Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion

[CorporalCaptain]

This was a good movie.

I think the biggest weakness was the last act, that part that began immediately after Ludendorff's death when Sir Patrick appeared. Although the reveal that Ares was Sir Patrick came as no surprise to me, just as it was no surprise that Diana herself was the Godkiller, it strikes me that the story would have benefited by making Diana work harder to uncover both "reveals." As it was, Ares just handed them to Diana with simple, boring exposition. It felt really accelerated, almost like another hour of story, if not a second movie altogether, was being skipped over.

A longer film would have also given the Howling C --- I mean, Steve's buddies --- more to do.

Diana's push across no man's land was handled much better than I was afraid it would be. The part when Diana was pinned down as the focus of fire was almost on the level of Saving Private Ryan in terms of immersive intensity, which is high praise, I think. The gassing of the town was also effective.

Other pluses include the handling of sexuality and of humor. I loved the way we could laugh at Diana's naivete and at her conviction that she had been made of clay. Gadot was outstanding. So was Pine.

I also loved the Renaissance artwork style of the myths. That was truly outstanding.

A.

 

[Hugo Rune]

While it was exciting, I'm not sure it rates up there as your "finest and most inspired superhero action sequences ever put to film." That's a tall mountain to climb, if one considers al of the great comic book-to-film action set pieces.

Yeah, well, I said "one of the finest...", so thanks for changing the context to fit your view. And I'll stand by it. In modern times only Nightcrawler Bamfing around the Whitehouse (for the pure joy it gave), Quicksilver's kitchen re-arrangement, Spiderman playing on a train with Doc Ock and Superman landing a plane on a baseball field hit the same mark as Jenkins does here. In fact the reason it's so good is because in just one 5 minute sequence it encapsulates everything about the character and couples it with well staged action and cinematography. Just like with Spidey on the train and Supes saving a plane, it's not just an action sequence, but a character defining moment too (though I'll admit the remainder of Singer's lovenote does little for me).

In fact, given that, I think it stands perfectly well against the in the hall of iconic moments of, right next to Supes time-spinning back to save Lois. Because it's not just special effects (though they're great), it's not just action photography (though its rather beautiful), it's not just punctuated by a fist-pumping final moment (though it made me grin like a little idiot), but it crystallised the character for me and did so in a thrilling and emotional fashion.

Of course, everyone's mileage varies.

Trevor's yelling at WW about men on both sides being capable of evil served that purpose; early in the film, she tried to prove (in a personal way) her mother and aunt incorrect, but every step of her journey was brickwalled by cold, hard violence and darkness, so she had to adapt to this kind of world, setting up her no-nonsense, take no prisoners attitude seen in Dawn of Justice.

I think we've had this conversation before about the setting and, yes, the film did better on these fronts than what I was expecting, in the end much of it felt like lip-service. But, perhaps I shouldn't expect too much social commentary from a 140 minute action-adventure film

Not undermined--growing. She's no longer the curious optimist from her island days; she knows the nature of man, and will meet it head on with little to no mercy.

A mis-representation or mis-interpretation of my meaning. What I am concerned about is that Jenkins and her team went to real efforts to make Diana a proper, fleshed out character. If they hadn't, my over-lauded enjoyment of the Trench sequence wouldn't have had the same impact. I have not been fond of the routes that Snyder has taken his characters in his previous two films, so my concern was a WW backslide a la Supes/Kent in BvS, which was a wholly regressive step for him to take with the character IMO. I've not a lot of trust for Snyder's interpretation of this universe, so I am crossing my fingers that the good work done here isn't frittered away

Oh, there's numerous Cap "inspired by" scenes or character motivations in this film.

Oh, absolutely. Multitudes and was one of my concerns once I started reading about the film and its production. I bring up Trevor's "demise by plane" as it appears to be (not just here , but out on the interwebs as a whole) the most contentious of them. I think it fits perfectly within this film, I know others disagree. That's cool, I just got more MPG from it.

Hugo - yup, still a 6

 

[ancient]

Pretty good A-

Some minor problems with pacing/exposition dumps.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yeah, well, I said "one of the finest...", so thanks for changing the context to fit your view.

Oh, no one tried that!

In fact the reason it's so good is because in just one 5 minute sequence it encapsulates everything about the character and couples it with well staged action and cinematography. Just like with Spidey on the train and Supes saving a plane, it's not just an action sequence, but a character defining moment too (though I'll admit the remainder of Singer's lovenote does little for me).

Would you add the SHIELD elevator / plane escape scene or final Cap vs. Bucky fight from Captain America: The Winter Soldier did that on the level of character defining, well staged action, etc., that you're talking about? Each were powerful examples of what Cap stood for (largely with real physical action between actors instead of CG enemies), both selling Cap's genuine ideological views and superheroic action right out of the comics.

