All Things Wonder Woman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[Wheels]

I finally got the chance to see this today. Oh. My. God. Where has this movie been all my life? Just wow. This movie probably has the best first act of any superhero film, at least that's my initial impression.. Gal Gadot and Pine delivered, and their chemistry leapt off the screen. Just.....wow.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

You have to remember that a lot of the people who go to see these movies have either never read the comics, or haven't read them in years and are carrying expectations based on the characters as they remember them. I'm sure many people who went and saw "The Dark Knight" expected the Adam West "Batman" from the t v !

I could have sworn people were floored with Batman 89 because it was so different from West's Batman, but I was just a kid when that came out so I might be remembering it wrong.
I feel No Mans Land reminds me of the world engine scene in MoS.

 

[jmc]

Batman Begins establishes Batman as a hero who would spare the lives of criminals and evil men only to have him defeat his villain by killing him (not saving him). I love Batman Begins; it's my favorite of the trilogy. But I don't think it does a particularly good job at presenting a coherent foundation of Bruce's values as Batman, at least the value of preserving the lives of guilty as well as the innocent. If anything it establishes a hypocritical trend, since Batman also goes on to kill Harvey Dent and Talia al Ghul. In that way, Nolan's films actually elide serious challenges with realistic consequences for its Batman.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice pushes Batman over the edge. His values and ideals are tested, and for a time, Bruce falls. But the film doesn't endorse, justify, or sanctify Batman's fall. The film uses Batman's fall to expose Bruce's psyche in order to rebuild it. It's why the "Save Martha" is so important. It's the moment, like the moment Wonder Woman's must decide whether or not to spare Dr. Poison, that Batman must either cement his fall or reaffirm the reason why he's ever existed at all. Bruce must choose revenge or justice -- killing Superman or saving Martha. His choice establishes his values.

I've seen articles with dozens of paragraphs that try to justify and explain the character journeys in BvS and to a lesser extent MoS. My retort to that is this - if you're having to work so hard to explain what the characters journey is and how their values are defined, if you're having to write 4 or 5 pages and several thousands of words worth of material to show what the creative team was trying to get across, then something about the story and the characters is fundamentally wrong.

What Wonder Woman does in comparison is it makes absolutely crystal clear who its protagonist is and what she stands for. It's direct, it's to the point, it's easy to digest for people. And guess what? It gets to her values without having to navigate through unnecessary garnishing. And people are loving it. If there's any lesson to be learn from WW is that at the end of the day people want heroes with clear values, they don't want to decipher what the values are, they have no interest in putting together a puzzle.

Edit: I removed the opening line of my response because it could be interpreted in a negative way towards you. It wasn't my intent but upon rereading the opening sentence I can see how it may be interpreted. My apologies to anyone who read the original response and took it that way.

 

[Wanda Detroit]

Gah, I always mix up George Reeves and Christopher Reeve$. RIP

 

[Thome216]

A nice behind the scenes and funny moments compilation.

EDITED FOR CONTENT. This is a different link than I had put up originally. Still good.

This makes me hope there are a lot of extras no the blu-ray.

[YT]NSo555PpQ1Q[/YT]

 

[jmc]

If there's naughty language you're better off removing the video, the mods will get on to you.

 

[jmc]

Looking at that video I just realised how pointless the heeled boots ended up being. It looks like she filmed the majority of the film in flat boots.

 

[markjoedelonge]

Wonder Woman did endure hardships, but her ability to endure those hardships came from her unwavering belief that those hardships could be easily defeated and wiped out by killing the dragon (Ares) in her childhood fairy tales. When the truth of the world became clear to Diana -- the same truth Bruce learned in an alley in Gotham as a child and the truth Superman learned when a bomb exploded the Capitol -- she fell victim to the same darkness as they did. Her only saving grace was a blissful childhood and learning to believe in love from Steve after she has already wavered in her resolve.

This was very nicely put.

 

[Flemm]

I enjoy analyzing and discussing these films, but the film has to work on its own. We can't make it work by analyzing it.

