WW Movie. No Spoilers Please!

Remember, Wonder Woman is a PREMIERE comic book icon, only superseded by Batman and Superman in comic book culture (and is the first lady of comics at that). We shouldn't really be surprised that she is posting high numbers. "Should they be higher?" is probably a more pertinent question

IMHO no, I think the film is exceeding studio expectations. My reasons for saying this are that this is a superhero origin story, so I am comparing it with other Superhero origin films. If this film pulls in $350 million in the US market (which on current trajectory it will) that will make this the 3rd highest film of all time, If we take into account ticket price inflation, Wonder Woman will still come in the top 5.

Only Superman (1978) Batman (1989) Spider Man (2002) and Deadpool (2016) are ahead. Other than Deadpool, those other 3 characters are all more famous than Wonder Woman. Compared to other popular comic book characters origin stories such as the X-Men, Wolverine, Fantastic Four, Captain America and the Hulk, this film will far exceed them all. As Lfan put it, not at all bad considering female superheroes cannot carry movies according to many in Hollywood.

a studio (WB) takes home approx 50% of the domestic receipts but that figure drops sometimes to 15-40% of overseas receipts, depending on the market

Thanks for this info I did not know this fact, but that is even better news in terms of arguments for a sequel

While looking at the figures on IMDB for foreign earnings for the Wonder Woman film, whilst doing ok generally, it is doing very well in markets such as Indonesia, Taiwan and The Philippines. No surprise I suppose considering all the great female heroines on film/tv these countries have provided over the years.

Ok.

Peace.

/K

A wonder burger www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wonder-woma...c72ae4b0fe039b3342f2
growth in female superheroes www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/watch-out-w...67f8e4b0b8145f72e10a

Doctor Poison: www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wo...-film-comics-1009881

Gal's husband has a great sense of humor, combined with more than a bit macho. But he's a real estate developer in Israel, and you gotta be tough and opinionated in that business.

What I was surprised to find is that Gal owns a bike that is to motorcycles what Superman's bicep is to muscles -- one of the ultimate muscle-bikes, a Ducati Monster.

I'd love to see her scream by in some tight leathers riding that thing!! My old motorcycyle-loving heard is pounding.



Shadar

WW is supposed to exit it's 3rd weekend making $40M, which means it's still going pretty strong. Batman v Superman made about $50 in it 2nd Weekend for example, and only $22M it's third.

Though I seem o recall studios get a larger share of the gate on opening and second weekend, so that probably adjusts how much things "count". There is also the ephemeral tie in sales, merchandice sales, and DVD/Blu-Ray sales. I don't know of any easy way to measure that. (I did already pre-order my copy of WW.)

I also notice that WW's total of $274M (domestic) looks pretty good vs MoS and BvS. Because WW cost $150M, and not the $250M of BvS, it's alreay generated more profit domestically than BvS which cost $100M more to make, but only generated $56M more domestically. Ditto for MoS. WW has almost passed it's total of $291M, and cost $75M less to make.

Suicide Squad is still looking well, it did cost $25M more to make, but it also (currently) made $51M more.

WW is sitting at #18 on the Comic Book Movie index, I doubt it'll crack the top 10, but it might since it seems to be holding pretty well.

Forgien sales probably tip MoS and BvS profit currently, depending on how much the studio actually made off them. (MoS $377M, BvS: $542M). WW foreign sales is currently $297M, but it's not opened in all the markets yet, nor is it done making money yet.

But all this says is that WW was a hit, and made good money for the investment for WB. Which means they'll likely make more. It'll be interseting to see how Justice League does.

I'd also like to see the WW ad budget, as it certainly seemed WB pumped more into MoS and BvS advertising than into WW.

Walmart has a bunch of Wonder Woman items on clearance already. No bracelets, those might be the key to express checkout, but licensing might be an issue.

Wow! Can't believe the movie is at $572 Million WW already and still has a few overseas markets still to open, including Germany and Japan. We may be looking at an over $700 Million WW gross.

So much for those people who said a movie about a superheroine would never sell (I'm looking at you former Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter).

Also so much for those people who said the DCEU was dead and should be rebooted. The box office results prove that people like these movies. Personally, I still can't believe that Suicide Squad made over $750 M WW without a China release. Just think, it if had China, its gross would have been nearly $800 M. Just goes to show you that haters and trolls on the internet do not have the kind of pull they think they do. Thank God for that...

