Rank the DCEU films/My quick Wonder Woman review

My list,

1. MoS - 8/10
2. BvS: UC - 7/10
3. Wonder Woman - 6.5-7/10
4. BvS: TC - 5/10
5. Suicide Squad - 4/10

Now, I know i'll likely be criticized for not having Wonder Woman as my top pick, and certainly for having it behind any version of BvS, but hear me out. I liked Wonder Woman, I really did. I'll definitely watch it more than BvS, but I just don't feel it was as well made.

Wonder Woman was extremely enjoyable, legitimately hilarious, and featured a charming cast, especially Chris Pine. Unlike BvS, and even MoS, I had a smile on my face throughout the majority of the movie. Certain scenes that I usually hate in films, like changing montages, were well done and amusing. Themescyria was vibrant, beautiful, and I honestly wouldn't have minded spending the entire movie there. Also, on that, the use of color was a great storytelling tool. Wonder Woman leaves her colorful island paradise and enters the dreary, drab real world. As for the humor, I havent laughed at a CBM this much since GotG, and the best thing about that is that it never ruined tension or atmosphere with a mistimed joke. That's how it's supposed to be. And can we say that Gal finally shut her haters up?? She IS Wonder Woman now. I couldn't image any of other woman in the role at this point. Her acting was pretty good, but the best thing about her is that she has this natural warmth and screen presence about her. But, even as great as she was, Chris Pine almost stole the show as Steve Trevor. I mean, everything I can say about him has already said before, he's a great actor.

However, everything else seemed par for the course. It's a very safe movie. Even though it's being touted as a win for feminism, no one recognizes that Wonder Woman inherently does that anyways. The actual dialogue on feminism in the movie is relegated to quick remarks like "We'll get to vote soon". The best nods to feminism are when Wonder Woman does what she wants instead of listening to the men, but again, that's Wonder Woman anyways. This isn't really a negative though. I just thought the movie would do more on this subject given all the reviews that say it does.

Also, I felt like this film was trying to apologize for the "darkness" of BvS and in doing so it went too far with the converse, falling into pure corn at times. I mean, the message was great -- "love conquers all" -- but the actualization of that message was hammy and cliche. Anybody who's seen the movie knows what i'm talking about....it was at the end...how she defeated the villain. And speaking on the villain, he was....lame. He can be summarized as generic villain. He looked cool...the fight was dope....the villain himself, completely unremarkable.

Now, I said the fight was dope. all the fights were dope. However, they all also have two glaring problems -- CGI and slow motion. The CGI was horrible at times, especially that first fight on the beach. The slow motion was used liberally, like in ever fight scene at least 3-4 times, and especially for "momentous" moments. It was just too much.

Also, the script was serviceable at best....it really just seemed like a gender swapped Captain America: TFA. Also, there were a couple scenes that looked ripped from other films like the "paradise" scene between Diana and Ares. That was straight from MoS, even down to it's resolution. And finally, one thing I absolutely cannot forgive this film for is how it didn't know what it wanted to say about the war. Throughout the film Diana has this naive idea that defeating the main villain will bring people to their senses and end the war. When she believes that she has defeated the villain she's confused and angry at the people still fighting. Steve Trevor tells her that people are just people, they love, they fight, and they kill, and there's no one to blame but themselves. Diana becomes disillusioned by this until the real villain shows up. She beats him through the power of love and suddenly.....everybody immediately stops fighting. So.....the whole war was the villains fault....or??? No one was actually bad?? Why did she leave mankind then...?? Was WW2 the fault of the villain then....???? I just thought it was a lazy, shortsighted resolution to the arc.

Now, it seems as if I have a lot of complaints, and I do, but I have to stress the enjoyment factor for this film. It's entertaining af. Watch it.

MoS - 7/10

BvS - 6/10

SS - 5/10

WW - 8/10 (might change after a second viewing)

1. WW- 7.9/10

2. SS- 4.5/10

3. BvS- 3/10

4. MoS- 5/10

I agree, it was a pretty flawed film for many of the reasons you gave. However, I'd place the material on Themyscira as my favourite in the DCEU, though the acting in the scene where Diana hurts Antiope is subpar on Gal's part and the exposition was poorly handled at points.

My least favourite part of the film, just because it made me really hate Diana in that moment, was when she gets annoyed at Steve because he can't run into No Man's Land and solo the Germans.

MoS - 5/10

BvS - 5/10 (I only saw this in the cinema, so cannot comment on alternate cuts of it)

SS - 3/10

WW - 8/10

Ares suggested ideas, humanity committed atrocities with those ideas, he revealed the worst of our nature. The war is humanity's fault. The soldiers seem to be in a daze, they don't go into it, but perhaps feeling that wave of love threw them off, speculation there. World War I was an awful, ugly conflict with no clear cut good and bad guys, just slaughter of millions. Diana learns she cannot kill or beat us into peace, it just creates a cycle as Ares visions shows her. She leaves the life of Wonder Woman because she thinks she can do more slowly over time as Diana because she sees the good in us. World War II and other horrible events are on us, we don't need Ares to kill one another.

I thought given where they had to get the character the resolution was handled as well and as true to Diana as possible. Otherwise you're right she'd have to a constant in the 20th century conflicts, and that would bring up lots of questions in the Superman and Batman vs. Superman films.

1. Wonder Woman
2. Man of Steel
3. Suicide Squad
4. Batman vs. Superman (theatrical cut)

@buttersdaman000: the way I interpreted the Germans (WW1, not WW2 be careful in your post there is a typo) soldiers stopping the fight is different.

Put yourself in situation. You just witnessed two superbeings (you have no way of knowing that Gods are involved) fighting each other. You saw all these explosions...and you survived!

At this point you are just happy to be alive. No way anyone would continue a sensless battle, the last day of the war.

