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

[Wanda Detroit]

Well, I'm glad Geoff Johns and Jon Berg realize they don't need to Dark Knight every character they make a movie about.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/j...onder-woman-sequel-justice-league-1202471557/

 

[Loki882]

That should have been obvious already. The fact that it wasn't is sad.

 

[Boom]

Hmmm, a "master board" you say?

 

[FunkMiller]

That should have been obvious already. The fact that it wasn't is sad.

Kind of understandable though, when you consider that Hollywood is a place permanently risk averse. Nolan's Batman made all the money and had all the critical acclaim... if it worked once, why not again and again? So we get another dark and tortured Batman, but from a man who doesn't really know how to do it, along with a dark and tortured Superman, even though that's utterly wrong for the character. They thought dark was the way to do it. They were wrong. Wonder Woman is a massive repudiation of that philosophy.

 

[misslane38]

Kind of understandable though, when you consider that Hollywood is a place permanently risk averse. Nolan's Batman made all the money and had all the critical acclaim... if it worked once, why not again and again? So we get another dark and tortured Batman, but from a man who doesn't really know how to do it, along with a dark and tortured Superman, even though that's utterly wrong for the character. They thought dark was the way to do it. They were wrong. Wonder Woman is a massive repudiation of that philosophy.

Superman wasn't "dark and tortured" in BvS. He was trying to exist in a world that was rejecting him. He was the victim of one man's paranoid mission to make the world make sense again and another man's mission to expose the lie that power and goodness can coexist. Still, despite the darkness all around him, he fights for an idealistic Daily Planet and continues to save people. Like Diana after the gassing of Veld and the botched attempt to kill Ares, Superman loses hope after the Capitol bombing, but discovers love is the key to enduring the nightmares. He refuses to kill Batman, protects Lex Luthor from his monster, and is nuked and ultimately dies to save the world that rejected from Doomsday.

BvS presents its dark and tortured Batman as aberrant. His darkness emerges from a state of PTSD and powerlessness that is overcome through love and sacrifice. Nolan's Batman, on the other hand, is dark and tortured simply because he is Batman. Nolan's Bruce must give up Batman in order to find the light.

Wonder Woman doesn't repudiate anything because Diana's origin story is one in which the character grows into her heroism because she sees past the beautiful lies of her youth to the darkness that exists within mankind. Diana optimism relies on naivete: evil is something to be killed; good is not a choice but man's natural state. When that fantasy falls apart, so does Diana's resolve. She, like Bruce, begins a ravaging rampage and nearly kills the person she held responsible only to be saved by a memory of love. She, like Bruce, is inspired to believe that men are still good by the sacrifice of a man who saved today so others could save tomorrow.

All three stories for this Trinity test their heroes in the ways that they would need to be tested most: Superman's hope, Batman's justice, and Wonder Woman's compassion. Each endures a crucible that forges them into the heroes they need to be. It's because Clark, Bruce, and Diana have stepped up to the edge of darkness before seeing the light that they will not only be great heroes, but also a great team.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Superman wasn't "dark and tortured" in BvS. He was trying to exist in a world that was rejecting him. He was the victim of one man's paranoid mission to make the world make sense again and another man's mission to expose the lie that power and goodness can coexist. Still, despite the darkness all around him, he fights for an idealistic Daily Planet and continues to save people. Like Diana after the gassing of Veld and the botched attempt to kill Ares, Superman loses hope after the Capitol bombing, but discovers love is the key to enduring the nightmares. He refuses to kill Batman, protects Lex Luthor from his monster, and is nuked and ultimately dies to save the world that rejected from Doomsday.

Does all of that really matter to the general audience though? No one cares about all of that. All that does is bog the movie down. From the majority of comments I have read all they saw was a sad and mopey Superman. Where was the happy go lucky Superman from the Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Movie, Lois & Clark, and most of the animated versions of Superman? A sad and mopey Superman didn't work for Superman Returns. Why would anyone think putting Superman in a situation where he would be an even sadder and morose Superman would work any better? Wonder Woman endured many hardships too. A close relative dying early in the movie, people she had spent a joyous night with all brutally murdered, but she didn't end up wandering about with a scowl on her face the whole movie.