Commentary from Variety:

variety.com/2017/film/news/jon-berg-geof...e-league-1202471557/

--Brantley

Interesting article.

Seems like DC finally got the memo and things are looking up

Look forward to seeing how this pans out

Peace.

/K

I'm just out of my third viewing at the cinema (every pound, dollar and cent helps) and I have to say, Wonder Woman gets better everytime you view it. Gal Gadot looks absolutely stunningly gorgeous about two thirds or three quarters through the movie (she is gorgeous anyway). Every time you view it, you spot something else It looks like she is placed in modern day London for the sequel (I don’t think World War ÌI would work as a sequel). Will be interesting to see where the producers take her

And here's another angle that I don't think has been addressed here before:

www.polygon.com/2017/6/17/15821584/wonder-woman-justice-league

--Brantley

Thanks for the article.

While I’m pretty sure I didn’t hit the same notes, I made mention of similar points in my review of BvS.

Snyder (and Goyer) don’t get the characters, or the genre. They reinvented them into what THEY wanted to them to be. Superman in the DCEU is NOT Superman. Batman is NOT Batman. Suicide Squad is, well why they made that as part of the DCEU I don’t know tbh. But whatever.

Wonder Woman is the first film in the DCEU that GETS its character and the genre. And a lot of that, imo, can be attributed to Geoff Johns. Weather you like him or not (and he does have his detractors) he gets comic books.

Make no mistake, Wonder Woman is a soft reboot of the universe (if they could erase the other three, I’m willing to bet they would). And that’s a good thing in my books. The only bump they need to get out of the way, is Justice League, as that has Snyder stamped all over it.

I’m not too sure how extensive the reshoots with Whedon are, my understanding is its not much. But I definitely feel they are taking this opportunity to shape it more like, dare I say it, a Marvel film.

Johns has worked with Feige (they are friends), and like I said, understands comic books and that audience. He’s not stupid. The guy is shifting to the Marvel formula, because it is better FOR EVERYONE. And that includes the audience. Finally we can get a DC universe that’s worthy of the name.

The article did also remind me of a point I made when I gave my opinion of Wonder Woman. Yes the DCEU faces a tonal problem going forward (though that is a no-brainer in how they are fixing that). The other glaring problem is, what do they do with Wonder Woman 2?

Sure, the film is getting positive reviews, but it isn’t as good as the reviews make it out. Still a solid film, if one with a very weak third act.

The problem going forward with the sequel is, how do you handle Gadot’s acting? Like I said, Jenkins and the rest of the crew did a really smart thing by crafting the story around Gadot and her limitations. Fish-out-of-water; naive Diana; etc. Can they pull off that trick a second time? Who knows.

And how do they handle Steve Trevor? Pine is a charming, charismatic and talented actor, who practically carried 90% of the film. While his death was pretty much guaranteed, he would be like 130+ yrs old in the sequel if set in modern times, the fact that you NEED to get him back, cannot be overlooked.

So yeah, both the DCEU and Wonder Woman 2, have some interesting challenges to face. The difference, and what gives me hope they will overcome them, is that with Johns and Jenkins, I am sure they will come out on top.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace.

/K

In response to article Brantley referenced below, about DCEU's struggle now that WW is out, I found an extraordinary comment posted by someone called AREYOUEFFINGKIDDING.

I posted it here with the poster's images because I thought it was both interesting and honest without all the social media "me too, me too" crap. And more importantly, it resonated with some of my own thoughts.

---

What a complete and utter load.

How on earth do you manage to directly state the point of the tornado scene in Man of Steel and still miss it entirely? Of course Pa Kent wanted to keep Clark from a public figure – because HE KNEW CLARK WASN’T READY. Their whole argument in the car prior to the twister shows this, when Clark plays the "You’re not my real dad!" card. Does that sound like the kind of guy you want becoming a worldwide celebrity overnight? And even if Clark had rushed out to save him, then what? They’d either have to stay and answer some very difficult questions, or run off and disappear, leaving Martha to answer those questions in their absence. Pa Kent offered up his life to give his son more time to ready himself for the inevitable day Clark would be exposed, a decision directly linked to his speech in the later flashback when the bullies yank young Clark out of the truck: "You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he’s gonna change the world."

