@outside_85 said:
@truethemyscira said:
@outside_85 said:
@the_living_tribunal_24 said:
@truethemyscira said:
@geraldofvengerberg: In this day and age, we can't even have a proper "modern" Wonder Woman movie made? We were stuck with poisoned gas and trench warfare in the last movie.
????? trench warfare is the literal definition of world war 1. Stuck with poison gas?? wdym by that??
He's just bitter he didn't get Marvel movie.
I think most of us just want a WW movie that's accurate to the source material.
Besides, there are reasons why Marvel is making billions while the current DCEU is stuck in a rut.
@truethemyscira said:
I feel like I'm the lone wolf on this. Do you guys not want to see a good depiction of WW on the big screen or what? It's like settling for crumbs is okay now.
Thing is that most people, here and elsewhere, thought we did get a pretty excellent Wonder Woman movie, despite all the misgivings you could bring out against it before people actually saw it.
As for the changes between book and screen... please, movies have always been and will always be, adaptations at best, there will always be changes almost regardless of how close you get. And seriously changing Diana's entry into the world by moving it back 30 years is not a huge difference when you pretty much just change it from one muddy battlefield to another.
Regarding the BO take... thats just a measure of how many people have been in to see a movie. Also that WB can release movies with mixed receptions and still pull in 750-850 million dollars, isn't a failure or means they are loosing money. This isn't a zero-sum game or leap-frog where WB has to match or surpass Disney movie for movie in order to be considered a success.
Wonder Woman isn't a flawless movie I admit, I think it would have been prettier if Jenkins (or the WB boffins) hadn't decided to use the blue tinted filter so often, the villains were Marvel-levels of 'meh', soundtrack... well it was kinda Marvel-like too as it was just in the background and I've gotten used to Zimmer's more bombastic approach. Everything else on the other hand was fine by my account, Gadot and Pine are great, plot is what you should expect from an origins movie, action is terrific and the whole thing is a unique experience, it's everything it should be.
That's because the general public or even comic book fans don't know what they are missing. They don't know WW's origin, her character, where she comes from, etc. This felt movie felt incredibly underwhelming and a complete let down for me because they changed so many key things. I'm accepting the fact that they did the bare minimum for this so-called "Wonder Woman" movie (because they did). It's glaringly obvious that they didn't have faith in the character and turned her into something she's not. WW has never had a origin set in World War 1....it's so random and it makes me mad that Synder had her "walk away from mankind a hundred years ago" which is something completely off character. Patty Jenkins says she used the original Marston comics, the Perez comics and some other things here and there but we all know that's a damn lie. Zack Snyder, Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot's creation has NOTHING to do with Marston's Diana or Perez's as they IGNORED PLENTY of concepts and settings from those eras. Also, how Patty Jenkins and Co. said Wonder Woman was created to be a weapon against Ares which is ridiculous. I've seen a lot of long-term fans go off about this, and it makes sense that they would, so I'm not the only one. As I said, I don't accept crumbs.
I'm not saying anything for or against Marvel. All I said is that there are reasons why Marvel is so successful because they laid out an actual formula which is working. These are comic-book movies after all, and they are giving the fans what they want by sticking to the original source a lot more. I don't want a WW movie to be dark and gritty, I wan't it to be hopeful, optimistic and inspiring, like it reflects the character. But again, we got poisoned gas and trench warfare. What we should have gotten is either WW set in World War 2 with her original origins, supporting characters, backstory, fighting mythical monsters, etc. or a modern WW movie set with her own villains, supporting cast and modernization of the lore.
Zimmer's score for WW is going to sound really outdated, that's all I gotta say. Make that a combo with cheesy slo-motion scenes from her movie and presto, you have a movie that looks like it came straight out of the 90s or something.
I don't like Gal Gadot as WW and I think she's a complete miscast. Pine is great and I truly think he is the one who actually made the film. Gadot was overshadowed multiple (if not most) of the time in the movie. I also didn't like how male-centric the movie was. It seemed like Diana was sidelined and the men were pushed forward, as if she can't helm her own film. I think most of the characters were miscast, especially Ares. Who in their right mind would cast Prof Lupin as Ares? The transformation into his armor was so bad, especially with that mustache. I think people are overlooking how terrible the 3rd act really was. The CGI was very cheap and messy too. They also could have done a lot more with Dr. Poison. I think she's an awesome villain and unfortunately, she seemed like a throw-away character. The Amazons and WW's homeland were....bland. The Amazons were portrayed as a one-dimensional stereotypical warrior woman tribe. Their costumes looked cheap, WW's home looked very basic. We live in an era of Atlantis, Wakanda and Asgard. Why couldn't her homeland look cool and unique like it's supposed to be? They did the bare minimum again. Was there any creative thought behind this movie?
They are making another period piece set in the 1980s and I don't know why. But what I do know is I won't be watching that movie. The plot is probably going to be so basic that someone could figure out what going to happen in the first 10 minutes, just like the first film.