 

[Loki882]

Snyder doesn't seem to realize that people don't want to see Superman be that way though. And it fundamentally undercuts the real interesting conflict between him and Batman. So it ended up falling flat.

We also get into Diana's head more and they actually let her speak and give her opinions, not just stand there and look constipated. THAT'S a big distinction for me, she's not a cypher of a character like he is and I get her motivations. Funny how letting us into the head of your protagonist will do that for you.

Buy contrast, it's hard for me to care about this Superman. I WANT to, but he's so reactive to things that I cannot. They had a great chance to change that with that Capitol Hill scene, but they botched that to an amazing degree. Also it doesn't really line up with how MOS ended either, which doesn't help matters.

 

[misslane38]

Does all of that really matter to the general audience though? No one cares about all of that. All that does is bog the movie down. From the majority of comments I have read all they saw was a sad and mopey Superman. Where was the happy go lucky Superman from the Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Movie, Lois & Clark, and most of the animated versions of Superman? A sad and mopey Superman didn't work for Superman Returns. Why would anyone think putting Superman in a situation where he would be an even sadder and morose Superman would work any better? Wonder Woman endured many hardships too. A close relative dying early in the movie, people she had spent a joyous night with all brutally murdered, but she didn't end up wandering about with a scowl on her face the whole movie.

I think the general audience shouldn't be coddled or fed fanciful fairy tales. Look where that sort of thinking got Wonder Woman. Beautiful lies in which heroes like Superman can only be the heartwarming and charming figures we love and celebrate because situations are contrived to limit the character and his world's exposure to darkness and suffering do not help anyone.

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.

What makes the Trinity special is how each of them are able to overcome the particular limitations and traumas of their childhoods and setbacks as heroes in order to evolve into heroes that can love the world and endure its darkness because mankind has the capacity for good. I think audiences deserve to experience narratives that are challenging in this way.

 

[sweetre15]

Gal Gadot's 'Wonder Woman' salary was shockingly low

http://uk.businessinsider.com/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Gal Gadot may be the face of the biggest superhero movie on the planet right now, but she didn't get paid like it.

According to The Daily Dot, the star of "Wonder Woman" was paid $300,000. Gadot is currently in the second film of a three-picture deal in which she's being paid that figure for each project ("Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," "Wonder Woman" "Justice League"). Because of the success of "Wonder Woman," it's likely Gadot is eligible for potential bonuses in her contract.

It's a surprisingly low number in the superhero-movie world, given the hundreds of millions of dollars to make and promote the films. But it's not the first time an actor has gotten that kind of paycheck. Chris Evans for "Captain America: The First Avengers" also only got a base pay of $300,000.

However, the actors in the first "Avengers" movie earned between $2-6 million after bonuses, while Robert Downey Jr. took in $50 million. And Henry Cavill earned $14 million for the first time he played Superman in "Man of Steel."

With "Wonder Woman" having earned over $570 million worldwide to date, Gadot can expect a raise when the sequel is announced.

Debunked: http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/06/20/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-paycheck-henry-cavill/

 

[FunkMiller]

Wonder Woman doesn't repudiate anything because Diana's origin story is one in which the character grows into her heroism because she sees past the beautiful lies of her youth to the darkness that exists within mankind. Diana optimism relies on naivete: evil is something to be killed; good is not a choice but man's natural state. When that fantasy falls apart, so does Diana's resolve. She, like Bruce, begins a ravaging rampage and nearly kills the person she held responsible only to be saved by a memory of love. She, like Bruce, is inspired to believe that men are still good by the sacrifice of a man who saved today so others could save tomorrow.
.

Nice way to deliberately misconstrue my point.

