He absolutely did. No one beats Superman in a fair fight, except when writers don't get the character, like in Dark Knight Returns, which had the even more ridiculous outcome of Superman losing to Batman. THis is especially true someone less experienced and not as strong. Superman can stand toe to toe with Darkseid, and beat beings far more powerful than Supergirl.
Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
He absolutely did. No one beats Superman in a fair fight, except when writers don't get the character, like in Dark Knight Returns, which had the even more ridiculous outcome of Superman losing to Batman. THis is especially true someone less experienced and not as strong. Superman can stand toe to toe with Darkseid, and beat beings far more powerful than Supergirl.
Supergirl, arguably, has always been a bit stronger than Superman. (She doesn't hold herself back as much, Superman "pulls his punches" a bit due to his human upbringing. Kara doesn't have that upbringing as programmed into her since she came to Earth as a child.)
Not stronger, but yes, you're right about the pulling punches thing. That was even brought up in a comic where Clark had to at one point put his foot down and pull his punches a little less against her.
This is also a point that could have easily been brought up in the episode, but the writers chose instead a worse direction.
To get back on topic, compare this to the treatment of Wonder Woman, who didn't need to show strength by making another heroic character look weak. They didn't even do that with Steve Trevor who is no Superman.
Steve Trevor was every bit the hero and badass that Wonder Woman was--just without the god like powers. When she saved his life, he didn't look weak. He was in a bad position, and as good people do, Wonder Woman helped. The writers created situations that didn't require Wonder Woman to show her superiority over Trevor, even though she was the star and the main hero of the story.
Having Supergirl fight Superman was just a bad idea. It wasn't necessary to have Kara involved in the big showdown with Rhea, just like having a woman president in the episode before didn't require a man-hating speech by Cat Grant to show that a woman can be a good leader.
If anything, they weakened Linda Carter's character because she was about to go all badass on Rhea.
Supergirl's story was told by writers that had a chip on their shoulder. Wonder Woman's story was told by writers that did not. The difference was tremendous. And I say this with 100 percent faith in the Supergirl writers that they are much better than that.
Unlike you and everybody else here, I loved MOS, BvS, and Suicide Squad, and think that both are slightly better than the MCU movies for reasons already mentioned. I especially had no problem with Suicide Squad, since I understood that it's The Dirty Dozen with super-crooks; I don't know why the haters of that film (and critics) couldn't/wouldn't get it-there didn't need to be any more depth than there had to be.
Honestly, people need to understand/get this; THE DONNERVERSE IS DEAD. Zach Snyder doing the same thing for Man Of Steel and continuing that with Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League just to give Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers the same warm fuzzies they had seeing Superman The Movie won't work any more; Superman Returns's reception by most of the fanbase proves that-and I knew that after Superman Returns 'failed' at the box office [it didn't, but more on that later*] that there would be a version of Superman that would kick more booty and use a portion of Smallville and Metropolis as a wrestling mat. These characters have to fit the times that they are in, simple as that.
*In my next post, I will post an article about why using the Wonder Woman movie to beat up Man Of Steel and Batman Vs. Superman is wrong, if I haven't done so already.
Last edited:
I love MoS, BvS, and SS as well, so don't lump me in with the haters.
The Donnerverse isn't necessary to show why Superman was such a great character. Lois & Clark did not show the Donnerverse but Superman was awesome there. The 1996 cartoon was not the Donnerverse, but Superman was arguably at his best there. Despite the second appearance on Supergirl, in his first appearance, Superman was very much in character.
Wanting to move forward from the Donnerverse is fine, but that doesn't mean completely butchering Superman, which Snyder did. He's not Batman.
The closest character Marvel has to Superman is Captain America, and they didn't bastardize the character to make him relevant in the 21st century.
Back on topic, I believe Wonder Woman was a success because unlike what Snyder did to Superman, in this movie, they stuck to the core of what made the character so iconic.
Tweaks happen as time goes by, but you lose that essence of the character, you lose the character. That's the biggest difference between Superman and Wonder Woman in these movies.
He's dead. She had withdrawn for 100 years as she stated in BvS.
