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

[misslane38]

I think we can now that Goeff Johns is in charge of the DCEU. I honestly think Superman should be about his relationship between the world and Metropolis and should include more flashbacks of life growing up on the farm.

It's not so much as who he fights as much as what he's fighting for. I think that's what WonderWoman gets right that MOS doesn't.

I don't disagree with any of that.

but with MOS and BvS, there was this lack of heart and warmth which WW had.

with DCEU Superman, there's just this sense of "detachment" and "aloofness" which doesn't suit the character, imo.

yes, Superman saves people and yes he did noble things and yes he did care for people. But the way Snyder portrayed him in the films just lacked that "something," that intangible whatever, that I felt from WW.

there should be a balance between the two.

fitting in is part of Superman's story, but it shouldn't be the driving factor that overshadows other aspects and "subdues" the warmth and compassion the character should exude.

I just think there were quite a few missed opportunities in MOS.

like the Tornado scene.

It should have been Clark out there rescuing a child left behind, not Pa Kent. Pa initially says he'll go, but Clark rushes right into the tornado because that's his natural instinct to save people. Clark is in middle of rescuing the child when he super hears/sees Pa Kent ( who's back with Martha under the bridge ) having a heart attack. Pa knows his son would come for him, but puts out his hand to stop Clark. Pa wants Clark to focus on saving the child - he sees the hero he always knew his son would become.

Clark is torn, but the tornado is right above him, so he dives down and shields the child with his body. When the tornado passes and the dust clears, Clark walks with, clothes tattered, but holding the child safe in his arms. Yeah, the town would know his secret, but by then I think they already knew. But it's a bittersweet victory because Clark was unable to save Pa.

If they had just shot that scene more like that, to show that "connection" between Clark and the people he saves, that would have gone a long way, imo.

I think a lot of the difference has to do with the lead character exuding a warmth and compassion that the audience can connect with, and the movie creating situations where those emotions can be showcased.

It's almost a given that the main character is going to do some heroic things in a movie like this. It's easy to tune that out if it's not handled in a compelling way.

That's where the comparisons between Gadot's performance and Reeve's performance come from, imho, as they were both able to express that warmth, regardless of an objective tally of their heroic feats.

Responding here (MoS thread).

 

[Willi Berg]

Al Jazeera wrote an article about how Wonder Woman is actually the love story between Israel and the US, and how it should be banned because it shows an Israeli soldier saving the world....

This why we separate reality and fiction

I think Israel should let the Palestinians have their strip of land, but that doesn't change Wonder Woman or Gal's performance.

Hmm,. I watched the wrong movie then.

This is a satire piece:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Ends After Lebanon, Tunisia Ban "Wonder Woman"

After more than 100 years of bloodshed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ended abruptly the other day after Lebanon and Tunisia banned the screening of the movie Wonder Woman, which features an Israeli actress in the iconic role.

When Lebanon revealed that it had banned the film, Israeli PM Netanyahu called for all armed forces to retreat from the West Bank immediately and end the siege on Gaza. Thousands of ultra-nationalist religious settlers then decided to donate their homes to Palestinian refugees and move to the desert, as they were horrified to learn that the entire population of Lebanon wouldn't be able to enjoy the sight of a hot Jewish chick using her military prowess to save the world.

Once Tunisia banned the film as well, the Israeli government, Hamas, and Fatah signed a joint peace treaty which somehow erased the decades of internalized racism and xenophobia in both Israeli and Palestinian societies. Israel then made peace with all its neighbors, dismantled the IDF and replaced it with the "Israeli-Palestinian Army of Peace and Love."