Wonder Woman is a repudiation of the other DCEU movies because it presents a positive, upbeat, celebratory vision of its central character. One that audiences have rightly warmed to. Audiences did not warm to mopey Superman or murdery Batman and their deconstructionist takes.

You can argue against that all you like, but the evidence is quite clearly there for us all to see

 

[misslane38]

Nice way to deliberately misconstrue my point.

Wonder Woman is a repudiation of the other DCEU movies because it presents a positive, upbeat, celebratory vision of its central character. One that audiences have rightly warmed to. Audiences did not warm to mopey Superman or murdery Batman and their deconstructionist takes.

You can argue against that all you like, but the evidence is quite clearly there for us all to see

I am not discussing the issue of repudiation in terms of the audience, so much as your view of the filmmakers' mindset and characterization. You presented the studio as going with darker versions of Superman and Batman because they were risk averse; they wanted to ride the wave of Nolan's success. I disagree. Even if that was a factor to some extent, I think they knew that these takes would be risky in their own way. There had been so much Superman and Batman in live action history and media history in general, they felt the need to do something different, and that's always a risk.

In addition, not every character's story can be told in the exact same way. Diana's character lends itself to the story that was told with her. You can't tell a Batman story the way you tell a Wonder Woman story. Wonder Woman can't even tell the same type of story ever again, because she can no longer be naive or a fish out of water. In that way, the WW movie repudiates itself, at least its first two acts. The kind of positivity Diana is shown exhibiting is treated by the narrative as something she has to lose, in part, and she needed others' inspirational sacrifices -- Steve's and Superman's -- to find the light and drive to be the compassionate and public superhero Wonder Woman (which she is never even named as in the film) is meant to be; thus she is also deconstructed to be reconstructed, as were Superman and Batman. Unlike her male counterparts, however, she doesn't have the burden of setting up a shared universe that includes a world ready to embrace superhuman heroes, and her journey is the inverse of Superman's and Batman's.

What is deconstructed about Superman is that people would instantly love him. What is deconstructed about Batman is that just using the Batman persona to cope with the trauma of his parents' deaths is enough. What is deconstructed about Wonder Woman is her initial belief that people are victims of circumstances and only innocent victims deserve compassion. Each of them have to find a way to have faith in humanity despite experiencing its darkness. These are different and dynamic heroes, and their stories will naturally diverge. The ultimate result is what matters most, in terms of characterization: what do their individual stories develop them into? We haven't actually seen the real Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman yet; they are all still in the process of becoming or re-becoming their iconic selves.

That said, I agree with you that audiences don't find the overcoming struggles story arcs -- ones where the struggle is most of the movie -- as instantly appealing as the story arcs where blissful ignorance gives way to a more mature idealism as a result of disillusionment. The result seems to be a reaction to Wonder Woman that isn't as divisive or polarized as reaction to MoS or BvS both of which have a decent amount of fans and have done well, generally speaking, at the box office and with home viewing.

 

[Wanda Detroit]

The only thing that matters is that WB is going to let the characters who are light and optimistic be that way and the dark and gritty ones be dark and gritty. Morally ambiguous characters will be who they are too. It's not about coddling audience but showing a character in his or her true essence instead of forcing them in to whatever they want to fit at the time because something else was popular.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Superman has not always been a light ray of sunshine. What WB needs to do is go less new 52 but never go full Reeves.

 

[flickchick85]

This Superman is NOT New 52, imo. Certainly not the one Morrison or Pak gave us, at least. If he were, I'd like him more. Now if you want to tell me he's like Lobdell's then I'll just have to take your word for it, because I could only make it through about 2 issues of his run before dropping it like a bad habit.

 

[Wanda Detroit]

Full Reeves is what most people expect as their superman. We can all point to instances in comics where a a writer took a different approach. Even Reeves' Superman had his 'dark' moments. Nobody is saying he should be 24/7 Susie sunshine.

 

[flickchick85]

I don't think they need to go full Reeve (I'm actually not a fan of that version either), but there's such a HUGE gulf between that and what they're doing now, that coming close to some sort of happy medium should be pretty easy, imo.