Don't forget the numerous scenes of fraternization between French and German soldiers during this war, specially around Christmas time.

As another poster said, there was not "bad guys" against "good guys" in this war.

These soldiers dropping their weapons was very realistic. I never thought the death of Ares woke them up.

I don't know how I would have reacted if I were in your situation.

But honestly, this scene is totally in accordance with the state of mind of the soldiers. In particular in 1918. Even more in November. Specially November 11 as it was suggested it was.

I see what you're saying, but the movie did a horrible job of expressing this. It really just looks like the people come to their senses as soon as Ares dies. And to add to that the war itself seems to end immediately afterwards. This might be because of the armistice, but...secondary bad guy and Dr. Poison killed all the German leaders who were going for it. You may be able to reason out a different conclusion based on actual history, but the movie itself seemed to be confused on what it wanted on this end.

And, I meant WW2. I was just listing examples of historical events.

Yeah, I understand this, however, the movie did a horrible job of showing this. It really does seem like the war ends as soon as Ares is killed.

The "wave" of love was extremely hammy IMO lol

No, I get the point of her arc, i'm just criticizing the execution.

Fair enough. However, I think it's brought down by the child actor (yeah, I thought she was bad sue me lol) and the CGI in the beach fight. Everything else was great though, but i'd still put the Krypton scenes above it.

Eh, I didn't really have a problem with her bravado. She was still pretty ignorant of the world at that time.

They touch on it, but the Armistice is happening around this exact time. Ares plan is with Doctor Poison to push the war into a new age and drag it out as long as possible. You're right, it's not expanded on in depth, but the war ended independently of Diana, she prevented with Steve the war continuing due to a chemical attack on London.

I'd have to rewatch it, I got it, but if you didn't it is a discussion of how clearly it was articulated.

Same that stressed me out when she kept getting mad at him cause he wouldn't run out there and die like not everyone has superpowers jeez leave him alone

WW 8/10

MOS 8/10

SS 7/10

BvS ultimate cut 7/10

BvS 6/10 Theatrical cut

Yeah, but all the Germans considering the armistice were killed. And Ares, in his human form, was actually pushing for peace, remember. That seems a little counter-intuitive.

It was less her bravado and more that she was actually annoyed at Steve for not running into a hail of bullets, she was just being a moron.

Actually thinking about it, I'd agree and put Krypton over it, I meant more of a sustained sequence, I'd say we spent about a third of the time at Krypton as we did on Themysicra.

Nothing the girl did really stuck out to me as bad, I'd have to watch it again. The girl they got to play young Diana didn't look anything like Gal Gadot though, not that Gadot is dark but the child looked white and freckly.

WW >>> MOS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BVS & SS

I think you maybe, kinda missed what Ares was really doing. As he said with the lasso of truth around him. "I am NOT the God of War, I am the God of Truth." Meaning that's either what he is, or at least believes he is. Diana thought she was fighting hm as kind of a "Peace vs War" thing. but she wasn't. His belief is that human-kind is not worth saving "Zeus's creation is flawed", while she believes that we are, despite our flaws. That was the real conflict. War was kind of a red-herring. That's why he got Dr. Poison out and said "Look at her and tell me I'm wrong." if he was all about war, Dr. Poison would be one of his favorites and not merely someone to manipulate. I never got the idea the war stopped when Ares died...just Diana's personal battle. And her realization of how "Man's World" really is. It ties in back to the beginning of the film in her narration when she said "I USED to want to save the world, this beautiful place." Now, it's not about saving the world..we may be unsaveable...but about fighting for what she believes is right.

MoS:9.5

BvS:8

SS:6

WW:8

I completely got what Ares was doing. My criticism was with the execution. Steve Trevor talks about how people are to blame for the war, while Diana at the time still believed it was Ares. So, going into that final battle the movie still presented this idea that Ares might be to blame. Then, as soon as she defeats him, the fighting stops completely. There's no mention of the armistice passing or anything like that. We just get peace. I just feel that was a lazy resolution to that point.

Also, it's kind of senseless for Ares in his human form to advocate for peace regardless of whether he was whispering in Dr. Poisons ear. I mean, the argument could be made that he was playing devils advocate, but everyone besides secondary villain and Dr. Poison agreed with him. They all wanted peace.

So, I mean....if anything....he's basing his argument off the manipulation of a couple people....

Fair enough

IDK, she seemed like she was cast on a cuteness factor more than a talent factor. And yeah, she didn't look like Gal at all lol

Two ways to read that. He was being disingenuous in peace push to hide darker plan. Or he was showing that he makes efforts on both sides and they (humanity) chose war over and over.

MOS 8.5/10

WW 8/10

BvS Ultimate 7.7/10

BvS Theatrical Release 7.2/10

SS 6/10

Oh, I agree there as well. Treaties seem to just put violence on hold rather than stop it outright. However, as it concerns Ares, you kind of have to rationalize out that in your own head since nothing in the movie suggested he was thinking that far. I mean, that's an extremely long con. From what we saw and from what he said, he was just stoking flames that were already there.

Fair enough

Agreed there as well. However, I wouldn't say Wonder Woman is as thematically rich as MoS or BvS. Man of Steel had themes of "Nature vs Nurture", "Free Will vs Choice", "Fathers" and et cetera. BvS had a pretty prevalent theme of "Absolute power vs absolute goodness" and "redemption". The slug fest at the end is a pretty clear cut resolution of the former.

As for Suicide Squad...don't bother thinking too much about that one either way lol it's pretty dope music video though

1. BvS - 9.0

2. Man of Steel - 8.5

3. Wonder Woman - 8.3

WW

MoS

SS

BvS

MOS: 8.5

WW: 8

BVS: UE: 7

SS: 4

Man of Steel: 8.5

Wonder Woman: 8

Suicide Squad: 7

Batman v Superman: 7

Yeah. I think there are more loveable moments in Man of Steel, myself. Its the better origin story of the two.