A really good reaction or analysis can bring out nuances that I hadn't picked up on, or make me look at certain things in a new light, and so on.

But the film has to speak to people directly. Sometimes I think that means creating layers of meaning.

A surface meaning that everyone will get immediately (or most people), and then other layers that reward repeat viewings and a closer inspection.

It's early, but I think Wonder Woman was certainly able to do that. On the surface, it may seem simple, and I think it does work as a simple story, but there are a lot of layers there also.

I see that as a positive thing. The film is accessible, but it also has depth.

 

[dhandler01]

I agree with that completely. It is one thing for us to be able to break things down to find hidden meanings or to fill in the gaps in storytelling but a movie shouldnt need that for it to work.

My dad after seeing Wonder Woman said this to me "I really like this movie and it really is different because it isnt just a big action film that has a comic book character, but there is a real story and a moral to that story which makes it enjoyable. You see the horror of the war and the way it changes her." And that is it. My dad's knowledge of Wonder Woman is the comics he read 60 years ago and some of the TV show...but he followed the story to a T and fell in love with the character. The story takes you there and Patty, Gal, Chris and Company guide you there.

 

[misslane38]

The stuff in MoS and BvS isn't hidden. People seem to get what is there just fine and, sure, a deeper analysis enhances that. The problem seems to simply be that people don't like the story or characterization regardless of the depth one brings to it, because certain fanservice things aren't done or some lines are crossed that some feel shouldn't be crossed.

 

[FunkMiller]

The stuff in MoS and BvS isn't hidden. People seem to get what is there just fine and, sure, a deeper analysis enhances that. The problem seems to simply be that people don't like the story or characterization regardless of the depth one brings to it, because certain fanservice things aren't done or some lines are crossed that some feel shouldn't be crossed.

People don't like them because they were terrible characterisations! You can make something as deep as you want, but if you're digging in **** to get there, it doesn't matter. I'm all for complexity, nuance and depth in my characterisations, but not if it means substantially changing them from what the audience recognises and loves. Go watch another movie with other characters for that.

Wonder Woman gets that to create a great superhero movie, you need to present a protagonist that inspires, lifts and entertains an audience, and stays true to the character's roots - as well as explores what makes them who they are. BvS didn't do that. It deconstructed its heroes for no good reason, and led to a failure of a movie very few people like.

 

[idiot09]

People don't like them because they were terrible characterisations!

Tbf thats not much of an argument. I can say I hate Avengers because they have terrible characterisations. Thats just a subjective thought, not an objective truth.

but not if it means substantially changing them from what the audience recognises and loves.

Thats the thing isnt it? Do readers care when characters are changed to fit a narrative in elseworld stories? No. Look at Red son. But the thing is, with Marvel choosing to put the "most popular" version of the characters on screen to celebrate them, when you create a DCU, you have to use the most popular version of the character for a cinematic universe. Think about it, if this was a seperate elseworld story. Just the JL trilogy(MOS-BvS-JL), seperate from all other continuities. Would people have been as mad? Not at all.

And thats considering if I say these characters have had some violent changes from the comics. Infact I would say these characters havent done anything in the movies that they havent done in the 75 years of comic history. Infact in the comics, they have done much worse. Who decides whats the "heart of a character". Who decides which version of the character is right? Nolan said it himself people are less accepting of variation in the Superman characters unlike Batman. I mean you have the golden age, silver age, bronze age, post crisis, birthright, all star, earth one, new 52, rebirth all different interpretations in major and minor ways. You cant say we all love one version and hate the rest. So what gives? Sure they can choose the most popular one. Or they can choose a one which allows them to tell the story they want. If we keep the characters the same stagnant "version people recognise and love", then there's no room for growth, and the character will die. Thats why these characters have always been re-imagined, and always will be. Some more popular some less. Wonder Woman needed its first move to be a hit, so they went with the most popular version. But when its the 8-9th movie for the character, a load ress travelled isnt the wrong choice.

But lets not pretend these characters have violated the comics, as if there is only one version like say Harry Potter. Because imo the writers seem to understand the canon and characters much much much more the some fans who claim that they dont. And lets not invalidate other's opinions using the "ad populum" fallacy.