Furthermore, the point of that later flashback isn’t even the bullies or Pa Kent’s speech, it’s Pete Ross (former schoolbus bully and future pancake house manager) helping him back up. Even long before Clark put on the cape, he was inspiring people to be better, and that was his first successful go. He didn’t push the schoolbus out of the river out of selfishness; and on that subject, Pa Kent absolutely DID NOT say, "Yes, let the little fuckers drown", and it is utterly lame-brained and dishonest to claim as much.

And what effect did Pa Kent’s sacrifice have on Clark? It inspired him to travel the world and continue helping people, unbidden and unrewarded, regardless what job it cost him. And in all that time, only once did he use his powers for reckless self-satisfaction when he trashed the logging truck – y’know, the one belonging to the asshole trucker who tried to sexually assault Clark’s coworker at the bar.

And if your argument is "Well, Pa Kent wouldn’t have told him to keep his powers a secret" – baloney. It’s a move pulled straight from Superman’s FIRST APPEARANCE. Issue freaking one.



If you can’t even properly grasp those pivotal scenes of Clark’s development in Man of Steel, whatever else you have to say about the DCEU at large is a lost cause. Because it will predictably be a string of logical leaps, dire misreadings, or just shit you made up.

Clark didn’t take up the uniform out of selfishness; he did out of self-discovery. Even at 13, he was prone to helping people in need, and Jor-El simply confirmed that was the goal: "In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

He didn’t hang up the cape in BvS out of selfishness – he thought he had failed his life’s mission when he thought a victim of his first major battle bombed a federal building, wiping out everyone around him except Superman – once again leaving him the lone survivor, a recurring theme of his development between the two movies.

He didn’t put the cape back on out of selfishness – he realized, through remembering Pa Kent’s story about the flood, that his own petty self-doubt wasn’t worth giving up the fight.

He stayed in the path of a NUKE just to be sure it hit Doomsday first. And finally, even after all the inquiries and punditry and billionaire orphan schemes and sign-waving masses, he accepted his role as protector, took up a spear meant to kill him, and ran it through the heart of the beast himself.

I didn’t need Superman to instantly become some winking, shiny-haloed hope machine like he did in the Donner movie. I saw him taking a journey to become that version of the character, and he was taking some major steps to doing just that when Doomsday landed the killing blow.

To call this iteration of Superman selfish is ludicrous, as warts and all, he’s very clearly one of the most unselfish beings in all of comic book moviedom.

Was BvS overly concerned with examining Superman’s dark side? Yes, that is a legitimate criticism. But to deny that Superman, just as a character, has a dark side at all is asking him to be a cardboard cutout. Seeing the light through the darkness was the whole point of that movie’s last act, ending with Bruce realizing how wrong he’d been all along and what just cost the world in the wake of Superman’s death, and the dialogue says it PLAIN AS DAY: "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."

And for all of Suicide Squad’s wonky plot structure and schizophrenic tonal changes, it took that ball and ran it even further down the field. Deadshot decided to help Flagg out of love for his daughter when he saw the collected letters and learned she still had faith in him; Harley joined in out of loyalty to Deadshot; and even Captain Boomerang slid back into the group to help when he literally had NO REASON TO. The whole film culminates in a team of SUPERVILLAINS realizing the world was worth saving and they had it in them to do it, regardless they were coerced into taking the mission, but that’s the point – Waller believed in leverage, but it was loyalty that got the job done.

As for your closing point about the choice WB has to make, here is what I counter: Nitpicky audiences need to decide if they want something that challenges the status quo of superhero storytelling, or if they just want the Christopher Reeve movies all over again. Because Superman Returns tried to do both and fell on its face. I loved Wonder Woman and recognize its importance in female representation in front of and behind the camera, but let’s be real, it also hit a lot of standard points, and I personally hope it’s the closest the DCEU comes to emulating the MCU model, as I’ve rather enjoyed the seriousness as a contrast to Marvel and their often shoehorned jokes.

"Fundamentally wrong", you say? Whatever, all I hear in that is, "It’s not how I would have done it."

Here’s a wild thought: Try looking for the ways Wonder Woman makes the past films better, rather than digging for – or in many cases, simply inventing – what they’ve "done wrong" or how WW "proves how terrible they are". It’s not incongruous, it’s not fitting a square peg in a round hole. The official word well before BvS’s release was that going lighter was ALWAYS the direction they were taking, and basic observation reveals how the last three films reflect that.

