No Jokes in DC Superhero Movies
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
Two characters who have roots in classical/ancient Greece.
Two Greek Warrior Princesses.
Two characters who wear classical Greeco/Roman armor (chest plate, shin guards, wrist guards, skirts).
Wonder Woman uses her tiara as a boomerang weapon. Xena used a chakram as a boomerang weapon.
And somehow Gal Gadot's WW is derivative/copying Xena? Outside of them drawing inspiration from Greeco/Roman look; can you really say these two costume look identical?
I think it's partly due to the fact that we have so long to wait for Batman V Superman. Gotta find something to talk about.
Well, Xena was heavily influenced by WW in the first place, so it's hardly surprising.
Looks like AllStarEntprise beat me to it.
That's going to be the least of the film's problems if they don't have good writing for the film.
As a kid, I always used to see the Battlestar Galactica commercials and think, "The Cylons remind me of stormtroopers and Starbuck looks like a Han Solo wannabe!" And I never saw the show as a kid, thinking it was a Star Wars ripoff.
I did finally check out the original show several years back and I liked it because I thought the *STORY* was good, (and I do still think Starbuck is a Han Solo clone).
So yeah, I definitely see WW's costume as being very reminiscent of Xena, but it won't matter much if the movie is good.
As a kid, I always used to see the Battlestar Galactica commercials and think, "The Cylons remind me of stormtroopers and Starbuck looks like a Han Solo wannabe!" And I never saw the show as a kid, thinking it was a Star Wars ripoff.
I did finally check out the original show several years back and I liked it because I thought the *STORY* was good, (and I do still think Starbuck is a Han Solo clone).
So yeah, I definitely see WW's costume as being very reminiscent of Xena, but it won't matter much if the movie is good.
Not to be pedantic, but you're getting it backwards. Wonder Woman's costume isn't reminiscent of Xena's. Xena's costume is reminiscent of Wonder Woman's.
You or may not be right.
My experience with Wonder Woman comes from the Lynda Carter show reruns as a kid, and her various cross over appearances in Superman and Batman comics (I was an avid reader of Superman and Batman for a time), and of course, her various drawings over the years on hundreds of comic book covers, WB merchandising, such a t-shirts, coffee cups, drinking glasses, posters, book, TPB's, etc.
So when I think of Wonder Woman, I think of what Lynda Carter wore and the different but similar variations of the costume that came in the decades after.
When I think of Xena (a show I never saw by the way), I think of what Gal Gadot has on in that poster.
So I don't agree with you, but again, that's the least of my concerns.
For years now, comic book movies have been tweaking costumes to fit "real life".
I don't know why they felt they needed to change it THAT much, but then I know DC seems to making things uber serious thanks to the Nolan Bat films even though the Nolan-verse is not part of these upcoming movies.
It's kind of like Star Trek V---the suits thought, "Hmmm, humor was a big reason Star Trek IV was a hit...let's put humor in Star Trek V and it will be a big hit too!!!"
So I hope the success of Nolan's films don't lull everyone at WB into a false sense of security.
Wonder Woman is basically a female version of Captain America. She's not so much Greek or an amazon as much as she's a patriotic american, which is why the costume has the red-white-and-blue. She was created to fight NAZIs, which is why the first incarnation of WW with Lynda Carter was set during WWII. In this climate you might say that the nationalistic theme is outdated, but it did work well enough in Captain America.
My point is I think filmmakers sometimes try to make comic book heroes realistic to the point where the cultural context which explains what, on the surface, seems like "lack of realism" is ignored.
For instance, beyond a point, Superman pushed towards realism simply becomes an alien. In order for a superhero to be a superhero he has to become larger than life, which is an aspect of fantasy. Fantasy by definition can't be totally believable, and is driven more by archetypes than anything else.
My point is I think filmmakers sometimes try to make comic book heroes realistic to the point where the cultural context which explains what, on the surface, seems like "lack of realism" is ignored.