All in all, if you liked the movie, cool. Like what you wan't, I don't really care. But saying things like "It was a faithful adaption" just isn't right.
It sounds more like an incredible level of elitism on your part to be honest. Casuals and fans fans of Wonder Woman dont know Wonder Woman, but you do?
And yes, movies ignore things that appear in books and comics, they always do, and it's most often things most people can agree on don't add anything to the actual story. The Hobbits didn't get to meet Tom Bombadil in LotR because Jackson recognized the meeting added nothing to the long journey Frodo had just started on. Same thing with the Contest in WW comics, it doesn't add anything when Diana has for ages been endlessly more powerful than her fellow Amazons.
Also yes, Diana was a weapon against Ares... she's been that ever since Marston had Aphrodite first create the Amazons with the goal of defeating Mars' influence on mankind. WW in the movies uses a sword, Marston wanted to use propaganda.
As for the more specific note on WW1, there is several good reasons for Diana to be put there. First of all, it's 'the forgotten war' its the war pop-culture has forgotten because America looks a lot better during WW2 and that war was also a tad more horrendous. Point is that it's an original setting because no other superhero has really gone there. Secondly it avoids the comparison to Captain America. Third, it takes away nothing from Diana herself, because whenever it's one war or the other she is still fighting gas wielding Germans and her pop-cultural image is not one of her punching Hitler. Fourth, and the most clever bit, she actually fits right into WW1 because that was the last war where old fashioned things like infantry with bayonets, officers swords and horses were seeing widespread use. By WW2 it had all been replaced with the mechanized infantry. Diana fits into that like a vision of better days gone by, especially because we know 20-25 years later all the horror of WW1 had gone on repeat and increased.
Marvel brings in the kind of money they do because they've embraced the approach of 'fun for all the family', every single on of their movies can be seen and appeal to anyone between 6 and 80. They are bight, funny and with just enough levity that adults don't feel it's infantile. They haven't struck gold by catering to comicbook fans... because those fans who can't look away from the books, do not like the sea of changes Marvel and Disney have done to their characters to make all of this work. You say WB didn't make Wonder Woman like they should... ask old time GotG fans if they think Gunn's clown car is how it should be. Ask Thor fans if they like their hero as a good heated idiot. But again, this is all about movies being adaptations, not carbon copies.
And how is Zimmer going to sound outdated when he's arguable the best composer working in Hollywood today? On top of that, he was the guy who wrote the WW score for BvS and he isn't going to change that, so we will have consistency. If you go over to Marvel on the other hand, all you will get is some background noise you barely notice... like JL ended up with in Danny Elfman.
You dont like Gadot, thats fine, but most people will disagree with you. But I pray you are not going to advocate that some muscle headed MMA celebrity could do better.
If you think Pine's Trevor overshadowed her, you weren't paying attention to the dynamic between them. She goes where she wants to go and do what she wants to do, and he's mostly stuck fidgeting around her because he knows she's not like any woman he's ever met and she doesn't know or care about the unwritten gender rules women normally follow. You want to know the impact Diana has by being herself in this world was, look no further than the No Man's Land scene. A battalion has been stuck there for almost a year and not moved an inch, then Diana shows up and they end up taking the German trenches within an hour.
Who would cast a Potter actor as Ares you ask? Someone who knows the character does not have to look or sound like a bloodthirsty barbarian. Also someone who knows the comic's Ares is first of all a grand manipulator. Whenever Ares appears in comics, he spends 90% of the time in the shadows pushing people into doing his bidding and only confronts Diana at the very end when his plan is revealed. This is basically the same kind of thing when you ask the multitude of writers, directors and artists who has depicted Satan as a well-dressed man rather than a horned devil.
Poison played the part Poison always plays, second fiddle to someone else using her work. So her ending up there isn't out of tune.
Dunno if the Amazons were bland, I would say they looked real, like real people, rather than a bunch of polished supermodels in cosplay. Also you mention three other realms... which were all digital. Asgard looked like crap, it always had with the stupid pipe-organ palace notion mention everything the actors wore looked like plastic. Wakanda looked great... as you flew over it, but take a closer look and you are still walking down a dusty street with buildings that appear to be made of mud. And Atlantis, looks like it was something they found behind the editing shed of Avatar. And asking for the creative thought... how about just admitting Jenkins and the others thought long enough to realize that the Amazons don't live in temples and they have better things to do that polish marble... not even the Roman empire could be bothered with that and they had something like a 1/5 of the worlds population living under it at one point.
You could figure the first movie out because it was an origins movie. And if you are not going to watch it, then dont... but after its out, please stop complaining about the details.
Except that it is right, because 'adaptation' means to put your own spin on it. And the movie preserved all the things that mattered. You say you dont want to settle for crumbs? I have better idea, stop complaining about the absence of your specific crumbs, you'll be a lot happier that way.
Log in to comment