferred to his Trek movies. Godot is fantastic. Not only gorgeous and great at the action sequences, but a very good actress to boot.
Having said that, it is something of surprise to me that I didn't enjoy it as much as BvS which somehow worked for me despite it's problems.
B+
^^^
Wow - You really mis-read his character motivations. Steve WANTS to be 'strong' like his close friend Bucky Barnes is. He WANTS to be able to stand up to bullies and help people and be able to fight his own battle; but because of his current physical condition he CAN'T. Hell, he tries and tries to get into the Army to 'do his part' like the majority of young men in his generation after Pearl Harbor. He accepts Dr. Erskine's VERY RISKY offer because it may allow him to finally 'measure up' to Bucky Barnes.
Diana's motivations are different in that SHE HAS the physical prowess and strength already and has since the day she was 'born' - and knows it. Diana also has the support of another Amazon who KNOWS the prophecy, and EXACTLY what/who Diana is, and what Zues meant her to do/become and is working towards that end . What's holding Diana back is her MOTHER's desire to keep her safe. Her mother thinks Ares will probably kill Diana if she ultimately confronts him and Diana is essentially rebelling against her mother.
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I'm unsure what you're doing here. I gave you the reasons for why the movie worked for me personally. And you're trying to debate that by giving me your own personal and subjective feelings? 
I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out.
It's obvious that this was more Jenkins' movie than it was Snyder's so I gave her credit for that. Are you Snyder's personal assistant who needs to point out whenever he was involved in something.
We already know he was involved. Is this a male thing now? Do we have to make sure to praise the MAN who was involved instead of the woman who clearly had more input in making this movie?
That kind of fascist Übermensch (yes, Superman) can of course be one way to portray the character. I have no fucking clue about the comics because I don't care about them at all. The movie and TV versions of Superman that I've been exposed to where nice and funny, though. Reeve and Cain were a little clumsy, kind and of course sort of inspiring.
How is this relevant to what a horrible mess the MoS and BvS movies are? The terrible pacing, the meandering, messy plot, the unpleasant shit.
The colour palette of WW was different from BvS and MoS. Both of Snyder's movies were very desaturated and tended towards the blue end which caused skin tones to look incredibly unhealthy. Just look at Amy Adams’ skin in both movies, it’s scary. This whole desaturation thing and extremely unnatural color grading is Zack Snyder’s thing and I don’t enjoy it. That is what makes them look so dire and artificial.
Wonder Woman looked different which isn’t to say that there was no colour grading obviously. It's also a little too blue in many scenes but it doesn't do it all the time. Often the choices were different. The movie also doesn't completely get rid of the reds/orange in skin tones so people look healthier. The London images had rich browns and even on the WW1 battlefield the colours weren’t as muted as they were in BvS. And funny enough it was WW who brought colour to places at times, as she was bringing hope.
And again: I can do without having the iconic fight between Batman and Superman take place in a broken down and filthy bathroom. The whole movie felt dirty and was unpleasant to watch.
Look, I don't know why you feel the need to try and convince me that MoS and BvS were masterpieces. I already think they're shitty pieces of filmmaking, like most stuff Snyder has ever done. They're overly bombastic with no hint of irony to break it, they're unpleasant to watch and the plots are a mess. He always does the same: he throws some big ideas at a wall, fails to really explore them but hopes that some will stick so that some people are led to believe his movies are totally deep when they're just trash.
But do you really want me to go on here?
I thought this was a Wonder Woman thread! And I loved that movie!
I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out.
It's obvious that this was more Jenkins' movie than it was Snyder's so I gave her credit for that. Are you Snyder's personal assistant who needs to point out whenever he was involved in something.
We already know he was involved. Is this a male thing now? Do we have to make sure to praise the MAN who was involved instead of the woman who clearly had more input in making this movie?