You're entitled to your opinion, bruv. Thank you for sharing. I think it's great to hear different perspectives, or else this place would be a circlejerk.

I disagree. I think Wonder Woman is not only far and away the best DCEU movie, but also the best superhero we've seen in years. The only thing MoS does is better is the villain and score. Wonder Woman blows MoS out of the water in every other respect.

Out of fear of hijacking your thread, I won't go on a tangent about why :)

@theamazingspidey: Go on, bruv. I want to here this.

I disagree, but i'm curious where you think WW blows MoS out of the water, outside of the positives I already mentioned. You don't have to worry about hijacking the thread. And if you are, feel free to just link your opinion, and we'll go from there lol

@monsterstomp@buttersdaman000

If you insist :) For the record, I'm not trying to get anyone to dislike MoS. I'm just saying why I think Wonder Woman is the better movie and Man of Steel missed the mark in many aspects:

Damn, that took me a while, lol. I wanted to get it right.

@theamazingspidey: If I can just piggyback off what you're saying for a second:

One of the main things I kept thinking about when walking out of Wonder Woman comparing it to Man of Steel was how each movie handles their respective theme.

Man of Steel loves to pay lip service to its theme. "On my planet, it means hope," "They will join you in the sun," etc. The problem is that for all their talk about hope and Superman being a guiding light towards that hope, the movie itself is pretty dang hopeless. Clark himself doesn't seem to believe in hope or trust that humanity is better than they appear. For most of the film, he completely agrees with Pa's philosophy that humans can't be trusted with the truth about him, and the only reason he reveals himself is because Zod forces his hand. And the big climax doesn't even try. We never get to see Superman confronting Zod and making a case for humanity. In the end, they're not fighting because of their differing ideals. They're fighting because Zod is the bad guy. And don't even get me started on how everything resolves. Where's the rallying moment? Where's the part where humanity gets their faith back because of Superman's influence? Where's the better path he's supposed to show them? Apparently "the sun" that Jor-El was talking about is snapping a man's neck and screaming in anguish over the corpse.

Wonder Woman dropped the ball on its theme as well (Diana should have actually made a case to Ares instead of just aping what Steve said. That speech she makes at the end should have been in that scene instead. Plus, this may be just a me thing, but the film did a little too good of a job showing why humans are screwed up, and Steve's sacrifice, while sweet, didn't do enough to push the needle back to where it should be for me. Maybe it's just where my head's at at the moment. Also knowing that she eventually gives up on mankind and leaves pretty much shoots the moral of this film in the face. Thanks a lot, BvS), but the fact remains that it tries. When Ares is standing there listing off humanity's sins, Diana is there to take their defense and say why she still fights for them. Also for a film that's about whether humanity is worth fighting for or not, the film actually takes the time to show us the good parts of humanity! Shocker, right? The quieter moments are some of my favorites too, because the film is working on its theme through character moments and interaction rather than endlessly saying it to you. Many moments in the film show that while humans are not perfect, they can still do the right thing if they try, and because of that, Wonder Woman's theme comes across so much better. Because it believes it.

Man of Steel, for all its posturing and speeches, doesn't have that belief at the core of its movie. There's no big moment where humanity becomes better, or where we show why we deserve aid, because it doesn't believe we do. In the end, that overpowering nihilism at its center becomes its undoing. Wonder Woman kicks that idea out of the room, and that's why the heart of the movie shines through so much brighter despite a botched execution.

Sorry for the essay XD

@nicksmi56: Well done, dude! I agree. For all the praise Man of Steel gets for being "intelligent", it doesn't pay-off any of the themes it sets up.

Superman will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards, but we never see this.

All that shit about Jonathan being afraid of the world's reaction to Superman? No pay-off whatsoever!

Pa's philosophy that humans can't be trusted with the truth about him, and the only reason he reveals himself is because Zod forces his hand.

Exactly. We only see the world's reaction of Superman on Zod's terms. Zod demands Superman, and he/humanity hands him in... how does that pay-off any of Pa Kent's talk about humanity not being trusted with the truth about him? It doesn't.

Of course they'll hand him in. The fate of the planet is at risk! That has nothing to do with the themes the movie set up.

We also don't get to see society as a whole being exposed to Superman in a meaningful way. Only the military.

We never get to see Superman confronting Zod and making a case for humanity. In the end, they're not fighting because of their differing ideals. They're fighting because Zod is the bad guy. And don't even get me started on how everything resolves. Where's the rallying moment? Where's the part where humanity gets their faith back because of Superman's influence? Where's the better path he's supposed to show them? Apparently "the sun" that Jor-El was talking about is snapping a man's neck and screaming in anguish over the corpse.

This is actually pretty interesting. I've never considered this before. Superman's battle with Zod isn't even a battle of ideals.

Also knowing that she eventually gives up on mankind and leaves pretty much shoots the moral of this film in the face.

That is a bit odd, lol, but according to Patty Jenkins, Diana never lost hope in humanity. She just operated in the background.

In the end, that overpowering nihilism at its center becomes its undoing. Wonder Woman kicks that idea out of the room, and that's why the heart of the movie shines through so much brighter despite a botched execution.

Yeah, I guess you can argue the thematic pay off of Wonder Woman didn't 100% work, but at least it doesn't waste it's time lecturing us about themes it doesn't intend on paying off. It's terrible writing.

Sorry for the essay XD

Not my thread, but I quite like this discussion. It sharpens the knife!

They need to say that in Justice League. I'd be up for that retcon 110%!

This is actually pretty interesting. I've never considered this before. Superman's battle with Zod isn't even a battle of ideals.

And what kills me is that all the necessary set-up is right there!