There is so much still being misread about the DCEU, particularly Man of Steel and BvS, that it’s become its own lame form of satire at this point. The continued hate isn’t even really based in criticism anymore. It’s just wallowing.

shadar wrote: In response to article Brantley referenced below, about DCEU's struggle now that WW is out, I found an extraordinary comment posted by someone called AREYOUEFFINGKIDDING.

I posted it here with the poster's images because I thought it was both interesting and honest without all the social media "me too, me too" crap. And more importantly, it resonated with some of my own thoughts.

---

What a complete and utter load.

How on earth do you manage to directly state the point of the tornado scene in Man of Steel and still miss it entirely? Of course Pa Kent wanted to keep Clark from a public figure – because HE KNEW CLARK WASN’T READY. Their whole argument in the car prior to the twister shows this, when Clark plays the "You’re not my real dad!" card. Does that sound like the kind of guy you want becoming a worldwide celebrity overnight? And even if Clark had rushed out to save him, then what? They’d either have to stay and answer some very difficult questions, or run off and disappear, leaving Martha to answer those questions in their absence. Pa Kent offered up his life to give his son more time to ready himself for the inevitable day Clark would be exposed, a decision directly linked to his speech in the later flashback when the bullies yank young Clark out of the truck: "You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he’s gonna change the world."

Furthermore, the point of that later flashback isn’t even the bullies or Pa Kent’s speech, it’s Pete Ross (former schoolbus bully and future pancake house manager) helping him back up. Even long before Clark put on the cape, he was inspiring people to be better, and that was his first successful go. He didn’t push the schoolbus out of the river out of selfishness; and on that subject, Pa Kent absolutely DID NOT say, "Yes, let the little fuckers drown", and it is utterly lame-brained and dishonest to claim as much.

And what effect did Pa Kent’s sacrifice have on Clark? It inspired him to travel the world and continue helping people, unbidden and unrewarded, regardless what job it cost him. And in all that time, only once did he use his powers for reckless self-satisfaction when he trashed the logging truck – y’know, the one belonging to the asshole trucker who tried to sexually assault Clark’s coworker at the bar.

And if your argument is "Well, Pa Kent wouldn’t have told him to keep his powers a secret" – baloney. It’s a move pulled straight from Superman’s FIRST APPEARANCE. Issue freaking one.

*ATTACHMENT REMOVED*

If you can’t even properly grasp those pivotal scenes of Clark’s development in Man of Steel, whatever else you have to say about the DCEU at large is a lost cause. Because it will predictably be a string of logical leaps, dire misreadings, or just shit you made up.

Clark didn’t take up the uniform out of selfishness; he did out of self-discovery. Even at 13, he was prone to helping people in need, and Jor-El simply confirmed that was the goal: "In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

He didn’t hang up the cape in BvS out of selfishness – he thought he had failed his life’s mission when he thought a victim of his first major battle bombed a federal building, wiping out everyone around him except Superman – once again leaving him the lone survivor, a recurring theme of his development between the two movies.

He didn’t put the cape back on out of selfishness – he realized, through remembering Pa Kent’s story about the flood, that his own petty self-doubt wasn’t worth giving up the fight.

He stayed in the path of a NUKE just to be sure it hit Doomsday first. And finally, even after all the inquiries and punditry and billionaire orphan schemes and sign-waving masses, he accepted his role as protector, took up a spear meant to kill him, and ran it through the heart of the beast himself.

I didn’t need Superman to instantly become some winking, shiny-haloed hope machine like he did in the Donner movie. I saw him taking a journey to become that version of the character, and he was taking some major steps to doing just that when Doomsday landed the killing blow.

To call this iteration of Superman selfish is ludicrous, as warts and all, he’s very clearly one of the most unselfish beings in all of comic book moviedom.

Was BvS overly concerned with examining Superman’s dark side? Yes, that is a legitimate criticism. But to deny that Superman, just as a character, has a dark side at all is asking him to be a cardboard cutout. Seeing the light through the darkness was the whole point of that movie’s last act, ending with Bruce realizing how wrong he’d been all along and what just cost the world in the wake of Superman’s death, and the dialogue says it PLAIN AS DAY: "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."