A mis-representation or mis-interpretation of my meaning. What I am concerned about is that Jenkins and her team went to real efforts to make Diana a proper, fleshed out character. If they hadn't, my over-lauded enjoyment of the Trench sequence wouldn't have had the same impact. I have not been fond of the routes that Snyder has taken his characters in his previous two films, so my concern was a WW backslide a la Supes/Kent in BvS, which was a wholly regressive step for him to take with the character IMO.

If by regressive, you refer to Snyder making Superman/Kent darker than normal, the Dawn of Justice story (personally conflicted over duty when so many end up dying because of his heroics) made perfect sense, and its something only a few writers from the comics source have ever (but should have) addressed. Superman can be hopeful (one day), but he should wrestle with the consequences of his larger than life actions.,

 

[Apparition B5]

I saw Wonder Woman two nights ago. It was a brilliant movie. They essentially wrapped Christology up in Greek mythology and super-heroics. There were definite hints in the first half, but the second half made it pretty explicitly clear that Diana = Jesus, and Ares = Satan.

 

[dahj]

Supes/Kent in BvS, which was a wholly regressive step for him to take with the character IMO.

Man of Steel was about all that went into Clark becoming Superman(Departure: Call to Adventure, Crossing the Threshold), BvS was about all that being questioned(Initiation: Trials, Setbacks), and how his commitment was reaffirmed, and Justice League will be about how that inspired others(Return).

That's pretty much the blueprint of the classic Hero's Journey right there, just split into 3 parts, it's no more "regressive" than any hero's journey, including Wonder Woman's(except that one only took one movie)

 

[DigificWriter]

People who try to claim that Man of Steel and Batman v Superman somehow get Superman "wrong" really weren't paying attention.

The only significant difference between MoS and WW is the POV from which we experience the story and the breadth of events that said story encompasses. Archetypally and thematically, they're more or less identical.

 

[Gepard]

The only significant difference between MoS and WW is the POV from which we experience the story and the breadth of events that said story encompasses. Archetypally and thematically, they're more or less identical.

PoV (as well as structure and tone, which also differ greatly between the two) makes a huge difference. It's not some trivial detail, it's the essence of storytelling -- events placed in sequence through a character or characters' experience.

MoS and WW could not be more different.

 

[Thestral]

It was quite different. You can keep blandly repeating it wasn't, but you're not the authority.

- I'm pretty sure "Ottoman" isn't a language. Shouldn't Diana have identified it as Turkish? It's not as though she seemed to know what the Ottoman Empire was.

As one easily found answer from here:

Ottoman Turkish /ˈɒtəmən/, or the Ottoman language (لسان عثمانى‎‎ Lisân-ı Osmânî) (also known as تركجه‎ Türkçe or تركی‎ Türkî, "Turkish"), is the variety of the Turkish language that was used in the Ottoman Empire.

...

The Tanzimât era saw the application of the term "Ottoman" when referring to the language (لسان عثمانی‎ lisân-ı Osmânî or عثمانليجه‎ Osmanlıca) and the same distinction is made in Modern Turkish (Osmanlıca and Osmanlı Türkçesi).

 

[Trekker4747]

....

You're over thinking it.

 

[LJones41]

have not been fond of the routes that Snyder has taken his characters in his previous two films, so my concern was a WW backslide a la Supes/Kent in BvS . . .

Wow. You thought Synder's portrayal of Superman in "Batman v. Superman" was a backslide. Huh. Pity. But considering the constant complaints, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

MoS and WW could not be more different.

I agree. I feel that both are very good films. But . . . yeah, I also feel that they're different.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

MoS and WW could not be more different.

MoS was about Clark trying to find his place in the world he grew up in, which is technically an alien planet, WW is about Diana trying to find her place in a world which is culturally alien compared to everything she had been bought up in.

 

[Gaith]

As one easily found answer from here:

Whoops, should have Googled that. My bad. Still doesn't explain her total unfamiliarity with the concept of marriage, though.

You're over thinking it.

Hey, had they listened to me, they would have made a WW2, Diana vs. Nazi werewolves movie as mindless as Cap: The First Avenger or Thor 1. Instead, they went with WW1, and invoked some big ideas about the nature of humanity, but largely failed to examine either. The Germans in this movie could have been WW2 Germans with only a minor screenplay tweak here or there, and they're even none-too-subtly coded as Nazis with that introductory scene of Poison gassing the soldier in an enclosed bunker. Of course, both sides heavily used chemical weapons in the War, and had done so for years by the time the movie begins, but one doesn't get a hint of that from the movie; the Germans are introduced as the "bad guys", and the Brits are trying to make peace, except maybe for Ares posing as (or just manipulating? I'm still unclear) a Brit. Nuance fail.

As for that No Man's Land scene, which is getting such raves, would people love it as much if Diana had been attacking a female German regiment? Of course, there were no such troops, but did she know that? She might have asked about it offscreen, but we get no hint of that. And, of course, the German army (as well as the Allied ones) was filled with teenage and young adult troops, so what we've got is a child (in intellectual terms) killing, for all she knows, boys and very young men. Er... hooray? I'm starting to see why The First Avenger almost only showed Cap fighting HYDRA, a super-evil fictional offshoot of the Nazis.