 

[jmc]

Reality is we're are talking about fantasy film, and people want to see heroes with strong and appealing ideals tackling challenges. Frankly, I think those who are wanting more out of these types of characters are overthinking the concept of superheroes and trying to make them out to be something they're not, a category I feel Snyder falls into. Nolan made a more serious and realistic superhero film but never forgot its roots and the values its hero stood for. It was never interested in questioning the values of Bruce Wayne, it was interested in establishing them, which is exactly what Wonder Woman did. In fact the parallels between Batman Begins and Wonder Woman are pretty striking.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Full Reeves is what most people expect as their superman. We can all point to instances in comics where a a writer took a different approach. Even Reeves' Superman had his 'dark' moments. Nobody is saying he should be 24/7 Susie sunshine.

Then we're in agreement, I like Snyder's version of Supes but I know it's around 45/55 split and they need to move closer to Reeve without trying to duplicate it.

 

[Iceman]

Reeves was great for his time. But I want Cavill Supes now. He needs to move towards being a bit more like Reeves Supes when he gets to where he hopefully will be by the end of JL. Hopefully right in time for MoS2.

 

[Flemm]

I realize that the scene No Man's Land reminds me of the most, in terms of how it resonates with me personally, is the "Call it in" sequence at the end of The Dark Knight.

That has always been my favorite sequence in the Nolan Batman films. I know it's not technically a part of the origin story, but to me that is the moment in the overall story when the character really becomes the Batman of legend. Taking the burden of his city's crimes and failings on his shoulders. A silent guardian, a watchful protector, a Dark Knight.

In No Man's Land, it's almost like Diana is becoming a living shield to protect innocents from the suffering of this endless war. No man can cross it. It's impossible. There's nothing we can do. "It's what I'm going to do."

Like Jenkins says, it is the moment when she becomes Wonder Woman.

These characters can really be compelling when you believe in them.

 

[st barbara]

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 !

 

[Wanda Detroit]

Superman and Bateman have existed on tv and movies beyond comics. It's not just reeves' Superman they think about but George Reeve, Dean Cane and countless cartoon which aren't that much different from each other. Lynda Carter's WW may not be as complex as Gal but they both share the same essence of being about peace, truth, and equality. Gal's WW wasn't all doom and gloom just because she was placed in a more realistic environment. That's all I'm saying about Supes and any character like him. Just let him be what he is.

 

[misslane38]

Reality is we're are talking about fantasy film, and people want to see heroes with strong and appealing ideals tackling challenges. Frankly, I think those who are wanting more out of these types of characters are overthinking the concept of superheroes and trying to make them out to be something they're not, a category I feel Snyder falls into. Nolan made a more serious and realistic superhero film but never forgot its roots and the values its hero stood for. It was never interested in questioning the values of Bruce Wayne, it was interested in establishing them, which is exactly what Wonder Woman did. In fact the parallels between Batman Begins and Wonder Woman are pretty striking.

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.

 

[Greenlite]

I realize that the scene No Man's Land reminds me of the most, in terms of how it resonates with me personally, is the "Call it in" sequence at the end of The Dark Knight.

That has always been my favorite sequence in the Nolan Batman films. I know it's not technically a part of the origin story, but to me that is the moment in the overall story when the character really becomes the Batman of legend. Taking the burden of his city's crimes and failings on his shoulders. A silent guardian, a watchful protector, a Dark Knight.

In No Man's Land, it's almost like Diana is becoming a living shield to protect innocents from the suffering of this endless war. No man can cross it. It's impossible. There's nothing we can do. "It's what I'm going to do."

Like Jenkins says, it is the moment when she becomes Wonder Woman.

These characters can really be compelling when you believe in them.

It touched me cuz it's her emergence for the first time in 75 years!

 

[Greenlite]

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 don't know about Adam west but a few thought it was Batman 6 lol