For instance, beyond a point, Superman pushed towards realism simply becomes an alien. In order for a superhero to be a superhero he has to become larger than life, which is an aspect of fantasy. Fantasy by definition can't be totally believable, and is driven more by archetypes than anything else.
The turn for a classical Greeco/Roman armor look for WW is reflective of audience expectations. If they had Gal Gadot in the traditional swimsuit costume.
People would would complain about objectification of women, lack of protection in combat, practicallity for fighting crime etc.
Put WW in armor and you speak to both her heritage as a Greek Warrior but all pacify any complaints about her costume.
People would would complain about objectification of women, lack of protection in combat, practicallity for fighting crime etc.
Put WW in armor and you speak to both her heritage as a Greek Warrior but all pacify any complaints about her costume.
Yeah, those are all cool costumes.
Looking at all these images, I can come to one conclusion then:
It's not Gal Gadot's armor, it's the colors. Which is consistent with MOS's look of making things darker.
I think Gadot's costume is a little TOO dark.
As for WW's more classic looking costumes, I don't see they can be made to look like "objectification".
I know WW's early days had some S&M themes going, (if I recall the documentary I saw correctly).
But I think WW's costume is rather tame by today's standards.
Looking at all these images, I can come to one conclusion then:
It's not Gal Gadot's armor, it's the colors. Which is consistent with MOS's look of making things darker.
I think Gadot's costume is a little TOO dark.
As for WW's more classic looking costumes, I don't see they can be made to look like "objectification".
I know WW's early days had some S&M themes going, (if I recall the documentary I saw correctly).
But I think WW's costume is rather tame by today's standards.
No, they are not "side stories." You're getting it backward. Most of the films in the MCU are solo films. The Avengers movies are occasional, special events. Yes, they're all tied together and the Avengers films are the culmination of the threads laid in the previous movies, but the primary constituents of the MCU are the solo adventures of the characters. It's those solo films that get us to know about the characters and care about them well enough that their interaction in the Avengers movies is meaningful.
And really, the word "filler" makes no sense here. "Filler" implies a story that just takes up space and has no significant impact on the overall saga. There is no way that is true for the MCU solo films -- especially something like TWS, whose dismantling of SHIELD has as huge an impact on the MCU as anything that happened in The Avengers.
Remember, the model here is comic-book storytelling. That means multiple concurrent solo series that occasionally have big crossover events that bring them together and affect all of them. But each series is meant to be an independent entity; the crossovers are an additional entity that coexists with and supplements them as they supplement one another.
On the contrary, it's pretty clear to me that Tony's creation of Ultron is a direct outgrowth of the path he was on in IM3. All those independently piloted robot suits? Where do you think that technology leads? And Tony giving up the arc reactor at the end of IM3, basically giving up being a superhero, probably leads directly into his decision to create a legion of robotic peacekeepers to take the heroes' place.
A lot of people assumed that because the productions had John Dykstra's visual effects and Ralph McQuarrie's designs in common.
Rather, they're both manifestations of a bad-boy hero archetype that was already quite commonplace. There is not one single thing in Star Wars that is not itself a pastiche or homage of something from older movies.
Fair enough on both points. When I say side stories, I mean the lack of other Avengers on Earth showing up to aid their fellow Avengers. Tony pisses off a terrorist on National TV and his house is blown up but no one comes to help him
Malekith nearly frags the entire universe from London, but the other Avengers are not there to help.
Captain America and Black Widow lead an all out attack on Hydra/Shield but don't think to call their Superman tier tank Thor to come and assist them.
With the exception of Captain America TWS; Tony and Thor had the equivalent of a wild weekend by the conclusion of their films. Despite the level of threat they faced in their respective movies. Dark Elves bad enough to storm the citadel of Agard, and has an universe ending weapon. But are thwarted by two human scientists, 2 ditzy interns and their taped together tripods. Tony faced an international terrorist organization, which he could've beaten at the beginning of the film had he used the House Party Protocol. HISHE parodied these brilliantly.
