All Things Wonder Woman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 22

Status
Not open for further replies.
A little off topic, but I was watching Wonder Woman (2009) recently, and knowing how the gender issue element is not in the 2017 film, I cannot be anymore thankful; especially since the gender issues in the animated film is what makes the movie so cringe worthy, that i cannot watch it. Anyone else feel the same?

I wanted to discuss this as well. I remember trying to watch the 09 movie but was turned off by he ugly character designs and the fact that I really just am not into WW. But I came across a review of the movie a few days ago and the guy mentioned multiple instances of man hating and men are evil beliefs.
I'm glad WW '17 didn't go that route.
 
apparently Jenkins wants the invisible jet in the sequel..

Awesome! Although I wish they could tie its origins to Themysciran technology (i.e. the Amazons repair a downed jet and improve upon it with their own magic / technology), I'm guessing that it will be a toy she borrows from Batman / Wayne Enterprises.
 
Oh gawd no

I second this.



That's because you only imagine it like this where you see her sitting in mid air:

avion_invisible-diana.jpg


And of course, if that's the only image you have in your mind, it's going to seem goofy, because you can't imagine it done any other way.

But the Justice League Crisis on Two Earths movie did it completely differently where it's a stealth plane with cloaking technology. And Star Trek has done it well for years with the Romulan and Klingon birds of prey with their cloaking technology.

And Agents of SHIELD does it on an almost weekly basis with their stealth plane, the Zephyr One. You never see people sitting in mid air. It is COMPLETELY cloaked from the outside. From the inside, it looks just like a normal plane. There is absolutely nothing goofy or hokey about it. I can't find a clip of it on YouTube, but I would post if I could. If someone else can find one, please feel free to post.

It can work perfectly well in Wonder Woman.
 
But the Justice League Crisis on Two Earths movie did it completely differently where it's a stealth plane with cloaking technology. A

Wasnt that Owlman's plane doe?
 
I have noticed that Patty Jenkins mostly prefers a "grounded" take on WW's story, so if she includes the invisible jet in her movie, I'm sure she will present it in a non campy way.
 
I have noticed that Patty Jenkins mostly prefers a "grounded" take on WW's story, so if she includes the invisible jet in her movie, I'm sure she will present it in a non campy way.

Hippolyta blesses it with the same kind of Greek magic used to hide Themyscira.
 
I have noticed that Patty Jenkins mostly prefers a "grounded" take on WW's story, so if she includes the invisible jet in her movie, I'm sure she will present it in a non campy way.

The Zephyr One in Agents of SHIELD has never seemed campy. And aren't there stealth planes in real life anyway? We would call them invisible jets, but they're just bending light to camouflage it on the outside. They're not truly invisible but cloaked, which is how people should think of WW's jet. A cloaked plane rather than an invisible plane. It's just that to call it an invisible plane sounds more catchy.

They could say it's made from a special reflective metal called "Nolanite". :o Just as imaginary as Captain Kirk's "Corbomite" from the original series. :o
 
...Agents of SHIELD does it on an almost weekly basis with their stealth plane, the Zephyr One. You never see people sitting in mid air. It is COMPLETELY cloaked from the outside. From the inside, it looks just like a normal plane. There is absolutely nothing goofy or hokey about it. I can't find a clip of it on YouTube, but I would post if I could. If someone else can find one, please feel free to post.

It can work perfectly well in Wonder Woman.

Given a futuristic/sci-fi jet, I have no trouble with the additional conceit of “stealth” capability. I just don’t get why pre-technological Themyscira (with horseback riding and swords and arrows) would have futuristic/sci-fi stuff at all.
 
Given a futuristic/sci-fi jet, I have no trouble with the additional conceit of “stealth” capability. I just don’t get why pre-technological Themyscira (with horseback riding and swords and arrows) would have futuristic/sci-fi stuff at all.

Well it depends on when it's set. If it is set in modern day, then that's not futuristic at all but contemporary. It could easily belong to someone else that WW decides to keep for herself. But maybe they won't go to all those lengths to have to explain it and rationalise it, because they've been doing that sort of stuff for far too long. They could just ask audiences to accept it.