 

[FunkMiller]

Tbf thats not much of an argument. I can say I hate Avengers because they have terrible characterisations. Thats just a subjective thought, not an objective truth.

It's a good argument when you look at Wonder Woman's critical and audience reception, and its legs at the box office and compare it to the other DCEU movies...

Thats the thing isnt it? Do readers care when characters are changed to fit a narrative in elseworld stories? No. Look at Red son. But the thing is, with Marvel choosing to put the "most popular" version of the characters on screen to celebrate them, when you create a DCU, you have to use the most popular version of the character for a cinematic universe. Think about it, if this was a seperate elseworld story. Just the JL trilogy(MOS-BvS-JL), seperate from all other continuities. Would people have been as mad? Not at all.

Not talking about comic book readers though. I'm talking about the movie going audience. By any measure Wonder Woman's success shows that you do have to put the popular interpretation of the character on screen for it to be a success. Quite right too.

If we keep the characters the same stagnant "version people recognise and love", then there's no room for growth, and the character will die.

Growth is fine. Changing the character's intrinsic personality is not. Again, as proved by the reception to Wonder Woman compared to BvS. That movie's success just reinforces the notion that Snyder took the DCEU down a blind alley and made many mistakes with the way he interpreted Supes and Bats.

 

[jmc]

Tbf thats not much of an argument. I can say I hate Avengers because they have terrible characterisations. Thats just a subjective thought, not an objective truth.

I'd actually argue it leans more towards it being an objective truth. Bruce and Clark's characterisations were shifted from what they had been traditionally depicted as in other media, whilst Diana's characterisation stayed more or less the same as it had been depicted in other media. The most positive response favoured the character who's interpretation matched closest to what they'd been traditionally depicted as.

 

[Micromind]

I'd actually argue it leans more towards it being an objective truth. Bruce and Clark's characterisations were shifted from what they had been traditionally depicted as in other media, whilst Diana's characterisation stayed more or less the same as it had been depicted in other media. The most positive response favoured the character who's interpretation matched closest to what they'd been traditionally depicted as.

It's worth noting that both Superman and Batman had been rebooted many times before on the big screen and TV, so each time they want to start from the Origin movie, they have to change it up a bit, just to keep things fresh and maybe because each filmmaker wants to be seen as bringing something unique to the interpretation of the character. Even Spider-Man is suffering from this, take a look at different approach to Spider-Man taken by Marvel's new movie.

But since the characters are more than 75 years old, there's little room for artistic license, an little deviation may be deemed unacceptable to some.

There's no such challenge before Wonder Woman as the character was brought to big screen for the first time, hence the 'faithful' translation to screen.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's worth noting that both Superman and Batman had been rebooted many times before on the big screen and TV, so each time they want to start from the Origin movie, they have to change it up a bit, just to keep things fresh and maybe because each filmmaker wants to be seen as bringing something unique to the interpretation of the character. Even Spider-Man is suffering from this, take a look at different approach to Spider-Man taken by Marvel's new movie.

But since the characters are more than 75 years old, there's little room for artistic license, an little deviation may be deemed unacceptable to some.

There's no such challenge before Wonder Woman as the character was brought to big screen for the first time, hence the 'faithful' translation to screen.

If Diana had been presented as sullen, moody, and constantly questioning whether to be a hero or not, it would have fared as badly as BvS. It doesn't matter that she's never been on screen before in a movie. Just because a character has been on screen a lot before, it doesn't justify such a lurch in the wrong direction.

No-one is suggesting that you can't play with a characterisation - just don't eschew most of the stuff that makes the character great in the first place!

 

[Micromind]

If Diana had been presented as sullen, moody, and constantly questioning whether to be a hero or not, it would have fared as badly as BvS. It doesn't matter that she's never been on screen before in a movie. Just because a character has been on screen a lot before, it doesn't justify such a lurch in the wrong direction.

No-one is suggesting that you can't play with a characterisation - just don't eschew most of the stuff that makes the character great in the first place!