Oh they're having Tony build Ultron? I thought Henry Pym was going to be the creator like in the comics. I figured that is why Marvel was very eager to get Ant Man out ASAP despite it's delays. Neat man. My outlook on Avengers 2 has brightened. Not that it was dimmed but by changing an established comic dynamic for this film. I love to see them shake things up like that.
That's true, but come on.
Let's not be naive here.
Starbuck was modeled after Harrison Ford's Han Solo to be a sort of Han Solo-lite. Right down the hanging pistol on the side of his leg, piloting skills and wise cracks.
By the way, I love Dykstra's effects.
Ralph McQuarrie is one of my Star Wars heroes. I wish my walls were filled with original McQuarrie's. So much of the sense of awe of SW, I trace back to McQuarrie's paintings.
I'd be very surprised if BvS or Justice League didn't have more humor in them than MOS had (while still being done in the same basic, grounded style).
WB isn't stupid; like any movie studio they undoubtedly pay close attention to the reviews and criticisms of any movie that slightly underperforms, and want to ensure the franchise they invested so much money in will continue to be profitable.
Just like we saw ASM2 try to amp up the action and number of villains from the first ASM, and go for a more comic booky tone. It still wasn't entirely successful, but there was still clearly an adjustment made there.
WB isn't stupid; like any movie studio they undoubtedly pay close attention to the reviews and criticisms of any movie that slightly underperforms, and want to ensure the franchise they invested so much money in will continue to be profitable.
Just like we saw ASM2 try to amp up the action and number of villains from the first ASM, and go for a more comic booky tone. It still wasn't entirely successful, but there was still clearly an adjustment made there.
Maybe, but it's equally naive to pretend that Han Solo was anywhere near the first fictional character to have those attributes. He was himself an homage to bad-boy adventure heroes in decades of earlier films. The only reason Star Wars characters are archetypal is because they copy archetypes that had already been around for ages.
And while it's probable that Solo was an influence on Starbuck, they're not exactly the same character. Starbuck was defined from the start as a womanizer and gambler as his primary traits. At the time, with only the first movie to go on, Han Solo wouldn't have been seen as a womanizer; he seemed more interested in the princess's wealth than her beauty and had a fairly antagonistic relationship with Leia. It wasn't until Empire, a couple of years after Galactica, that Solo's romantic side was explored. If anything, Starbuck probably owed a lot to Aramis of The Three Musketeers, or to numerous TV hero-rogues like Bret Maverick.
Two characters who have roots in classical/ancient Greece.
Two Greek Warrior Princesses.
Two characters who wear classical Greeco/Roman armor (chest plate, shin guards, wrist guards, skirts).
Wonder Woman uses her tiara as a boomerang weapon. Xena used a chakram as a boomerang weapon.
And somehow Gal Gadot's WW is derivative/copying Xena? Outside of them drawing inspiration from Greeco/Roman look; can you really say these two costume look identical?
Yes, and you just finished describing everything that makes them similar.
The real problem here is that they shouldn't be similar, regardless of their mutual inspiration. One is supposed to be a member of a colorful group of costumed heroes fighting the likes of Per Degaton and Krona in modern times. The other spent her later life in actual ancient Greece making up for the murderous, warlike ways that marked her early adulthood.
Now go back to those images and you tell me: Which character is dressed utterly wrong for her role?
I'm not getting my blood pressure up any more over this bullshit. When the movie comes out, feel free to cheer DC/Warner's brilliance. I'll continue to Make Mine Marvel.
yeap. Every rogue gunslinger that ends up having a heart isn't a Han Solo ripoff.
While the basic space opera style of BSG (and certain obvious things like the space battles) was clearly inspired/ripped off from SW, I never really got the sense that the characters were as well. Starbuck just seemed to me to be your standard hot shot pilot who was popular with the ladies.
Even if the execution wasn't nearly as good as it could be, I do at least give Glen Larson credit for making BSG very much it's own thing.
Even if the execution wasn't nearly as good as it could be, I do at least give Glen Larson credit for making BSG very much it's own thing.