That kind of fascist Übermensch (yes, Superman) can of course be one way to portray the character. I have no fucking clue about the comics because I don't care about them at all. The movie and TV versions of Superman that I've been exposed to where nice and funny, though. Reeve and Cain were a little clumsy, kind and of course sort of inspiring.
How is this relevant to what a horrible mess the MoS and BvS movies are? The terrible pacing, the meandering, messy plot, the unpleasant shit.
I'll forgive you for not noticing the subtleties of colour but I'm into photography so I really care.
The colour palette of WW was different from BvS and MoS. Both of Snyder's movies were very desaturated and tended towards the blue end which caused skin tones to look incredibly unhealthy. Just look at Amy Adams’ skin in both movies, it’s scary. This whole desaturation thing and extremely unnatural color grading is Zack Snyder’s thing and I don’t enjoy it. That is what makes them look so dire and artificial.
Wonder Woman looked different which isn’t to say that there was no colour grading obviously. It's also a little too blue in many scenes but it doesn't do it all the time. Often the choices were different. The movie also doesn't completely get rid of the reds/orange in skin tones so people look healthier. The London images had rich browns and even on the WW1 battlefield the colours weren’t as muted as they were in BvS. And funny enough it was WW who brought colour to places at times, as she was bringing hope.
And again: I can do without having the iconic fight between Batman and Superman take place in a broken down and filthy bathroom. The whole movie felt dirty and was unpleasant to watch.
Look, I don't know why you feel the need to try and convince me that MoS and BvS were masterpieces. I already think they're shitty pieces of filmmaking, like most stuff Snyder has ever done. They're overly bombastic with no hint of irony to break it, they're unpleasant to watch and the plots are a mess. He always does the same: he throws some big ideas at a wall, fails to really explore them but hopes that some will stick so that some people are led to believe his movies are totally deep when they're just trash.
But do you really want me to go on here?
I thought this was a Wonder Woman thread! And I loved that movie!
Last edited:
Oh, as a little addendum: I guess I agree with the NY Times review that said the movie "briskly shakes off blockbuster branding imperatives and allows itself to be something relatively rare in the modern superhero cosmos. It feels less like yet another installment in an endless sequence of apocalyptic merchandising opportunities than like ... what's the word I'm looking for? A movie. A pretty good one, too."
And there's the difference.
And there's the difference.
I believe I saw you use these two adjectives before, somewhere in lo these many pages of WW discussion, and while I certainly see the "jaded" part (and regret it as well), I'm curious what you mean by "sexualized." Her costume is the same in both movies, so it can't be that. I suppose her delivery of a line like, "I don't think you've ever known a woman like me" could be read as sultry, but that's about all I can come up with. Indeed, in her solo movie (unlike BvS), there's not only dialog discussing sex, but Diana actually, y'know, has it.
(Not meaning to call you out here, BTW; I'm just genuinely curious what you're referring to.)
Your facts are not like our Earth facts.
But hey, if you absolutely *need* to credit a male (fictional or otherwise) for the success of a female (again, fictional or otherwise) to hold off the terrifying creeping abyss that is having your preconceptions challenged, who am I to stand in your way?
WTF???
Personally . . . "Wonder Woman" is not my favorite DCEU movie. It's just not. It's a bit more conformist in compare to the other films. It doesn't seemed to criticize society the way the other films do, especially "Batman v. Superman". Fortunately, it's not too conformist. After all, its portrayal of humanity is still ambiguous. Only the movie focused upon Diana coming to that realization, instead of exposing how ambiguous our society is. And despite the humor, it's a bit more gritty . . . at least to me . . . than many people have described it.
Last edited:
The way she talks to Bruce, the dresses she wears which were more revealing than in WW. It's not gratuitous by any means (it's appropriate for the posh parties she's attending and the way she's talked to), but she's aware of her sex appeal now and is using it.
I'm a woman and I'd wear those dresses. Nothing about being sexualized, it's just stylish.
I don't see sexual objectification there and I don't see her using it either.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