• Take Faora's evolution line and give it to Zod (because Faora doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things)! Make Zod see himself as superior and humans as lowly, pitiful worms!
• That scene where the two are calmly talking is supposed to be in Clark's mind, right? So have him play on Clark's resentment of how humanity has treated him all these years, since he would be able to see it pretty easily! Give Clark a reason to be tempted besides "Krypton, lol! I'm gonna kill everyone you've ever known now, k?"
• Zod literallycomes out of the rubble talking about how he's going to kill all the humans!! Follow up on that during their fight! Have Zod actually set out to do that instead of punching Clark in the face! You want Superman saving people? Here's a whole 45 minutes of it! And have Clark continuously leave himself open to Zod's blows all so an innocent doesn't have to die! And then when Superman's put himself in harm's way dozens of times just to save what Zod sees as the equivalent of dirt, have Zod ask "WHY?!"
• And THAT'S when a battered Superman stands up and makes humanity's case! Why is Superman Superman? THIS is why! And he'll die for it if he has to! It'd have to be a little reworked from the standard "I've seen the best of humanity because I lived with them!" since this movie really doesn't show Clark's upbringing in the best light, but there's ways to do it even with what the movie already has!

All the tools were staring them in the face from the beginning. It's just baffling to me.

Not my thread, but I quite like this discussion. It sharpens the knife!

That's what I'm here for :)

Wondy's the best, although it could be a tad bit better. Maybe a seven or high seven for me.

Suicide Squad is a six because it's literally stupid fluff that you watch to relax.

MOS is a four at best. Should've been a better outing for the boy scout.

BVS... here it is in gif form.

@theamazingspidey:

Nice analysis. I just want to touch down on a few things though.

Superman landing on earth and getting found by Martha and Jonathan is a pivotal moment that would've helped attach the audiences to Clark, but S. Goyer completely skips over it.

You're not wrong as far as pivotal moments go, however it is under fair assumption that at least 90% of the general audience understands what happens after Kal's ship lands on the Kent's farm. To anyone who has seen the original picture from 1978--heck, even in Superman Returns they grasp as flashback sequences that imply what happens. I know I'd find it somewhat offensive to spoon feed me the same moment I'm already accustomed to. I was actually hoping that after the overly long introduction of Krypton's destruction that we wouldn't get into Clark's childhood and go through that demanding process again. So cutting straight to a scene where Clark is trying to make a life for himself, a normal life, was a breath of fresh air in my opinion.

The flashbacks are also placed in the wrong order. If anything, the flashback of Clark and the bullies should be placed before the scene of Clark vs. the drunk douchebag in the bar, because they parallel one another, thematically. Likewise, the 'was I supposed to let them die scene?' should be precede the oil-rig scene, because they parallel one another.

I actually agree with this. In fact, its probably my only qualm I have with the film as a whole. You put the nail on the coffin with this statement.

When we're later shown Jonathan lecturing Clark about saving people, it doesn't matter because we've already seen the decision he's going to make.

I don't think Clark saving the people on the oil rig dismisses this moment as unnecessary. His story on Earth opens with him on some kind of fishing trawler trying to make a normal life for himself. Which begs the question "why is he trying to stay under the radar?", its not a question of "Is he going to save those people?". The flashback highlights Jonathan's stance on trying to protect Clark from the world because he was uneasy about how they'd react. However, Jor-El later inspires Clark to be their saviour. This is defining conflict within Clark.

This was the main theme that set up Batman v. Superman, which ended up being poorly executed in that film.

Compare this to the character development in Wonder Woman, where the No Man's Land sequence is so effective because of all the character set-up before. In Wonder Woman, Diana deciding to leave Themyscira has impact because we've seen everyone tell her otherwise.

What makes a character are the choices they make. This wasn't really present in Wonder Woman. Diana had made one choice throughout the entire film, and that was to kill Ares. The theme that was set up was the conflict in beliefs between Steve and Diana. Where Steve simply believes mankind is evil by nature, and Diana believes that Ares has merely corrupted men. She never considers Steve's opinion until she kills Ludendorff believing he's Ares and it stops nothing. She then ponders on her beliefs while Steve tries to convince her to save lives regardless of if Ares was real or not. She made no choice there. She almost gave up altogether. It just cuts to Ares who actually is alive, and all her beliefs are again solidified and her main goal is to stop him.

There was a lot of development for Diana. But there were no stakes, she was never faced with difficult choices. The climactic battle was emotional for me because Steve died, not because Diana did anything to contribute even remotely. Haha. What would have made it emotional is if they did something like TASM2, which is still the best death scene in a CBM, imo.

In terms of concluding themes, MoS doesn't do that. It sets up 'how humanity will react to Superman', but we don't get that in this movie.

I'm guessing this was a deliberate decision made by Snyder. I mean, most of the conclusion to this theme was meant to be showcased in Batman v. Superman. I don't know.

As for the conclusion of Wonder Woman, where she finally kills Ares and the opposing forces of the War just cease and are all liberated from corruption. Like, "Okay, now what?".

Eh, I don't really agree. It seems like you just wan to reconstruct the story to your liking, and because it's not currently to your liking you exaggerate the faults, and mask them behind this effort to improve the thematic elements.

Like, for example, you want to rearrange the bar scene to come after the bully scene because they parallel each other....well....a parallel line goes both ways so your reasoning fails. Instead of the movie showing us the lead up, it simply explains his actions after the fact. It's very much like the flashbacks in Lost. I mean, you may prefer a traditional linear storyline, but I don't think it's fair to criticize a film that chooses to do something else. You can't even say it's confusing because it's honestly pretty self-explanatory. The rhythm was pretty clear as well.....something happens to adult Clark, he makes a decision to act, then he flashes back to an event in his past that shaped him. What's messy about that?

