It's not subtext to have Ares pop up and start doing the monologue in front of Diana while she offers noxious platitudes in return.
Nah, it won Oscars but it didn't need to sell out and be blatant Oscar bait.
Wonder Woman 2 Anticipation Thread
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
It's not subtext to have Ares pop up and start doing the monologue in front of Diana while she offers noxious platitudes in return.
Nah, it won Oscars but it didn't need to sell out and be blatant Oscar bait.
Of course you would miss the subtext, since all you are is reading it like you'd read a MCU film, all surface, no depth.
FYI, your idea of what constitutes "selling out" is hilarious. Are you actually claiming that the DC films which earn meaningful Oscars, BAFTAs etc. are "sellouts" compared to MCU films which are constructed to primarily earn money as much money as possible and sell the most toys possible for Disney? That is an interesting argument.
Standing around monologuing isn't any form of "subtext".
They don't feel the need to have folks stand around monologuing, if that's what you mean.
Yes, because they are just hijacking pre-existing names to tell stories about unrelated things because otherwise the filmmakers couldn't get their projects approved.
Bring the characters and stories to life on the screen without having to be creatively bankrupt in the process.
It sounds like all you saw when you watched Wonder Woman was a couple minutes of dialogue. FYI, there was actually a whole movie to watch. Maybe you might have done that.
Once can tell from these statements that you are entirely unawares that most of these "names" you claim have been "hijacked" have been reinterpreted and rewritten decade after decade in the comics they have been in to suit the changing interests of the writers and artists and audiences year after year and decade after decade.
And the idea you push that Marvel is somehow above "hijacking" their own character's in order to pigeon hole them into a set of stories many of which are often at best only tangentially related to the comics they come from is again laughable. It's like you've never read a single comic in your life and are spouting some kind of party line. Outside of a very few comics, all well known comic book characters are part of a collective and ongoing act of transformation over the generations since they were created and most are quite divorced from their original conception. And most of comic books viewed as the greatest of any comic book character's existence are the ones that break new ground and offer interpretations that move the characters out of the box. to whine that a brilliant and transformative interpretation of a character with literally dozens of interpretations across multiple decades is hijacking is laugh out loud silly, IMO
Gal Gadot Says Wonder Woman 1984 Is NOT Just 'For The Girls'
*
As much as I loved (and still love) Captain Marvel and Brie Larsen playing her, this statement by Gal was a very masterful one that won't have people be angry at a film (this one.)
*Apologies if this has already been posted.
*
As much as I loved (and still love) Captain Marvel and Brie Larsen playing her, this statement by Gal was a very masterful one that won't have people be angry at a film (this one.)
*Apologies if this has already been posted.
I'm glad to hear a lot of stunts are being done practically. One of the things I like about the DC movies is that with certain very obvious exceptions the action tends to look better because there are more real elements. If you watch the VFX breakdown for Aquaman you can see how they actually have real suits on the actors and drop them with wire rigs while digitally adding in some of the more chaotic things like the explosions. This all helps avoid the floating head look and cartoony stunts that uh... certain other franchises suffer from.
I did, and there's next to nothing in terms of subtext or nuance in there. It's a pretty straightforward flick that sadly tramples on its own message.
Not to "In Name Only" levels.
By that logic, they should turn Captain America into a heroin addicted Jazz Critic who doesn't do anything but critique music.
Funny how no one went after Gadot when she said "If you're not a feminist, then you're a sexist."
Combining ridiculous hyperbole and an unwillingness to look deeper than what you see on the surface and dismissal of any source material you don't like is not a good combination where it comes to credible criticism. You clearly don't know much about the history of Captain America in the comics. He's been through some pretty crazy sh*t, including being a werewolf for a while. But you sir, offer the ludicrous, and that completely destroys any argument you might have had.
Last edited:
Impossible, when it appears this person entered the theatre ready to hate a DC film, as if he must do that in order to bolster whatever status he believes the MCU had.
...and Marvel has done the same thing to the point where many of the characters bear no resemblance to the original creation and/or the original storylines. Ah, but we know someone will never admit that, or he attempt to spin an answer.
Well observed.
Agreed.
Not to the extent that Phoenix and Phillips did. No.
Marvel IS above that.
So yes, you would be happy if they made Captain America into a heroin addicted jazz critic.
The Joker has been repeatedly reinvented both in the comics and the movies over the past 80 years. Complaining that he's been reinvented yet again is a ridiculous complaint to make.
There are numerous examples of Marvel not being above that.
This obsession is kind of goofy, especially where it comes to Captain America. There have literally been dozens of different incarnations of Cap, not to mention Cap as a werewolf already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incarnations_of_Captain_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_Captain_America
I don't really think of "real" when I think of DC Movies. I mostly just think of Snyder's obsession with Green Screen (was any of Justice League actually filmed outside of a soundstage, except possibly the Bruce/Aquaman meeting scene?). Obviously the post-Snyder films have been better about this (not completely on the right track, Wonder Woman's 300 inspired action scenes were horrid, but to be fair WW's trench scene pretty much redeemed the action in that movie), but it will be awhile until Icould personally think of DC movies as being known for having practical effects. The MCU, in my opinion, does their action a lot better even with CG, and I tend to find their locations to be less fake.
Sometimes the "fakeness" doesn't matter (Aquaman looked great), but the locations in Justice League and during the end of BvS were painfully fake, and even though DC has moved past that, the "stink" isn't quite gone for me, if that makes sense.
Yeah, Justice League looked terrible. I'm thinking more about how DC movies usually have real suits for their heroes, unlike Marvel who will make real suits for them to wear on set, only to replace them with CG for no apparent reason. In my opinion, the DC suits look far better because of this. When DC does try to have CG characters like Cyborg and Steppenwolf, it looks pretty bad, so it's probably for the best that they stick to real suits.
Particularly on film and TV, so its no shock that the Romero Joker bore no resemblance or influence (in characterization) on the 1968 (or 1977) Filmation versions, or Filmation's to Nicholson, Hamill, et al. Somehow, a certain someone missed the past 80 years of published Joker stories and 53 years of the character adapted for film or TV.
Of course, but when someone wears those Disney-issued MCU Alternate Reality-Colored Glasses (designed to look like something MCU Stark would wear), they will never admit the movies often alter characters in ways that have little influence from the printed source.
It's valid when it's clear that the point wasn't to make a Joker movie at all but merely co-opt his name for a story that would've never been a success without it.
Name them. To the same extent as Joker.
All of which stayed true to the core of his character, as opposed to Joker.
How was the current Joker not true to the core of the character? I thought they pretty well nailed it.
It tried to have its cake and eat it too. It made Arthur out to be some anti-hero of the masses who only killed people who "deserved it" rather than show a real descent to madness wherein he killed innocent people, the way Joker actually would. And he tried to make excuses for himself about how he's the victim of society and all that. Self-pityingly noxious.
At least Falling Down showed the protagonist gradually getting worse to the point he laughed at a helpless old man dying from a heart attack and the whole "How did I become the bad guy?" ending. Joker didn't have that courage.
Similar threads