They could even have a throwaway line in there that they thought of using "Nolanite" as a stealth material but didn't need that kind of thing as it weighed it down too much.

On another note, how many people saw it in 3D and how many in 2D? Was it fine (or even better) to watch in 2D?
 
The Zephyr One in Agents of SHIELD has never seemed campy. And aren't there stealth planes in real life anyway? We would call them invisible jets, but they're just bending light to camouflage it on the outside. They're not truly invisible but cloaked, which is how people should think of WW's jet. A cloaked plane rather than an invisible plane. It's just that to call it an invisible plane sounds more catchy.

They could say it's made from a special reflective metal called "Nolanite". :o Just as imaginary as Captain Kirk's "Corbomite" from the original series. :o

Real life stealth planes don't bend light. The outer hulls are designed in a way that deflects and absorbs radar signals.

But there is something called a "Rochester Cloak, inspired by Harry potter's invisibility cloak, that scientists developed. The Rochester Cloak can bend light.

cloak12frames-230px.gif


http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter...ects-across-continuous-range-of-angles-70592/
 
I'm trying to get tickets for tomorrow but all the good seats are taken at my local theatre. Guess I'll have to settle for one of those at the middle :csad:
 
On an unrelated note, there's a new coworker whose phone just rang. Her ring tone is "Is She With You." As much as I'm not a fan of this job, that was a bright spot. And this wasn't even a young woman, either. Talking decades my senior.
 
My daughter (dressed up as WW) and I are on our way to catch this film. We'll be seeing this in 25mins. Really looking forward to this.
 
On an unrelated note, there's a new coworker whose phone just rang. Her ring tone is "Is She With You." As much as I'm not a fan of this job, that was a bright spot. And this wasn't even a young woman, either. Talking decades my senior.

DCEU is infiltrating everyone like Hydra
 
Exactly.They are similar characters, yet very different. One was brought up in a magical island, protected and where she had a peaceful life. While Clark was brought up in our cynical world. Diana had her parents, she knew her people, she belonged. Clark never belonged, he was ostrasized by the society, he only had his parents, and he has to make his world "small". Diana grew up being proud of who she is, of her heritage, and knowing what she is doing is right. Clark grew up not knowing what's right and wrong in this ever growing morally grey world, he asked "Did god do this to me?". He didnt know.

They are fundamentally different characters. Clark faced all the bows and arrows of society and this repugnant world, which Diana never had to. He took one for the team and the league, and because of his example and inspired by him, the rest of the league can now come out of the shadows, including Diana.

Both hero in their own right, but very different heroes.

Man great post, I think this is part of my love for the DCEU and DC universe in general, I never feel like you could take one hero, and replace it with another and you'd get the exact same characterization, they would all handle things so differently.
 
It's in the WW composer thread already. And it really doesn't show anything. It's more sensuous than explicit. Really great rock version of the theme.

Right on. I just wasn't sure, this place is much easier to get in trouble in than it was back in my day. I didn't want to take chances.
 
Well it depends on when it's set. If it is set in modern day, then that's not futuristic at all but contemporary. It could easily belong to someone else that WW decides to keep for herself. But maybe they won't go to all those lengths to have to explain it and rationalise it, because they've been doing that sort of stuff for far too long. They could just ask audiences to accept it.

They could even have a throwaway line in there that they thought of using "Nolanite" as a stealth material but didn't need that kind of thing as it weighed it down too much.

On another note, how many people saw it in 3D and how many in 2D? Was it fine (or even better) to watch in 2D?

If it's modern day, it's easier to accept. At that point I want it to be some weird Sci-fi ish that can hover and she can leap out the top or drop out the bottom without landing it, and let's embrace the shared universe thing and say Bruce gave it to her because she needed a mode of transportation and he loves and respects her enough to know that anything WW drives should be the baddest possible thing because she's a badass and deserves nothing less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,291
Messages
22,081,268
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"