Also, I don't think you're paying enough attention tot he film. Clark doesn't have to explicitly say anything about the themes of the movie because he literally acts them out himself or the movie expresses them through other characters. For all the hate MoS gets for it's in your face symbolism (the Jesus references) it also has some pretty subtle symbolism as well. For example, you say Clark never said anything about "nature vs nurture"? That's wrong, he chose multiple times. Once in the the dream scene (that WW ripped from) and again in the final act "Krypton had it's chance". He chose nurture. Then, we have his antithesis, Zod, who was ruled by nature without a choice at all. Also, I don't feel you got the other themes you mentioned either. You say we never get resolution to how "Humanity will react"? Well....we did....albeit, i'll admit not fully. We see the military fully accept him, and we se Lois "welcome him to the planet" at the end of the movie. Sure, it would've helped to get a civilian reaction as well, but I don't think it's enough to completely defeat the resolution of this theme. Also, "making earth a better place" i.e "in time they will join you in the sun", was never meant to be resolved in this movie. Superman can't and never will make the earth a better place on his first day on the job -- which is what this movie was.

Well, no-mans land is effective because the movie is pretty blatant about it's themes. It repeats it over and over through dialogue so you can't possibly forget it. I mean you prove my point with your Themyscria example. We see everybody tell her to stay multiple times, then we see Wonder Woman say that she cannot, then she follows through on that and leaves. It's very easy to follow and it's very blatant. And I disagree with how MoS would go. You kind of contradicted the established sequence there. If the movie followed MoS we would have had Steve and Wonder Woman talk about leaving, then go immediately to her getting ready to leave. She would've just made the decision. Then, once she was already gone, she would've flashbacked on what led her to make that decision. It's the same thing except one doesn't hold your hand as much. And tension? Really? What tension was there? We all knew she was going to leave lol

I don't think Wonder Woman resolves it's themes well at all. You can go over my post to get a clearer reason, but basically it's just not well executed at the end. MoS was clearly superior in this if you just pay a little attention. And to add, MoS had themes and symbolism out the ass, while WW had one, maybe two themes, that it couldn't really resolve well.

The pacing wasn't really terrific. The movies third act just goes into hyper drive (Ares literally shows up for no reason), which is a stark contrast to the slower first two acts. The only reason why you may think it was better because it's a very, very par for the course script, and traditional origin story. It pretty much mirrors the MCU phase one arcs. Hell, it's basically a gender swapped TFA.

There are a lot of other things I can say that I feel you just don't care about. I remember people flaming BvS for CGI, yet I don't see that same criticism from you or from select others. Snyder is traditionally flamed for slow motion, but Patty Jenkins seemed addicted to it. It's overlooked.

So, I already agree that WW is better on the character end so i'm not going to touch on that. Overall, and this is cliche, I feel like MoS simply isn't your cup of tea, or you just didn't get it/pay attention.

WW is a 6.5 in my book. It did an extremely simple story well, with no attempt to put any spin, or personal touch in it. I don't feel ambition from this movie. There's no unique direction, i'm really curious where you're getting this from. I mean, everything about the movie is par for the course.

On the other hand, Man of Steel flipped the origin story on it's head. It's radically different from anything that's come before or after. It has blatant and subtle themes and symbolism out the wazoo, so much so that you don't get all of them on first viewing. The action scenes were much better. The music was much better. The villain was much better. It was more epic, better directed, and so on. You may not have felt connected to Clark, but I feel like he was extremely human (which is something that is so ironic given the people who dislike this movie).

So, we're likely not going to agree at all. You just have completely different taste in films I guess.

I hear ya man. My list would probably be:

1. BvS UE

2. MoS

3. Wonder Woman

.

.

.

4. Suicide Squad

My wife loves Wonder Woman though and it is her number 1.

@buttersdaman000:

Eh, I don't really agree. It seems like you just wan to reconstruct the story to your liking, and because it's not currently to your liking you exaggerate the faults, and mask them behind this effort to improve the thematic elements.

You're gonna start your retort by accusing me of an agenda? That's neat.

I mean, you may prefer a traditional linear storyline, but I don't think it's fair to criticize a film that chooses to do something else.

That isn't true. I think it depends on the movie, but non-linear structure can be well done when warranted! Batman Begins is a good example of non-linear storytelling done right. In Batman Begins, although the story is non-linear, character and themes are establish in linear fashion. Like I said. When Rachel shames Bruce for considering murdering Joe Chill, it means something because Nolan and Goyer spent the entire film leading up to that point showing us Bruce's downfall. Nolan sets up all his themes before expanding on them. In MoS, when he saves the guy's at the oil rig, it means nothing because Snyder hasn't established the themes of "will Clark use his powers for good or will he hide them to keep himself safe." It's just the fundamentals of storytelling. I don't get why you're spinning my argument as "you just didn't like the movie because it isn't the way you wanted."

The flashbacks are just mishandled. Nothing of note happens between the 'X-ray vision' flashback and the 'school bus flashback.' Compare this to Batman Begins, where each time period we cut to is telling a compelling story.

We get a scene of Jonathan lecturing Clark about finding his place in the world... and then we cut to a scene of the protagonist getting into conflict with a drunken asshole? That's bad handling of themes.

We're jumping from 1 scene to another unrelated scene.

For example, you say Clark never said anything about "nature vs nurture"? That's wrong, he chose multiple times.

That's later on in the movie. The beginning of the movie does a bad job getting us to understand the character's perspective on things, which is why him saving the guy's on the oil rig means nothing.

We see the military fully accept him, and we se Lois "welcome him to the planet" at the end of the movie.

The military isn't really a good paragon for humanity, neither is Lois. Where's humanity's reaction? Where's the "stand in front of the human race" decision that Jonathan spoke about?

Also, "making earth a better place" i.e "in time they will join you in the sun", was never meant to be resolved in this movie.

Bad storytelling. Sequels can expand on themes, but a self contained movie should start and end in that movie.

Well, no-mans land is effective because the movie is pretty blatant about it's themes.

