Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion

[Gaith]

How about starting with explaining how the Rainbow Bridge, which Thor destroyed at the end of his first movie, was repaired

With Rainbow Bridge repair materials. Took a couple years, though.

if it was to be repaired, then what was the point in destroying it in the first place.

It caused Asgard to be mostly isolated, and allowed rogue elements across the Nine Realms to commit all kinds of insurrections and kill a whole bunch of people, as we saw at the beginning of The Dark World.

Next?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

That's something that people tend to forget with these movies. None of the sequels happen the very next day.

There are stories and movies that we'll never see between all of them. With practically immortal characters like Wonder Woman especially, there are hundreds of potential movies. One has to be careful when pointing out certain disconnects between them because od this.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Yeah, but you see the point I was making towards a certain participant in this discussion. If you're willing to allow for things to happen off-screen between MCU movies, you can't claim continuity error if the DCEU needs the same.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Yeah, but you see the point I was making towards a certain participant in this discussion. If you're willing to allow for things to happen off-screen between MCU movies, you can't claim continuity error if the DCEU needs the same.

Depending on context, you absolutely can. You can claim that if it's a flat contradiction that no story can fill in the gaps to. If someone in movie A says "I gave up on humanity 100 years ago" and then movie B shows the character embracing humanity 100 years ago (and then again if the sequel is set in the past), movies inbetween can't fix that.

See X-men for many examples of that.

With that said, I'm happy Wonder Woman ignored her speech from the previous movie, it made her solo movie that much better, hopefull, and optimistic for it. Which the franchise needed.

 

[Anwar]

A century went by between her fight with Ares and her confrontations with Doomsday and Steppenwolf. Would you consider it possible, if not to say even plausible, that she would have tried and failed to access these powers during these one hundred years?

If WW2 explains what happened to her Deus Ex Machina powers in the intervening years, I'll shut up.

How about starting with explaining how the Rainbow Bridge, which Thor destroyed at the end of his first movie, was repaired, and if it was to be repaired, then what was the point in destroying it in the first place.

They repaired it the same way they built it in the first place. The point of destroying it was to give the Thor storyline an out if it wasn't successful past the first film so things would be wrapped up after Avengers. It WAS successful, so they proceeded with more Thor movies and fixed the bridge.

 

[Turtletrekker]

FWIW, there is a shot in Thor: The Dark World that shows the scar in the Bifrost where Thor broke it and it was repaired (At 9 seconds).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Depending on context, you absolutely can. You can claim that if it's a flat contradiction that no story can fill in the gaps to. If someone in movie A says "I gave up on humanity 100 years ago" and then movie B shows the character embracing humanity 100 years ago (and then again if the sequel is set in the past), movies inbetween can't fix that.

Sorry, but I wouldn't use character dialogue as some form of contradiction, because people sometimes don't get their meaning across a hundred percent. "I gave up on humanity" might be just what she said in JL, that she didn't come out into the open and inspire people because of her loss of Steve Trevor. The filmmakers might have had differing meanings in mind, but on face value, that can be put down as misinterpretation.

Because, if that's the standard, then why, in Civil War, did nobody point out at the notion that superheroes needed to be regulated by government, that the same superheroes had to save Manhattan from a nuclear missile launched by said government?

If WW2 explains what happened to her Deus Ex Machina powers in the intervening years, I'll shut up.

1. Promise?

2. What if the WW sequel doesn't cover a full century, and so doesn't get around to showing us what happened?

They repaired it the same way they built it in the first place. The point of destroying it was to give the Thor storyline an out if it wasn't successful past the first film so things would be wrapped up after Avengers. It WAS successful, so they proceeded with more Thor movies and fixed the bridge.

So, in hindsight, it served no narrative value at all? And if Thor had been unsuccessful, they would not have been able to repair the bridge?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

How about starting with explaining how the Rainbow Bridge, which Thor destroyed at the end of his first movie, was repaired, and if it was to be repaired, then what was the point in destroying it in the first place.

That and more than one can count, and that's not even getting into inconsistencies / contradictions between the MCU and various plots of their TV series.

 

[Anwar]

Because, if that's the standard, then why, in Civil War, did nobody point out at the notion that superheroes needed to be regulated by government, that the same superheroes had to save Manhattan from a nuclear missile launched by said government

Because the particular people who ordered that were gone by Civil War. The Council.

1. Promise?

2. What if the WW sequel doesn't cover a full century, and so doesn't get around to showing us what happened?

Then I have nothing to shut up over and it's a plot hole.

Another example was why Superman let the Humans keep the Scout Ship. He wasn't willing to let them track him and even destroyed millions of dollars worthy of Military Tech to make that clear.

So, in hindsight, it served no narrative value at all? And if Thor had been unsuccessful, they would not have been able to repair the bridge?

If Thor had been unsuccessful, they'd have still done Avengers (since it wasn't the bridge used there) but used the destroyed Bridge as part of the reason he didn't show up very often. Covering their bases.

That and more than one can count, and that's not even getting into inconsistencies / contradictions between the MCU and various plots of their TV series.