Imagine if Chris Pines had been a German spy fleeing from the Royal Navy. Wonder Woman would believed him if he had told her that the British and Americans are the bad guys. She would followed him back to Berlin or Istanbul and would have fought against the WW1 Allies.

This is an excellent point. Her total lack of understanding of the wider world, in service of cheap comedy and a rushed story arc that mostly plays out over the course of a few hours, is a lot more problematic than people seem to be willing to examine.

 

[JD]

Wow, you really take all of this way to seriously. All I want when I go to the movies is to have a good time, I don't need everything to be perfect or to have some deeper meaning.

 

[Gaith]

Wow, you really take all of this way to seriously. All I want when I go to the movies is to have a good time, I don't need everything to be perfect or to have some deeper meaning.

Fine, but don't expect me to dumb down my analysis in a discussion thread of the movie on your account. The USA is often accused, very credibly, of being a violence and war-loving country, and I found this movie to be significantly more belligerent than The First Avenger, though not so much as the Bayformers flicks. (And I wonder how the battle scenes play to German audiences.) To build a whole movie around the threat of chemical warfare, and not so much as mention that both sides of the battle engaged in a whole lot of the same, is suspect at best, and if that's too much reality for you, that's not my concern.

It was only the German General (can't remember his name :s ) and Doctor Poison who were the portrayed as villains, the German soldiers were just soldiers who weren't judged anymore than Steve Trevor was judged for the genocide of the Native Americans caused by "his people".

There was a lot of cheering in my theater when Diana was smashing those German soldiers, and not a solitary whoop when the Native American genocide was mentioned. Maybe because one involved several scenes of pounding music, exciting special effects, and thrilling stunts, and the other was a single uncomfortable moment, which the person whose people were being talked about slept through? In short, this statement is objectively laughable.

 

[JD]

I wasn't telling you to dumb down your analysis, I was just commenting.
I honestly have to wonder like you can ever enjoy anything.

 

[Thestral]

...the Germans are introduced as the "bad guys", and the Brits are trying to make peace, except maybe for Ares posing as (or just manipulating? I'm still unclear) a Brit. Nuance fail.

Posing as. That's my only criticism of the movie is they skipped too quickly to the beam warfare instead of having Ares do his subtle window trickery some more. It's actually quite clever, what's gong on there and the importance of having Ares be a Brit, but it's brushed by far too quickly.

Ares mentions that his whole plan with the Armistice is to create a peace that's untenable to sow the seeds for even more destruction, alluding to the Versailles Treaty's more punitive measures. It would've been great to have that more spelled out instead of alluded to in one line, but that's what there is. And for those that catch it, it's clear the villain is going to use the "good guys" to create something much worse. Even if you don't catch that reference directly, the fact that the ultimate villain has been posing as the closest thing to a Big Good on the "Good Guys" side should make people stop and wonder. It's not spelled out super-clearly, but everything is there.

(Honestly the historical parallel would've been even more clear had Ares been posing as a French Minister influencing Clemenceau or Foch but that would've been too esotetic for an American comic book movie I think).

And, of course, the German army (as well as the Allied ones) was filled with teenage and young adult troops, so what we've got is a child (in intellectual terms) killing, for all she knows, boys and very young men.

Tis war? Of course it's ugly and shitty. Also... child in intellectual terms?

 

[MadeIndescribable]

There was a lot of cheering in my theater when Diana was smashing those German soldiers, and not a solitary whoop when the Native American genocide was mentioned. Maybe because one involved several scenes of pounding music, exciting special effects, and thrilling stunts, and the other was a single uncomfortable moment, which the person whose people were being talked about slept through? In short, this statement is objectively laughable.

That was just the way I saw it. And yes, there was cheering during the action sequences, but (again, to me) that was more finally seeing a female superhero kicking ass in her own film regardless of whose asses she kicked.

 

[stardream]

not a solitary whoop when the Native American genocide was mentioned.

Probably because it took everybody by surprise. I know it took me by surprise....and it's not really something I would 'whoop' about.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Fine, but don't expect me to dumb down my analysis in a discussion thread of the movie on your account. The USA is often accused, very credibly, of being a violence and war-loving country

Hardly credible. Just the sweeping BS from countries often pretending they are one with the angels.

To build a whole movie around the threat of chemical warfare, and not so much as mention that both sides of the battle engaged in a whole lot of the same, is suspect at best, and if that's too much reality for you, that's not my concern.

A film introducing a heroine is not a finger wagging PBS program where someone sends both kids for a time out for equally bad behavior. Traditional storytelling usually pits one side against another, and yes, there is rarely any balance in the motives and actions of the parties involved. Wonder Woman did have Trevor make the point that there are bad men on both sides, but that--in no way--means the acts committed are of equal value or intent in some broadly judgmental fashion.