It's very easy to follow and it's very blatant.

There's nothing wrong with good, old fashioned effective storytelling. Yes, the No-Man's Land sequence works because Jenkins, the writers and Gal did a good job getting us to understand and go on a journey with the character. Since when was that a bad thing?

Then, once she was already gone, she would've flashbacked on what led her to make that decision. It's the same thing except one doesn't hold your hand as much.

Again, since when was good, old fashioned storytelling in which you follow the character on a chronological journey a bad thing? I guess you consider The Godfather Part 1 'holds the audience's hands' because it's told linearly?

And tension? Really? What tension was there? We all knew she was going to leave lol

It's about going on an emotional journey with these characters. If we applied your argument that there's no tension and thrill in seeing something that you know is going to happen, unfold... then nobody would everrewatch movies, lol.

I don't think Wonder Woman resolves it's themes well at all.

We can argue to which extent it succeeds, but at least it doesn't lecture audiences about something it isn't going to attempt to answer.

MoS was clearly superior in this if you just pay a little attention.

Please explain how MoS shows us Clark "giving the people of earth an ideal to strive towards."

The pacing wasn't really terrific.

I consider it terrific. The balance between action and character was extraordinarily well-done, and the movie's first hour did a very good job fleshing out character's and character dynamics before it got into the action.

Hell, it's basically a gender swapped TFA.

There are so many things wrong with this statement. We might as well call Man of Steel a "just a Twilight version of Donner's Superman."

I remember people flaming BvS for CGI, yet I don't see that same criticism from you or from select others.

Show me where I complained about BvS's CGI and I will answer. Also, I have seen people flame Wonder Woman for it's CGI.

WW is a 6.5 in my book. It did an extremely simple story well, with no attempt to put any spin, or personal touch in it. I don't feel ambition from this movie. There's no unique direction, i'm really curious where you're getting this from. I mean, everything about the movie is par for the course.

On the other hand, Man of Steel flipped the origin story on it's head. It's radically different from anything that's come before or after. It has blatant and subtle themes and symbolism out the wazoo, so much so that you don't get all of them on first viewing. The action scenes were much better. The music was much better. The villain was much better. It was more epic, better directed, and so on.

Fair is fair! Look, you think MoS is better, I think WW is better. Personally, I think risks, when not done right, can be a bad thing. Like Superman killing Zod in MoS, only for them to forget about it in the next scene.

So, we're likely not going to agree at all. You just have completely different taste in films I guess.

I think Wonder Woman is a better movie because it's better written, better paced and better acted. It's that simple, dude. Is my opinion universally right? Hell no. But to disregard everything I said as 'there's nothing wrong with MoS, it's all you'? I think you're taking this a bit too personally. I'm not trying to get you not to like MoS. I'm just arguing why I think Wonder Woman is better :)

1. Wonder Woman
2. BvS
3. Man of Steel

I'm going to pretend Suicide Squad never happened.

@monsterstomp:

Nice analysis. I just want to touch down on a few things though.

Thanks. Nice argument as well.

You're not wrong as far as pivotal moments go, however it is under fair assumption that at least 90% of the general audience understands what happens after Kal's ship lands on the Kent's farm. To anyone who has seen the original picture from 1978--heck, even in Superman Returns they grasp as flashback sequences that imply what happens. I know I'd find it somewhat offensive to spoon feed me the same moment I'm already accustomed to. I was actually hoping that after the overly long introduction of Krypton's destruction that we wouldn't get into Clark's childhood and go through that demanding process again. So cutting straight to a scene where Clark is trying to make a life for himself, a normal life, was a breath of fresh air in my opinion.

Fair enough. I just feel that seeing it is pivotal to getting attached in this Superman. Most people were familiar with Batman's origin story, but could you imagine if Begins started after Bruce's parents are killed? It's the stepping stone toward the origin of that Bats story, and I can't see it working without it.

I like using Begins as a standard as both of them were darker retellings of the most popular superheroes, but Nolan executed the origin story impeccably. Especially since both movies used non-linear storytelling.

I actually agree with this. In fact, its probably my only qualm I have with the film as a whole. You put the nail on the coffin with this statement.

Thanks.

I don't think Clark saving the people on the oil rig dismisses this moment as unnecessary. His story on Earth opens with him on some kind of fishing trawler trying to make a normal life for himself. Which begs the question "why is he trying to stay under the radar?", its not a question of "Is he going to save those people?". The flashback highlights Jonathan's stance on trying to protect Clark from the world because he was uneasy about how they'd react. However, Jor-El later inspires Clark to be their saviour. This is defining conflict within Clark.

They aren't mutually exclusive, though. Clark contemplating whether or not he should stay under the radar, and deciding not to, in itself is an arc. But the movie shows us Clark deciding to not stay under the radar before it even sets up why he should stay under the radar.

Jor-El inspires him to be their saviour, but only in a physical sense. We don't see him being the ideal to strive toward that Jor-El spoke about.

Diana had made one choice throughout the entire film, and that was to kill Ares.

Leaving Themyscira to help mankind is also a choice.

She made no choice there. She almost gave up altogether. It just cuts to Ares who actually is alive, and all her beliefs are again solidified and her main goal is to stop him.

I don't get this statement, TBH. Care to paraphrase?

I'm guessing this was a deliberate decision made by Snyder. I mean, most of the conclusion to this theme was meant to be showcased in Batman v. Superman. I don't know.

All I'm sayin' is, it's pretty bad writing to lecture audiences about something you aren't gonna explore in that movie.

As for the conclusion of Wonder Woman, where she finally kills Ares and the opposing forces of the War just cease and are all liberated from corruption. Like, "Okay, now what?".

According to Diana, she's still kicking ass and saving lives in the modern age!

Lo no. Stop being sensitive. The opening line was a summarization of what I felt about your complaints.