Lebanese leaders commented: "We're very pleased with how well this worked out, particularly because now we can set up a high-speed train from Tel-Aviv to Beirut and hook up with some hot Israeli girls. We've heard they're pretty great, and that "Wonder Woman" accent is so frickin' sexy."

http://www.themideastbeast.com/israeli-palestinian-conflict-ends-lebanon-tunisia-ban-wonder-woman/

 

[PhantomX1313]

This is a satire piece:



http://www.themideastbeast.com/israeli-palestinian-conflict-ends-lebanon-tunisia-ban-wonder-woman/

Seriously this article is laughable from the headline like wtf movies have to do with wars

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

It's supposed to be. It's basically the Onion

 

[regwec]

I thought that Lebanon had in fact banned the movie?

We live in dark times for anti-Semitism, and shouldn't joke about it.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Mel Brooks made fun of Nazis. I'm sure there's a place for satire of serious stuff.

 

[2kt09]

Mel Brooks made fun of Nazis. I'm sure there's a place for satire of serious stuff.

This movie even still did that maniacally funny German thing movies like to do.
Making fun of Nazis isn't a hot-topic.

 

[Willi Berg]

It's supposed to be. It's basically the Onion

Report: More Americans Willing To Accept Female Wonder Woman

LOS ANGELES - Signaling a dramatic shift in public opinion, a new report released Monday by the Entertainment Research Council revealed that more Americans than ever are willing to accept a female Wonder Woman. "Our poll shows that a record 64 percent of moviegoers in the U.S. are now comfortable with the idea of Wonder Woman being a woman," said the report's lead author, Rebecca Pohlman, explaining that in the past decade the nation has grown more supportive of a female Diana, Princess of Themyscira, even though as recently as 1990 less than 10 percent of Americans thought an actress should play the part of the Amazonian superhero. "Still, this remains a highly polarizing issue, as 31 percent of those surveyed claimed they couldn't possibly imagine Wonder Woman as anything other than a male. Even a sizable minority of those who said they were potentially open to a female Wonder Woman said they would remain skeptical until they could judge the portrayal with their own eyes." While the poll suggested that the nation was increasingly receptive to women taking on more diverse roles, the survey also found that only 28 percent of Americans were amenable to a black Black Panther.

http://www.theonion.com/article/report-more-americans-willing-accept-female-wonder-56170

 

[jaymes_e06]

What the actual ****?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What the actual ****?

The Onion.

 

[Flemm]

Sometimes it feels like it's getting increasingly difficult to actually satirize anything, given how crazy real events and serious opinions are.

But the Onion piece made me chuckle.

Damn that image of WW climbing out of the trench is an instant classic, in passing.

 

[Greenlite]

Was No Man's land "the moment" people and the press have been referring to?

I almost had tears watching that when she emerged from the trench, FIRST EVER WW appearance in her first ever solo movie =)

 

[galmorzu]

I would pay cash money after seeing WW to see how the Doomsday fight would have gone if Supes just gave her the spear and told her to go to town.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

This is great...

https://***********/pattyjenks/status/874034832430424065

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I'd say it comes down to, Superman may have saved people, but there wasn't the sense that he actually cared. At least in BvS, saving people was something he was just going through the motions of doing. It wasn't something he was passionate about, and there was very little appearance that he actually *liked* people, individually. It all had an overpowering feel of burden.

Whereas Diana very clearly cares about saving people, and the care comes before the action. She also very clearly likes *people*, and it shows in almost every interaction she has with others.

I think it's all about context. Diana didn't grow up in a modern world, she actually didn't grow up with any problems at all.
Clark's parents were always fearful of what would happen to him if people knew he wasn't human. I think those are very human concerns and what an actual parent would be concerned about.
You are right that it does appear that sometimes there is a burden on him when he saves people but I believe its because he is concerned about the reaction he is going to get; but even if he is concerned he never fails to act.
In BvS the burden was how the world was reacting to his actions, something Diana didn't have to deal with.
I am not disagreeing that it does come off that his saving people comes off as a chore; but do you believe they shouldn't acknowledge the opinions of those around him and how in a real world setting he would be judged for everything? I'm not asking to start conflict I am really interested in you opinion on the issue.

 

[Thome216]

I would pay cash money after seeing WW to see how the Doomsday fight would have gone if Supes just gave her the spear and told her to go to town.