And for all of Suicide Squad’s wonky plot structure and schizophrenic tonal changes, it took that ball and ran it even further down the field. Deadshot decided to help Flagg out of love for his daughter when he saw the collected letters and learned she still had faith in him; Harley joined in out of loyalty to Deadshot; and even Captain Boomerang slid back into the group to help when he literally had NO REASON TO. The whole film culminates in a team of SUPERVILLAINS realizing the world was worth saving and they had it in them to do it, regardless they were coerced into taking the mission, but that’s the point – Waller believed in leverage, but it was loyalty that got the job done.

As for your closing point about the choice WB has to make, here is what I counter: Nitpicky audiences need to decide if they want something that challenges the status quo of superhero storytelling, or if they just want the Christopher Reeve movies all over again. Because Superman Returns tried to do both and fell on its face. I loved Wonder Woman and recognize its importance in female representation in front of and behind the camera, but let’s be real, it also hit a lot of standard points, and I personally hope it’s the closest the DCEU comes to emulating the MCU model, as I’ve rather enjoyed the seriousness as a contrast to Marvel and their often shoehorned jokes.

"Fundamentally wrong", you say? Whatever, all I hear in that is, "It’s not how I would have done it."

Here’s a wild thought: Try looking for the ways Wonder Woman makes the past films better, rather than digging for – or in many cases, simply inventing – what they’ve "done wrong" or how WW "proves how terrible they are". It’s not incongruous, it’s not fitting a square peg in a round hole. The official word well before BvS’s release was that going lighter was ALWAYS the direction they were taking, and basic observation reveals how the last three films reflect that.

There is so much still being misread about the DCEU, particularly Man of Steel and BvS, that it’s become its own lame form of satire at this point. The continued hate isn’t even really based in criticism anymore. It’s just wallowing.

*ATTACHMENT REMOVED*

*ATTACHMENT REMOVED*

*ATTACHMENT REMOVED*

Post of the year!

Those clickbait sites still trying to push the "DCEU should be rebooted" narrative because they did not get what they wanted out of the first few DCEU films need to stop. It's actually getting a bit embarrassing for them at this point.

Those clickbait sites still trying to push the "DCEU should be rebooted" narrative because they did not get what they wanted out of the first few DCEU films need to stop. It's actually getting a bit embarrassing for them at this point.

Except it is being "rebooted", in this case a soft-reboot.

And to be fair, its not "because they did not get what they wanted out of the first few DCEU films". Its because those first films we bad. Real bad.

If anything, Wonder Woman is testament to that. $650 million (currently) at the box office AND glowing reviews? They changed the formula and it paid off.

If you want to cling on to the hope that the Synder-verse will carry on, feel free to do so. I'm afraid that doesn't appear to be the case though.

Peace.

/K

I was wondering how they get Chris Pine / Steve Trevor back in the sequel. His son? It kind of worked in the second and third seasons of Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman, but it was played very 'campy' and was ok on a played for laughs TV show. I'm not sure that will work in blockbuster movie terms.

kikass2014 wrote:

Those clickbait sites still trying to push the "DCEU should be rebooted" narrative because they did not get what they wanted out of the first few DCEU films need to stop. It's actually getting a bit embarrassing for them at this point.

Except it is being "rebooted", in this case a soft-reboot.

And to be fair, its not "because they did not get what they wanted out of the first few DCEU films". Its because those first films we bad. Real bad.

If anything, Wonder Woman is testament to that. $650 million (currently) at the box office AND glowing reviews? They changed the formula and it paid off.

If you want to cling on to the hope that the Synder-verse will carry on, feel free to do so. I'm afraid that doesn't appear to be the case though.

Peace.

/K

At this core of this, in my opinion, is the question of whether superheroes are born to be heroes, or if that's something they become the same way real heroes are made -- by going through their own doubts and fears and darkness and then rising above it through courage and altruism.

I think it's a legitimate question for this genre, which begs the question of what a superhero (versus a superhuman or a human) really is.

Was Diana born a superhero, with all those admirable traits built in? Look at the rest of the gods. No heroes there. But perhaps she was made to be special in that way. But I prefer to think that her upbringing and experiences have made her a hero, but not one without her own darkness that had to be conquered. The movie did not deal with that in a substantive way.

