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

^ Well, you're wrong.

I go back and forth between Delaney's Lois and Hatcher's. Amy Adams did really good though, and could easily become #1 for me.

I could be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the blame for that can be laid at Kingdom Come's feet. Which is funny because Diana's bloodthirstiness there was presented as her great weakness and overcompensating for failure as a peaceful ambassador.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with it, but it is interesting how it's changed.

 

If you're talking about The Phantom Menace, then I agree.

 

I could easily see Momoa as Black Adam. He has the size and face to pull it off.

 

No the first Man of STeel film was crap. It has lines like "This ends one way, Kal. Either I die or you die," while completely missing the point of Superman's character while simultaneously having so little wit to keep it buoyant. And the plot makes no sense. Why would Zod want to have a coup to a government when the world is being destroyed, and why wouldn't he still the codex BEFORE overthrowing the council. And why would the council give a care to have a trial while the world is going to blow up.

This film is so bad, it's not even so bad it's good.

 

Hey, that's great. Why don't you and Kirk55555 go start a thread where you can take turns posting huge screeds about why you hate the movie. We're talking about Gal Gadot as WW in the sequel.

 

I'm just reminding everyone the kind of film we are talking about.

As for Godot, she will be fine as WW. I'm looking forward to a beautiful WW rather than a brutish-looking woman in the role. I actually like the drawings of WW where she looks rather frail but looks, in fact are deceiving.

 

People have different opinions about the kind of film we're talking about. You don't speak for everyone.

 

I don't dispute that. That's the nature of a message board. All opinions are given almost as declarations, with little need to clarify that they are opinions.

 

He looks like Vandal Savage to me.

 

Your phrasing suggested a degree of projection beyond simply stating your views.

 

I see what you mean. I apologize for seeming that way, but I did want to stress that this film was undeniably pulp, at best. Opinion? yes. An assertion? Yes. But I guess it came on too strong.

I think you would agree that this franchise is not being handled with the delicacy of story telling and attention to the minute details as, say, the Lord of the Rings was. Of course, that is my opinion as well.

I think what I am trying to say is that MoS can be enjoyed if taken into the light that it is B-movie comic book pulp material, even with it's serious overtones in the first hour. It's my opinion that it can't really be taken seriously as science fiction or a film wherein events can be taken seriously even on its own terms.

 

Very few SFF films match the The Lord of the Rings. Aside from a few quibbles, I enjoyed Man of Steel tremendously. Those who think less of it will naturally have more trepidation about the next movie than those who enjoyed it.

 

meaningless doubletalk.

 

Zod was clearly upset with how the Council had led Krypton astray, but I don't think he truly expected that the planet was about to freakin explode (as in the comics, the only one really arguing that was Jor-El). He probably thought there was still time to take over the government and put measures into place to save the planet.

And the Council was in complete denial about the whole thing, so of course they were going to go about their business like usual.

 

True, but I could argue the same thing about pretty much every superhero movie. Some might work better than others, but they're all pretty pulpy and ridiculous if you stop to think about them for half a second.

It's probably only The Dark Knight that comes close to feeling like a true film.

 

Pulp is at the heart of most commercial movies and TV shows, albeit pulp can be infused with artistry and emotional resonance to elevate it.

Some genres, and some particular franchises, have inherent logic problems - if one applies real world logic - that one has to be able to overlook or else that genre or franchise just can't be enjoyed. That's not to say that every plot hole should be ignored or excused, but it does require the capacity to let some things go and just suspend disbelief. Most superhero secret identities fall under that category, as does Star Trek's wildly inconsistent levels of technology.

 

If Momoa is playing Doomsday this could be how Wonder Woman (and the rumored Flash cameo) is worked into the film. She comes in to aid Superman in the fight.

 

That describes the Council in the Donner version. In this version, they knew, and simply chose not to act. There was no real reason given for this foolishness.

And that's the point. I like pulp and I like comic book-style films, but when smart characters act foolish simply for the sake of a plot point, and dialogue is way over the top simply to make a guy sound like a bad guy, then it starts to annoy me. MoS did this with the council, and then Zod, respectively. Combine that with some stupid teaching from Jonathan Kent, and "Superman"'s disregard for human life, makes this movie an ill-conceived story.

Make no mistake: I wanted it to work. I wanted to like this film. There are flashes of the film I wanted it to be. I like Lois in this version. I loved Faora. (in fact the only bit I didn't like with Faora was when she was injured and had to be carried like a baby back to her ship by a subordinate. That kind of weakened her character)

My favorite bit was when the military started calling him "Superman." I perked up, for sure.

But, it was not to be. This was not Superman. This was not a coherent story. Coupled with the fact that it overcompensated for what Singer's filmed lacked ("Waah, Supes didn't throw a single punch!") made me feel that this film was patched together.

That being said, I think the new girl will look great as WW. I do agree that, based on her photos, she is not physically ready (you guys can put the hate on Kirk5555 all you want, but he's right when he says that, right now, it looks like Lois Lane could beat the snot out of Wonder Woman) but I'm sure they will make her look the part. And Batman might be cool too. It just feels over-crammed, and they are beginning from a very shaky original film.

There, I've said my place.

If they planned it from the start, I think the woman who played Faora would have been a great Wonder Woman!

 

I've come to this late and I'm totally baffled at how many people are saying 'she's too thin.' Sure, she's thin now, but does anyone think she'll still be that skinny when filming starts?

I have two friends who run a gym and they frequently do body transformation courses for clients. Their clients aren't movie stars who can buy expensive foods and nutrients and train all day long, they're ordinary people who hold down jobs. And I see the before and after pics on my friends' gym's Facebook page and the changes are stunning. Weight loss, muscle gain, definition showing where previously there was fat etc. Usually over about 8 weeks or so.

Gadot will probably be put on an intensive training course with a well-paid personal trainer and given a highly-personalised diet for that time. You can expect a total change in her body mass and shape.

Off the top of my head DeNiro in Cape Fear, Reeve in Superman, Craig in Casino Royale, Jackman in X-Men (and even in the Wolverine solo movies, he's changed his body shape from the previous films), Bale in Batman Beings, Maguire in Spider-man - none of them looked like that before being cast. Ditto Linda Hamilton in T2 or Demi Moore in GI Jane.

It may be that Ms Gadot has the acting ability of a slug. But I think facially-wise she looks the role, she is tall for a woman and if an ex-IDF trainer, she doubtless has the fitness and stamina. So her physique is the least of my concerns about how she matches up here.

 

While I thought MOS was quite good, I think a lot of the inconsistencies you're describing are attributable to Nolan's involvement. They were trying to "Dark-Knight-ify" Superman, and Nolan's approach (which people bafflingly insist on calling "realistic") is fundamentally incompatible with colorful, optimistic heroes like Supes. I actually found the results much better than I expected (I have WAY more issues with Batman's behavior in the DK trilogy than I do with Superman's behavior in MOS), but the film does show some signs that Nolan and Snyder don't quite get what makes Superman unique and wonderful. Still, there was nothing glaring enough to dampen my enthusiasm for the next one.