There aren't any. Nothing that happens in the Netflix shows is big enough to be noticed by the Avengers and everything that happened up until the Defenders was before Civil War.

 

[ichab]

But then where will people go to bitch about the DCEU except every other DCEU related thread that has the same people bitching about the same things all the bloody time...

I've always wondered why people who hate a show, movie or franchise spend so much time in a thread devoted to it. Why spend that time day in and day out on something you clearly don't like and never will? At some point you have to realize that not every movie or franchise will be your cup of tea. Best to just accept that difference and move on.

 

[ichab]

Yeah, but you see the point I was making towards a certain participant in this discussion. If you're willing to allow for things to happen off-screen between MCU movies, you can't claim continuity error if the DCEU needs the same.

And even if you showed your point complete with pictures and graphs he would just move on to gripe about something else . Why bother?

 

[Gaith]

Because, if that's the standard, then why, in Civil War, did nobody point out at the notion that superheroes needed to be regulated by government, that the same superheroes had to save Manhattan from a nuclear missile launched by said government?

You mean that time the superheroes defied the World Security Council's drastic but rational attempt to neutralize the alien threat to the whole planet at the cost of one major city? Sure, things worked out, but what if they hadn't?

So, in hindsight, it served no narrative value at all?

Asgard's isolation, and the various crises that enabled, allowed Loki to slip away and make his deal with Thanos' intermediary without being apprehended. It's probable that without the destruction of the Rainbow Bridge, the narrative of The Avengers wouldn't have happened at all.

But yeah, why was the Kryptonian World Engine not at all guarded? A single wooden "Keep Out" sign is all that separates civilians from radioactive alien rocks? What sense does that make?

 

[Turtletrekker]

You mean that time the superheroes defied the World Security Council's drastic but rational attempt to neutralize the alien threat to the whole planet at the cost of one major city? Sure, things worked out, but what if they hadn't?

It was actually Fury who defied the order. And it hindsight, it was an order given by a leader of HYDRA.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I've always wondered why people who hate a show, movie or franchise spend so much time in a thread devoted to it. Why spend that time day in and day out on something you clearly don't like and never will? At some point you have to realize that not every movie or franchise will be your cup of tea. Best to just accept that difference and move on.

You know, I can understand it when it's an adaptation or continuation you care about. But this doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems more like a desire to gloat.

And even if you showed your point complete with pictures and graphs he would just move on to gripe about something else . Why bother?

Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to debate him. He'd got me again, I'll try to keep in mind that haters gonna hate.

 

[Reverend]

So long as we're nitpicking, we may as well do so with an accurate quote. Diana's exact words were: -
"A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind. From the century of horrors. Man made a world where standing together is impossible."

Though it's almost certainly contrary to authorial intent, that statement doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that she "walked back" at some later point. Indeed the point there isn't about her general disillusionment so much as a specific assertion that working collectively is fruitless in the long run, leaving open the possibility that she has been active on her own, under the radar. In this context, "together" need not refer to others like her but *anyone*, including the general public in the form of setting an example, or inspiring greatness in others, which is the main function of a public superhero like Wonder Woman or Superman (in theory at least.)

For the record though: I'm perfectly OK with future WW movies flat out ignoring this statement.

You mean that time the superheroes defied the World Security Council's drastic but rational attempt to neutralize the alien threat to the whole planet at the cost of one major city? Sure, things worked out, but what if they hadn't?

Would a nuke have even done a damn thing against an infinity stone powered force field though? Somehow I doubt it. Flattening Manhattan would probably have made it much easier for the next wave to establish a firm beachhead and for Thanos to just waltz up and grab the cube, staff and maybe even stroll over to the Village and pay the Ancient One a visit to make it an infinity stone hat-trick.

 

[Tosk]

I'd be okay if they ignored BvS altogether.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I'd be okay if they ignored BvS altogether.

Wha--?

There's only one response to your post...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'd be okay if they ignored BvS altogether.

I'm not; it should not be thrown away just because you and others like you didn't like it. And if it weren't for Man of Steel, BvS, or Suicide Squad, there wouldn't have been a Wonder Woman or Justice League (also, don't forget, Snyder helped write the script for Wonder Woman along with Patty Jenkins.)

IMHO, what people like you want is a return to the Donnerverse movies (kind of like how Trekfans can't stand Discovery or the Abrams movies) but both approaches smack of appealing to what certain Baby Boomers and Ge-X'ers want to see Superman and Batman plus the rest of the DCU be on screen, and those are bogus. If the aesthetic of Superman Returns didn't work the last time it was done (and I loved that movie myself), what makes you all think it will work again the next time?

You all that hate Man of Steel, BvS, or Suicide Squad can hate them all that you want, but the approached by Snyder worked a hell of a lot better for the present day than just copying how saintly Captain America is in the MCU for Superman or just making the Justice League movie be like the Avengers movies style-wise or be like the Donnerverse 'just because'.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

There's way more than 2 approaches to everything in life. It's not Donner or Snyder (not Ratner) and that's it, with no other options. That's a simplistic and very narrow view.

 

[dahj]

That's a simplistic and very narrow view.

And "I don't like this so it's WRONG!" is somehow enlightened?