That would have been so much bad-assery!!

Superman picks of the spear and shouts, 'Wonder Woman!' and tosses it.

Wonder Woman catches it from the air while doing a mid-air flip and just launches herself at Doomsday with her warrior's cry.

 

[2kt09]

That would have been so much bad-assery!!

Superman picks of the spear and shouts, 'Wonder Woman!' and tosses it.

Wonder Woman catches it from the air while doing a mid-air flip and just launches herself at Doomsday with her warrior's cry.

RIP wonder woman

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think it's all about context. Diana didn't grow up in a modern world, she actually didn't grow up with any problems at all.
Clark's parents were always fearful of what would happen to him if people knew he wasn't human. I think those are very human concerns and what an actual parent would be concerned about.
You are right that it does appear that sometimes there is a burden on him when he saves people but I believe its because he is concerned about the reaction he is going to get; but even if he is concerned he never fails to act.
In BvS the burden was how the world was reacting to his actions, something Diana didn't have to deal with.
I am not disagreeing that it does come off that his saving people comes off as a chore; but do you believe they shouldn't acknowledge the opinions of those around him and how in a real world setting he would be judged for everything? I'm not asking to start conflict I am really interested in you opinion on the issue.

I'm not debating right or wrong way to handle a fictional character, but I think the angle of Clark Kent as alien instead of farmboy changed his reaction. Changing the Kents to fearful/ you don't owe them may have been viscerally challenging but it undermined the idea that this two people raised him to use his gifts as a responsible part of being Clark Kent and not as something to hide from.

 

[Greenlite]

I would pay cash money after seeing WW to see how the Doomsday fight would have gone if Supes just gave her the spear and told her to go to town.

That would have been so much bad-assery!!

Superman picks of the spear and shouts, 'Wonder Woman!' and tosses it.

Wonder Woman catches it from the air while doing a mid-air flip and just launches herself at Doomsday with her warrior's cry.

"This is for Steve!" as she dived in.

Yes, WW has PTSD

RIP wonder woman

LOL

This is great...

https://***********/pattyjenks/status/874034832430424065

Sounds like WB just ripped a lot of business from Disney

 

[Micromind]

Sounds like WB just ripped a lot of business from Disney

Ha ha, Disney won't like dip in sales of Beauty and the Beast merch.

 

[misslane38]

I guess no one is going to move this conversation to the appropriate thread where I've been moving my posts, so I'll just share this here. I'll move it, though, if necessary.

I'm not debating right or wrong way to handle a fictional character, but I think the angle of Clark Kent as alien instead of farmboy changed his reaction. Changing the Kents to fearful/ you don't owe them may have been viscerally challenging but it undermined the idea that this two people raised him to use his gifts as a responsible part of being Clark Kent and not as something to hide from.

Superman is an alien and a farmboy. He is neither one more than the other. Jonathan was particularly interested in making sure Clark felt he was part of both worlds. Jor-El does the same when he tell Kal: "We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples." He also said, "Born on Krypton and raised on Earth, you had the best of both and were meant to be the bridge between two worlds." Superman's last words in both films are also revealing:

Welcome to the Planet. Glad to be here, Lois.

This is my world. You are my world.

Jonathan and Martha were not just fearful parents either. Both of Clark's parents were encouraging, supportive, and open to whatever the future would hold for their son. It was Jonathan who told his son:

I have to believe that you were...that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day...one day you're going to think of them as a blessing. When that day comes, you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not. Can't I just keep pretending I'm your son? You are my son. But somewhere out there you've...you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself ...to find out what that reason is.

Martha was encouraging too:

The truth about you is beautiful. We saw that the moment we laid eyes on you. We knew that one day, the whole world would see that.

She even shared his father's hopes and dreams with Clark:

He always believed you were meant for greater things, and that when the day came, your shoulders would be able to bear the weight.