That isn't true. I think it depends on the movie, but non-linear structure can be well done when warranted! Batman Begins is a good example of non-linear storytelling done right. In Batman Begins, although the story is non-linear, character and themes are establish in linear fashion. Like I said. When Rachel shames Bruce for considering murdering Joe Chill, it means something because Nolan and Goyer spent the entire film leading up to that point showing us Bruce's downfall. Nolan sets up all his themes before expanding on them. In MoS, when he saves the guy's at the oil rig, it means nothing because Snyder hasn't established the themes of "will Clark use his powers for good or will he hide them to keep himself safe." It's just the fundamentals of storytelling. I don't get why you're spinning my argument as "you just didn't like the movie because it isn't the way you wanted."

Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. What are these fundamentals of storytelling i'm missing? Why does the non-linear approach to the scene take away from the thematic elements that are present throughout the movie? From what I know, in storytelling it is essential to establish a structure. The structure of Man of Steel is very clear as far as the flashbacks goes, which i've already touched on. The oil rig scene does not lose meaning simply because a certain thematic element hasn't been laid out and presented in full. It's a story -- elements reveal themselves as the story unfolds. The theme you mention, "will Clark use his powers for good or hide to keep himself safe" is literally and ironically presented and answered in part by the very scene you say is meaningless -- He used his powers for good! I'm spinning your argument as such because I don't feel as if the arguments you made towards the story structure hold as much weight as you believe.

For example, you say Clark never said anything about "nature vs nurture"? That's wrong, he chose multiple times.

That's later on in the movie. The beginning of the movie does a bad job getting us to understand the character's perspective on things, which is why him saving the guy's on the oil rig means nothing.

I addressed the oil rig above. As for "nature vs nurture", no this theme was presented throughout the movie. I just gave you a couple examples of Clark directly acting on it. Superman being born through natural birth was in direct defiance to the nature of Krypton. The life lessons that John Kent gave in the flashbacks were examples of nurture. The list goes on. I also disagree that the movie does a bad job on explaining how Clark feels. This is presented throughout the movie as well. He feel lost. It's literally right there. That's his perspective on that dichotomy. He knows he's alone on the planet, away from the nature of his being, yet his personality, the way he was raised, spurs him into action to help people who are in need. When he discovers his people, he's elated and excited, but when Zod arrives he has a miniature crisis because now he has to choose which is more important. He chooses nurture.

We see the military fully accept him, and we se Lois "welcome him to the planet" at the end of the movie.

The military isn't really a good paragon for humanity, neither is Lois. Where's humanity's reaction? Where's the "stand in front of the human race" decision that Jonathan spoke about?

Also, "making earth a better place" i.e "in time they will join you in the sun", was never meant to be resolved in this movie.

Bad storytelling. Sequels can expand on themes, but a self contained movie should start and end in that movie.

I already touched on how the lack of civilian reactions are a negative. Why did you cut that part out? As for the lack of resolution to the "join you in the sun" theme, I disagree. From what we know, MoS was originally intended to be followed by MoS 2. That theme was never intended to be settled in the first movie. It's disingenuous of you to ignore the intent since the movie was never meant to be self-contained.

There's nothing wrong with good, old fashioned effective storytelling. Yes, the No-Man's Land sequence works because Jenkins, the writers and Gal did a good job getting us to understand and go on a journey with the character. Since when was that a bad thing?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's an extremely hard thing to screw up given the straight forward, simplistic nature of the approach. The movie drives the theme home so blatantly it would be hard to miss the meaning behind it. However, and this is in regards to the whole script, I will call it uninspired.

Then, once she was already gone, she would've flashbacked on what led her to make that decision. It's the same thing except one doesn't hold your hand as much.

Again, since when was good, old fashioned storytelling in which you follow the character on a chronological journey a bad thing? I guess you consider The Godfather Part 1 'holds the audience's hands' because it's told linearly?

Context is important. Here we were talking about the difference in storytelling between MoS and WW, where you criticize the former for being confusing/lacking tension it the way it's told. I disagreed. I was in no way criticizing linear storytelling in general. My criticisms for WW "holding the audiences hands" has nothing to do with the linear approach either. I mean they beat these themes and certain dialogue prompts into the script so blatantly it's as if they fear the audience won't understand what's going on if they don't. I need somebody to count how many times the "Ares to blame or humans to blame" argument is brought up throughout the film.

And tension? Really? What tension was there? We all knew she was going to leave lol

It's about going on an emotional journey with these characters. If we applied your argument that there's no tension and thrill in seeing something that you know is going to happen, unfold... then nobody would everrewatch movies, lol.

So, are you implying that you can predict what will happen in every movie? I'll concede that my argument that the scene lacked tension simply because we knew she was going to leave was shortsighted. I'll reframe it as such -- I just didn't feel it was directed to be tense. There was no tension in that scene for me.

I don't think Wonder Woman resolves it's themes well at all.

We can argue to which extent it succeeds, but at least it doesn't lecture audiences about something it isn't going to attempt to answer.

MoS was clearly superior in this if you just pay a little attention.

Please explain how MoS shows us Clark "giving the people of earth an ideal to strive towards."

Well, neither did Man of Steel. The resolution at the end "welcome to the planet" is a hint at brighter things to come. Superman leading humanity into the sun, or giving them an ideal to strive towards are all things the final scenes promise to do as the character arc continues. Again, the movie was set up to have sequels. Themes can carry throughout connected films.

And it's funny. You keep fixating on whatever theme you feel wasn't fully realized. In a movie that tackles several themes, you focus on one and use it to bolster your argument. I don't think it's fair on your part.

The pacing wasn't really terrific.

I consider it terrific. The balance between action and character was extraordinarily well-done, and the movie's first hour did a very good job fleshing out character's and character dynamics before it got into the action.