I did provide the example of Spider-Man, which is being rebooted for the third time, this time they (Marvel and Sony) did a few changes to his story, similarly whenever Marvel reboot Iron Man for second time, (or third time) they will make some changes to his Origin story and his character, some changes may go well, some may not. The tricky part is how much of a deviation is acceptable ?

As for wonder Woman, this was her first movie, the first movie has the best chance to stay as close to source material as possible, they can show her faithful to her 'original' character, which they did.

 

[dhandler01]

The stuff in MoS and BvS isn't hidden. People seem to get what is there just fine and, sure, a deeper analysis enhances that. The problem seems to simply be that people don't like the story or characterization regardless of the depth one brings to it, because certain fanservice things aren't done or some lines are crossed that some feel shouldn't be crossed.

Yes they are hidden, that is why they are supposedly so "deep". (most of the stuff we as fans find beneath the surface should just be on the surface for people to see) People dont want deep and layered (unless it is handled perfectly like Nolan did and even he sometimes went too far) they want to see the story happen in front of them. Most people (fans and GA) want to be entertained, they dont want to dissect every scene to try and find hidden meanings or deeper truths...they want to see Wonder Woman fight the entire German Front Line and they want to see Batman beating up bad guys and they want to see Superman save the day. They dont want to see deconstruction and heroes having issues with the idea of being heroes.

Depth works only if you have a good story shot along with it. When people find the story to be lacking then it isnt deep, it is just pretentious. Those of us that love it can see beyond that because the story to us isnt lacking...but we are the minority. The proof is in the pudding Wonder Woman is going to pass MOS (without much effort) and domestically has a good shot of passing BvS. Audiences want the straight ahead story told by a writer/director who knows how to tell said story. They want to be shown...they arent there for a research project.

 

[Micromind]

Since movie making like any other art from is subject to creativity of the filmmaker, I don't think anything is "pretentious" (I hate that term nowadays).

Edit: Predicting how people will respond to such movies (that deviate from the established norms) is a tricky part.

 

[idiot09]

I hate thr argument that just because something worked with the majority of audiences, it was the right thing to do, specially a creative decision. I mean loads of great movies didnt do well with the audience when it was released initially. Look at Blade Runner,or Fight Club or Excalibur. Audience doesnt always know best. Like I said saying something like "correct interpretation" is a vague and malleable thing.

 

[dhandler01]

Tbf thats not much of an argument. I can say I hate Avengers because they have terrible characterisations. Thats just a subjective thought, not an objective truth.



Thats the thing isnt it? Do readers care when characters are changed to fit a narrative in elseworld stories? No. Look at Red son. But the thing is, with Marvel choosing to put the "most popular" version of the characters on screen to celebrate them, when you create a DCU, you have to use the most popular version of the character for a cinematic universe. Think about it, if this was a seperate elseworld story. Just the JL trilogy(MOS-BvS-JL), seperate from all other continuities. Would people have been as mad? Not at all.

And thats considering if I say these characters have had some violent changes from the comics. Infact I would say these characters havent done anything in the movies that they havent done in the 75 years of comic history. Infact in the comics, they have done much worse. Who decides whats the "heart of a character". Who decides which version of the character is right? Nolan said it himself people are less accepting of variation in the Superman characters unlike Batman. I mean you have the golden age, silver age, bronze age, post crisis, birthright, all star, earth one, new 52, rebirth all different interpretations in major and minor ways. You cant say we all love one version and hate the rest. So what gives? Sure they can choose the most popular one. Or they can choose a one which allows them to tell the story they want. If we keep the characters the same stagnant "version people recognise and love", then there's no room for growth, and the character will die. Thats why these characters have always been re-imagined, and always will be. Some more popular some less. Wonder Woman needed its first move to be a hit, so they went with the most popular version. But when its the 8-9th movie for the character, a load ress travelled isnt the wrong choice.

But lets not pretend these characters have violated the comics, as if there is only one version like say Harry Potter. Because imo the writers seem to understand the canon and characters much much much more the some fans who claim that they dont. And lets not invalidate other's opinions using the "ad populum" fallacy.