Its all good.
Wonder Woman is my current favorite of the four films released thus far (being ranked 4 stars), but the others are only between half a star and one full star behind in the rankings, respectively (MoS is a 3-star film and BvS and SS are both 3 1/2 star films).
Hippolyta and Antiope will be in Justice League. I really liked them both in WW, so I'm glad we'll be seeing them again so soon.
Didn't Antiope die in WW?
Here's a problem with that. Based on the WW movie, Amazons are just highly trained humans that had some ability to maintain their youth indefinitely, thanks to Zeus. But they seemed as fragile as any human.
The German soldiers, were killing them left and right. They also made Wonder Woman herself bleed.
How could a bunch of people with bows and arrows, even mighty ones, stand up to parademons?
They would have to be enhanced in some fashion--with some level of invulnerability--and that's the way it SHOULD be.
The German soldiers, were killing them left and right. They also made Wonder Woman herself bleed.
How could a bunch of people with bows and arrows, even mighty ones, stand up to parademons?
They would have to be enhanced in some fashion--with some level of invulnerability--and that's the way it SHOULD be.
Tthe amazons versus the parademons would definitely make for an interesting scene, although I hope we don't see Darkseid interacting with them (I'm hoping he stays in the shadows a lot in JL, and they don't have him be as hands on as the New 52 JL comic did since he shouldn't be getting his hands dirty until he has no other choice).
If the Amazons are what they should be in the comics, Amazons v. Parademons would be awesome.
But the Amazons in the movie weren't nearly as tough if they got mowed down by WWI soldiers.
But the Amazons in the movie weren't nearly as tough if they got mowed down by WWI soldiers.
The Amazons went into battle against soldiers with guns (and they almost certainly had no concept of what a gun even is) with horses, bows and armor that was probably not the slightest bit bullet proof. The did fairly well for themselves, but of course there were going to be a lot of casualties in that situation, especially since they had absolutely no time to prepare for the attack. They definitely didn't seem weak to me, it was just a bad situation for them.
There's a difference between fighting Parademons and going up against soldiers armed with guns. Just because the Amazons had no defense against the latter doesn't mean they'd be outmatched by the former.
I think the Amazons will be able to handle themselves pretty well against the Parademons. They're probably more the kind of enemy they're used to dealing with.
So far everything has been talking about Steppenwolf being the villain, so it sounds like if he is in the movie, Darkseid will be in the background. I wouldn't be surprised if we get at least one or two scenes of Steppenwolf getting orders from Darkseid, whose back on Apocalips, but that will probably be it.
I actually think the real Superman characterization is still there, but because Snyder surrounds him from all sides in nihilistic violence that it drags him down. That was the whole thing behind the neck-snap. Snyder's world view advances the idea that it's impossible to be a boyscout hero because the world is simply too nasty and brutish. It's a joyless and sadistic passion-of-the-Christ sort of thing. Sort of an indictment against humanity rather than a fairy-tale affirmation of the power of love like the end of Superman 1 when he turned the world back.
These kinds of movies ultimately have a point to make. The character exists as a statement meant to make a larger statement. That statement is made at the film's climax. People are nostalgic for the Donnerverse because the message is uplifting and they don't like Snyder because it's depressing. They're giving Wonder Woman (IMHO) inflated reviews in the same way Obama had a honeymoon effect after GW Bush. We're tired of the depressing grimdark stuff. There's enough of that on the evening news.
Last edited:
This is exactly what I meant. What I saw of WW in BvS certainly didn't make me me want to see a WW movie. Her appearance, like the rest of BvS, left me completely nonplussed. What got me excited about seeing WW were the trailers. I REALLY disliked Snyder's MoS -- I don't think he gets Superman at all, so the thought of another pass by him at the same characters just doesn't excite me. This is especially true after seeing Patty Jenkins' brilliant WW. Fortunately, we once again get Gal Godot, but we won't get Patty Jenkins' direction.
I would hope that Snyder has been influenced by Jenkins but there is no guarantee of that, thus my lack of enthusiasm about JLA.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