I disagree. The movie is well paced for the first act or so, but when the third act comes around it falls into the same trap that many people criticized Man of Steel for. After a pretty consistent pace throughout the movie, everything just kicks into overdrive. I honestly didn't think we were nearing the end of the movie until Ares just randomly pops up in that tower with no explanation.

Hell, it's basically a gender swapped TFA.

There are so many things wrong with this statement. We might as well call Man of Steel a "just a Twilight version of Donner's Superman."

How about this. I'll explain my reasoning for WW being a gender swapped TFA, and you explain why Man of Steel is "just a Twilight version of Donners Superman". Remember to keep note of similar story beats.

Ok,

• First off, the fact that it's a War period piece detailing the exploits of a JLA member before the team is formed is very reminiscent of TFA detailing the exploits of Cap before the formation of the Avengers.
• The death of mentors spur the heroes on, and give them more reason to fight.
• A rag tag team is assembled to assist the Heroes on their journey
• Both are on a mission to find the man who is (or who they feel is) responsible for the war.
• The dance WW and Steve share honestly seemed like a sly wink towards the date/dance Steve and Peggy never got.
• Steve trevor sacrifices himself in a plane in both movies, leading to unrequited love.

It's just very similar to TFA, but has more to say than it does.

I remember people flaming BvS for CGI, yet I don't see that same criticism from you or from select others.

Show me where I complained about BvS's CGI and I will answer. Also, I have seen people flame Wonder Woman for it's CGI.

Fair enough. I have yet to see anyone complain about the CGI or slow motion in WW without being downvoted or shamed though.

I think Wonder Woman is a better movie because it's better written, better paced and better acted. It's that simple, dude. Is my opinion universally right? Hell no. But to disregard everything I said as 'there's nothing wrong with MoS, it's all you'? I think you're taking this a bit too personally. I'm not trying to get you not to like MoS. I'm just arguing why I think Wonder Woman is better :)

I don't have any problem with your opinion. The only problem I had was the apparent lack of understanding that prompted that opinion. I mean, you can dislike the way the movie is structured all you want, but to say that the structure itself takes away from the elements of the movie simply because they aren't set in certain ways is wrong. This is even more true when the scenes you criticize actually fulfill the story beats you say they lack. And, honestly, what gives you the impression that i'm taking this too seriously? Is it because I wholeheartedly disagree with nearly everything you said, and would be willing to debate the issues? It's just an internet forum and I like discussing movies lol

EDIT:

Also, please don't take my disagreement personally.

Wonder woman 9/10

Man of Steel 8/10

Batman V. Superman 7.5/10

Sucide squad 5/10

@theamazingspidey:

Clark contemplating whether or not he should stay under the radar, and deciding not to, in itself is an arc. But the movie shows us Clark deciding to not stay under the radar before it even sets up why he should stay under the radar.

Except he kind of does remain under the radar. Clark doesn't abandon ship, save those people and then goes back to work on the fishing trawler. He saves those people and then disappears altogether. Then we get a flashback of why he has chosen to live life as a silent saviour. That's the way I see it anyway. If only the flashback scene directly after the oil rig wasn't about him getting his powers, it would have been more impactful. Like, I don't think it was even necessary to show Clark getting his powers.

We don't see him being the ideal to strive toward that Jor-El spoke about.

Its a pretty broad statement that Jor-El came about though. The suit itself was supposed to be the ideal of hope that people would strive toward. But I understand your point. It would have been a better ending for Man of Steel if after Zod died this scene from Batman v. Superman came about.

This would have shown both how people are reacting, and how he's giving people an ideal to strive towards.

Leaving Themyscira to help mankind is also a choice.

To me, that wasn't a choice. See she spends her entire childhood training for one purpose in mind. I feel like that decision was made from day one. Take 300 for example. Leonidas must seek the approval of the hierarchy before war can commence. By law, he was denied that request, but he made the choice to take 300 warriors to the Hot Gates. By comparison, Diana was told not to go, like a parent would tell their child not to go outside. Except, in Wonder Woman, Diana's mother comes around and doesn't even try to stop her. There was no conflict there. There was no real decision making from Diana. Its not up for discussion when a warrior is told to fight.

I don't get this statement, TBH. Care to paraphrase?

Well, when everything she stood for got taken away, she didn't do anything. It would have been better to see her accept that mankind were evil by nature and help Steve do something about the war. But instead, she just stands there... like fighting is pointless. And if her choice was to give up, that's kind of a contradictory character trait.

All I'm sayin' is, it's pretty bad writing to lecture audiences about something you aren't gonna explore in that movie.

Fair enough. I agree.

Wonder Woman... Just was able to see it today, and i think that is a good movie, but at least for me its not what some audiences and critics and making of it...

Loved the characters (specially Diana and Steve, more fan of both of these characters now) and performances (who would thought Gal was going to deliver!?!), the cinematography, narrative, pace and tone also were good, and the villain fit the build up, there was some slow motion abuse and too much cgi in the final battle, but still enjoyable to watch, and i am excited to see a sequel, hopefully a Diana's story in the current time line.

But i did have problems with the worldbuilding (something that i care a lot), always was intrigued by how would the Dceu portray their pantheons/Gods, specially outside of their era, and from the beginning that i was disappointed (Ares killed every other God?), that is Wrath of the Titans cliche and disappointing to who would like to see more interactions from the Greek Pantheon... And Steve Trevor reactions to the Greek Godly stuff and the fantastical never really felt organic, i mean what was his perspective about creation? Similar to Martha, no? For me this movie and the Dceu worldbuilding (in terms of creation) feels convoluted. They should differentiate a lot better the historical perspective from the fictional, that they are trying to set...

For me it was a B+ movie...

@buttersdaman000:
Um, she looks EXACTLY like Gal when she was young. It's actually uncanny:

@asgaard: how much would you rate it out of 10?