But these movies arent supposed to be elseworlds. (which are usually one offs) This is a growing universe. These characterizations are the beginning of what is to come. It isnt the same. Elseworlds are great because they are a different take, a change from the norm. MOS is a reintroduction to Superman so it is not the same thing. If you started the DCU comics with TDKR it would not only be hated, it would make no sense. That is what happened here.

I dont think the characterizations are that far off, but they arent exactly the right choices either. (for the majority of the audience) For all the love TDKR gets it rings hollow to many in BvS to make Batman that way because we never saw why. Batman is just angry. Getting that backstory (beyond a few lines and seeing the Robin Suit) helps the audience understand. We didnt get that though so to many it just looks like Old Batman hates the world. Same with DOS...its an awesome story that I love but killing Superman in the second movie of a universe...where half the people hate him anyways just rings like a hollow death. DOS is powerful because it had 60 years of stories where Superman saved the day and beat the unbeatable leading up to it. BvS didnt have that.

Wonder Woman tells a complete story...and that is why people like it.

 

[idiot09]

But these movies arent supposed to be elseworlds. (which are usually one offs) This is a growing universe. These characterizations are the beginning of what is to come.

Thats all well and good, but thats my point. WHY do they have to be "not elseworld"? All I care about are interesting stories. I mean if Reeves comes in and changes stuff to the already established Batman continuity, I dont care as long as the story is good. THATS why I loved Logan. I dont have a problem with it destroying continuity, or being elseworld. To me the focus should be on the story.

MOS is a reintroduction to Superman so it is not the same thing.

FWIW, I dont think you can count MOS as an elseworld take. It sticks very close to the canon.

If you started the DCU comics with TDKR it would not only be hated, it would make no sense. That is what happened here.

And bro, you know thats not true. The only inspiration that came from TDKR,was some of the visual homages, and maybe some little story elements, like Batman fighting Superman, the mech suit, the reliance on media. It was in complete different context.

I dont think the characterizations are that far off, but they arent exactly the right choices either.

Once again, its very easy to say that in hindsight. And the only way to say whats right/wrong is how popular it is, and I am not interested in that debate. **** stuff has been popular before, and great stuff has not been.

 

[dhandler01]

I hate thr argument that just because something worked with the majority of audiences, it was the right thing to do, specially a creative decision. I mean loads of great movies didnt do well with the audience when it was released initially. Look at Blade Runner,or Fight Club or Excalibur. Audience doesnt always know best. Like I said saying something like "correct interpretation" is a vague and malleable thing.

But if the majority of the audience doesnt like it, the movie fails. This isnt art in a gallery these are movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. If people dont like the product then money is lost.

These arent art house films looking to win awards, these are tentpole films so subjectivity dies when the receipts come in.

It isnt rocket science, when you tell a straightforward story where the hero does hero things all movie they are successful.

 

[idiot09]

But if the majority of the audience doesnt like it, the movie fails. This isnt art in a gallery these are movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. If people dont like the product then money is lost.

These arent art house films looking to win awards, these are tentpole films so subjectivity dies when the receipts come in.

It isnt rocket science, when you tell a straightforward story where the hero does hero things all movie they are successful.

I dont see your point. Nobody is saying these movies dont fail if they dont make money. None of the previous movies were financial duds either. The point is, you cant judge the quality of a movie by the BO. Otherwise the Transformers and FF series would be the gold standard.

And I wholly disagree with the whole "subjectivity dies" when receipts come in attitude. That maybe for the shareholders at WB. But not for me, I am not here at SHH to tick boxes and count "wins" when a movie does well. I am here because I love these characters, and discuss how they are portrayed.

And I also disagree the whole simplifying of "hero does hero things=succesful". Many succesful superhero movies have been much more complicated than that, recently Logan. Also dont agree with the notion that MOS and BvS(not SS) werent inherently heroic or didnt have a message of hope("men are still good"). I believe the genre can have more nuance and shades.

Well man, I like your posts. Since we disagree so wildly, lets leave it at this. I dont think I have anything more to contribute.