Wife and I went to see it last night and we both enjoyed it. Easily the best DC film in awhile. Predictably it degenerated into the huge fight scene as all superhero movies do though I think this is one they could have actually gotten away with a more nuanced ending. However, at nearly 2.5 hours long I never found that the film dragged at all. My wife's synopsis was "sometimes I was a bit distracted because she is absolutely stunning but I really enjoyed it".
And yes, scene after scene, Gadot is simply stunning.
Now don't throw anything at me here, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps the timing of a movie with a female lead is propping up some of those RT scores. It was a good movie, in comparison to what the bench mark is over at Marvel I would say it was above their average but no where near their top.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Now don't throw anything at me here, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps the timing of a movie with a female lead is propping up some of those RT scores. It was a good movie, in comparison to what the bench mark is over at Marvel I would say it was above their average but no where near their top.
You get a good score on RT if a lot of people think your movie is just good enough to meet that threshold of "fresh". It's not a measure of how good one movie is against another.
I'd rank WW below films like GotG and Iron Man, but above films like Thor, Captain America, Ant Man, etc..How it ranks among the more polarizing films like Winter Soldier, Avengers, Age of Ultron, etc.. is a matter of opinion.
Ya I did notice how when WW was getting high scores everyone came out to explain/downplay/judge the RT process.. but yet it's been held up as the standard for any Marvel movie that came out, and any DC movie that has flopped.
I find that part also particularly interesting
It was a good movie, no doubt, but it wasn't great. Also Age of Ultron does not belong in the same category as WS or the original Avengers. Civil War does though.
edit: and by everyone I am not necessarily referring to CP.. just my general observation.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Last edited by GreenLantern; 06-14-2017 at 11:29 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern For This Useful Post:
I haven't seen it, so maybe I'm talking out my ass.
But, in a universe with a flying alien in spandex, a mystical island with a bunch of warrior women and a merman, you're upset about the liberties they took with WW1?
Yes, the other stuff is obviously fiction but when you mess with actual history it can get bothersome.
Spoiler!
Especially as a Canadian who knows that many of our soldiers died in the first mustard gas attack in 1915, it troublesome seeing history being rewritten.
Now instead of one of Germany's greatest scientists, Fritz Haber, inventing the gas in 1915 we now have some random baddie in a mask trying to disrupt the signing of the 1918 armistice with some kind of big mustard gas bomb. WTF?
They couldn't write up something more fictional?
Notwithstanding why some American soldier has a secretary and is ordering around the British war cabinet.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to craigwd For This Useful Post:
I mean it's a success in the fact that it isn't a steaming pile but let's not be too effusive. Incredibly corny, the lead actor was passable to flat out bad, the third act is a total mess, and the dialogue and humor were pretty stilted and wooden. And the whole Zack Snyderverse is still all over this movie with the drab color palette, the over the top man of steel style end battle, the eye rolling faux seriousness.
Still, it had some nice moments. The action felt fresh (even though it used that dated slow fast camera), it was unapologetically feminine in alot of the delivery, some of the Wonder woman set pieces were wow.
So yeah, not a great movie, but obviously the best DCU movie by far.
Was the lead role overly sexualized? My wife and I really loved The Force Awakens because Rey was not sexualized and she was just a great action hero.
I don't think they overly sexualized the lead role at all. I mean she is undeniably attractive throughout the movie but this wasn't a CGI airbrushed movie when it came to the women. There were wrinkles, women with muscles, women with soft middles, thighs wiggling when jumps were landed etc. She wears a superhero costume as all other superheroes do which are all sexualized to a degree. However, I think her costumes were actually pretty understated for a superhero movie.
It was a worry we had going into the movie that it was just going to be more of a T&A fest in the guise of a superhero movie (especially with an 11 year old daughter). It isn't. It's a superhero movie, and a good one, with a female lead that, yes, is attractive. But it's not exploitative on any level IMO. That very much sets it apart from previous incarnations of WW which did have that element.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Gotham and Metropolis are generally accepted as being the DC Universe equivalent of parts of NYC. Metropolis is Manhattan, and Gotham is a more run down area like the Bronx. No, the DC Earth is not our Earth.
From your link:
Quote:
In the DC Multiverse, Earth-Prime is the true Earth from which all the other worlds within the multiverse originate, the actual reality where the readers live, DC Comics operates as a publisher, and all superheroes are fictional.
The current DC universe where the comic heros exist was the result of a bunch of other multiverses being combined into one.
I don't think they overly sexualized the lead role at all. I mean she is undeniably attractive throughout the movie but this wasn't a CGI airbrushed movie when it came to the women. There were wrinkles, women with muscles, women with soft middles, thighs wiggling when jumps were landed etc. She wears a superhero costume as all other superheroes do which are all sexualized to a degree. However, I think her costumes were actually pretty understated for a superhero movie.