The only thing the Kents wanted to impress upon their son was that his choices have consequences. It's a theme revisited in BvS with Jonathan's tale about the Lang farm flooding as a result of what he thought at the time was a heroic act to save his own family's farm. So, consistently, the Kents have been used to teach Clark to understand the weight and responsibility of his abilities and his origins. They didn't want him to hide because they wanted their son to feel ashamed of himself or because they were indifferent to the suffering Clark could relieve in the world. Jonathan and Martha wanted their son and the world to be ready to cope with the paradigm shift and the challenges a godlike alien being on Earth would entail. That is exactly what you claim they did not teach him.

Jonathan and Martha were also adamant that Clark see his future and his purpose as one he would find and choose for himself. They didn't impress upon him a particular vision or destiny. They didn't push Clark to see his blessings as a reason why he was obligated to help people. They wanted Clark to be a man of good character -- a hero -- because he understood that he didn't "owe the world a thing" yet chose to help anyway.

In WW, Diana is raised on a lie her mother told her to keep her away from a world that she told Diana didn't deserve her. The lie she was told was that she is not the godkiller, because a sword was, or a god, because only Ares was. She wasn't raised to feel she had a destiny or that she was different than her fellow Amazons -- Amazons who did nothing but support her. Moreover, Diana learns that true heroism comes from believing in mankind rather than simply complying with what they deserve. It's not about salvation for the good and damnation for the bad. It's about choosing love. And that is exactly what Martha tells Clark in BvS, he has a choice. He can choose how he responds to the slings and arrows the world sends him. Superman chooses to join the conversation. Not because he has to but because he wants to. He doesn't have to sacrifice his life for humanity but chooses to die for his world.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Superman is an alien and a farmboy. He is neither one more than the other. Jonathan was particularly interested in making sure Clark felt he was part of both worlds. Jor-El does the same when he tell Kal: "We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples." He also said, "Born on Krypton and raised on Earth, you had the best of both and were meant to be the bridge between two worlds." Superman's last words in both films are also revealing:

"You're mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious. The element of choice."

So what is the choice in Jor-el's, "meant to be the bridge.." Meant to be isn't a choice. It's options.

Options made for him. The writing is bad. Jor-el's whole speech isn't about choice, it's telling him what he'd like Clark to do and why he should.

Jonathan and Martha were not just fearful parents either. Both of Clark's parents were encouraging, supportive, and open to whatever the future would hold for their son. It was Jonathan who told his son:

That's fine, but in the Kent's case, they've colored his opinion not based on individual people, but don't trust people in general. That's not a good superhero foundation. The Amazon's mistrust but they understand what their duties are.

That's what makes it a good coming of age story. It's Diana's choice about what she wants to do with what she's been taught.

 

[Ardyns]

RIP wonder woman

So true

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"You're mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious. The element of choice."

So what is the choice in Jor-el's, "meant to be the bridge.." Meant to be isn't a choice. It's options.

Options made for him. The writing is bad. Jor-el's whole speech isn't about choice, it's telling him what he'd like Clark to do and why he should.





That's fine, but in the Kent's case, they've colored his opinion not based on individual people, but don't trust people in general. That's not a good superhero foundation. The Amazon's mistrust but they understand what their duties are.

That's what makes it a good coming of age story. It's Diana's choice about what she wants to do with what she's been taught.

Honestly, the next Superman director should watch The Iron Giant (now on US Netflix), assuming Brad Bird never gets available (Incredibles 2 would probably get him busy)-

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I'm not debating right or wrong way to handle a fictional character, but I think the angle of Clark Kent as alien instead of farmboy changed his reaction. Changing the Kents to fearful/ you don't owe them may have been viscerally challenging but it undermined the idea that this two people raised him to use his gifts as a responsible part of being Clark Kent and not as something to hide from.

I always thought Martha's line that Clark doesn't owe the world anything was great because it was true. I think Hippolyta had a similar mindset when she told Diana the world doesn't deserve her; but both Diana and Clark continue to serve the world. I suppose Diana's is more accepted because she does it happily?