It was a worry we had going into the movie that it was just going to be more of a T&A fest in the guise of a superhero movie (especially with an 11 year old daughter). It isn't. It's a superhero movie, and a good one, with a female lead that, yes, is attractive. But it's not exploitative on any level IMO. That very much sets it apart from previous incarnations of WW which did have that element.
I felt like the writer also poked fun at the usual stereotype of having a good looking and objectified female side kick. There was several instances in the movie where Pine's character was treated like man meat. WW also appeared to be the aggressor in any encounters between the two.
I'd agree though that there was no unnecessary sexualization of WW here. She's a very attractive woman in a slightly revealing outfit, but there were no gratuitous shots of her cleavage. Her outfits although showing a lot of leg, have a lot more in common with Batman style body armour than they do with the previous incarnations of WW, which consistent of skin tight halter tops.
Gotham and Metropolis are generally accepted as being the DC Universe equivalent of parts of NYC. Metropolis is Manhattan, and Gotham is a more run down area like the Bronx. No, the DC Earth is not our Earth.
From your link:
The current DC universe where the comic heros exist was the result of a bunch of other multiverses being combined into one.
Nitpick correction. Gotham is usually believed to be located in New Jersey and Metropolis in Illinois. The Snyder verse was the first time in an recall that they were in anyway close in proximity.
Nitpick correction. Gotham is usually believed to be located in New Jersey and Metropolis in Illinois. The Snyder verse was the first time in an recall that they were in anyway close in proximity.
I think this is incorrect. They aren't always depicted as being right across the river from each other, like in BvS, but Metropolis and Gotham have pretty much always been in close proximity.
I can't ever recall Metropolis being the equivalent of Chicago in terms of distance from Gotham.
I'd say it is more like Metropolis is New York and Gotham is New Jersey.
Nitpick correction. Gotham is usually believed to be located in New Jersey and Metropolis in Illinois. The Snyder verse was the first time in an recall that they were in anyway close in proximity.
I disagree. It's never been confirmed what the real life counterparts are, but...
Metropolis has waivered between Delaware and NY. There is a real city called Metropolis, Illinois, but that is not where the DC Metropolis is. So Metropolis is definitely not in Illinois, but could be in Delaware. Personally, I think the Delaware explanation makes no sense, as there is no city in Delaware that resembles Metropolis, and it doesn't make sense for Delaware to be so central to events that are occurring all around the world.
The distance between Gotham and Metropolis also changes from being a moderate drive to being the same city. Some artists have treated Gotham like NYC at night, and Metropolis as NYC in the day. But yea, I'd buy the NJ location of Gotham. The only problem with that is that there are no cities in NJ that resemble the large amount of skyscraper featured in Gotham.
EDIT: I do think that it would make sense for Gotham to be a Chicago like city in Illinois though, but the comics have never stated that is where Gotham is. However, there is an actual Chicago in the DCU.
It has Gotham in Southern New Jersey, near where Atlantic City is. Metropolis is in Delaware. NYC exists as a real place in the DCU. This geography would work in the DC movie universe if Gotham and Metropolis were on opposite sides of the Delaware Bay.
In the Smallville tv show, they made Metropolis somewhere in the midwest so it was closer to Smallville when Clark and his friends got older and started moving away. This is the only continuity I know of where Metropolis wasn't on the east coast.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
It has Gotham in Southern New Jersey, near where Atlantic City is. Metropolis is in Delaware. NYC exists as a real place in the DCU. This geography would work in the DC movie universe if Gotham and Metropolis were on opposite sides of the Delaware Bay.
In the Smallville tv show, they made Metropolis somewhere in the midwest so it was closer to Smallville when Clark and his friends got older and started moving away. This is the only continuity I know of where Metropolis wasn't on the east coast.
I've always found the inclusion of the actual NYC in the DCU very odd. I guess in their reality it's not as big of a city? Or there's more big cities? It seems strange that NYC, if it exists, hardly gets mentioned.
I think this is incorrect. They aren't always depicted as being right across the river from each other, like in BvS, but Metropolis and Gotham have pretty much always been in close proximity.
I can't ever recall Metropolis being the equivalent of Chicago in terms of distance from Gotham.
I'd say it is more like Metropolis is New York and Gotham is New Jersey.
Its interesting, I've always kind of felt that Gotham was more like Chicago and Metropolis is New York.
I dont think theres a Universally accepted answer and I dont think there has to be, they're just huge cities and thats the way it is.
I will say though that I did not like the 'Batman vs. Superman' version where they're across the Bay from each other. I dont feel thats true to the comics and I dont like it because you figure that Superman could likely take care of them both and be tripping over Batman constantly.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