Even more, that applies to Kal El. I think Snyder got that (which Donner never did), and tried to show it, but his ability to portray that in a movie is very flawed. And because he was dealing with a superhuman, he took things to excess. Too dark. But you could argue that Kal El does everything to extremes.

Anyway, I think Snyder's initial thinking was and is in the right place, and that the weightiness of human choices, morality, guilt, etc are fair subjects for superhero movies.

But I also understand that it's not the only way to make such movies. The Donner movies, WW, even Guardians of the Galaxy, they all stayed above that level and portrayed characters who (other than a glimpse in a flashback) were fully formed personalities who had overcome their own human nature -- or in Diana's case, perhaps never had any human nature.

And that's always the risk with Diana... making her too good, too pure, too perfect. But at the same time, that is also her attraction to many others.

In the end, there are two schools of thought, and in my mind, both are legitimate, with people strongly favoring one or the other. But there is no Right Way or Wong Way. Only Different Ways based on personal preferences, and we should respect both approaches.

Shadar

I agree with your point Shadar that there is more than one way to portray a superhero. A hero can also either be born or formed through their experiences. This, imo, is entirely dependent on the author of the story and creator of the character.

Since this thread is about the DCEU, I try to focus on those – Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. The holy trinity of comic-dom.

When you have characters that span the better part of a century, sure there are gonna be lots of interpretations. DC reboots its universe every six months (kidding, but they do it a lot).

So, you need to focus on what the core of these characters are. Wonder Woman did so well, imo, because they stuck to the core of her characteristics. And people could connect with her (she comes across quite different then BvS, though to be fair, her screen time was limited in that).

She has a good heart and wants to help, she is confident in who she is, she is welcoming, warm. And this shines through in the film and her portrayal. When Gadot smiles, you can’t help but feel the world lighten up.

She is in fact, Reeves and Donner’s Superman. That is what Donner crafted, and that is what Superman is. He is the bastion of good, the shining light in the darkness. He is the hero superheroes aspire too.

Now his characterization may have changed from time to time over the years, but this is his core. I don’t think you will find many comic readers who disagree with that. And that is reflected in the reviews MOS got.

The same for Batman. He has certain core attributes that define him through the decades. When you shift away from that, he is no longer the character the readers connect with. Again, this is reflected in the reviews of BvS.

Now, I understand what Snyder was trying to do. To deconstruct the superhero, and like you say Shadar, discern what makes a hero and shine a light on their darker side.

The problem is, you could do that, but why try to do it with characters so well established? And not only that, your biggest IPS? That is the mistake I think Warner is trying to rectify.

Watchmen is a good example. That can be said to look at the deconstruction of the superhero. Its gritty, all the characters have dark sides and they struggle with doing the right thing. Or downright relish in doing what they believe is the right thing.

I’ll give another example. Take Man of Steel and rename Superman and all the other canon names to something else. I’m willing to bet it would have gotten better reviews then it did, and maybe made more at the BO. It’s a solid alien invasion movie when looked at through that prism.

So I guess in answer to your conclusion both are legitimate ways of approaching superheroes, I would say you are correct and I agree. If you are doing it with new characters, sure, go for it. Explore your themes however way you want.

But you can’t do it with established characters imo. Especially as iconic as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Peace.

/K

Lol, you are funny.

Snyder out? Ummmm, you might want to look at the end credits of Wonder Woman. If you do, you'll see "Story by Zack Snyder" and "Produced by Zack Snyder".

You can believe what you want about the DCEU being "soft-rebooted" if it helps you sleep at night. The fact is that WB has been talking about Justice League having a lighter tone than BvS and MOS since before BvS even hit theaters.

I'm just glad the haters and trolls who can't accept any other version of BM or SM than the version they created in their head failed in their attempt to stop the DCEU from moving forward. Every DCEU movie has been a financial success. Thankfully the general audience cares very little about critical reviews as proven by the box office.

kikass2014 wrote: I agree with your point Shadar that there is more than one way to portray a superhero.


... snip

So I guess in answer to your conclusion both are legitimate ways of approaching superheroes, I would say you are correct and I agree. If you are doing it with new characters, sure, go for it. Explore your themes however way you want.

But you can’t do it with established characters imo. Especially as iconic as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Peace.

/K

I agree with you that there is great danger in taking characters who have behaved a certain way for decades, and are beloved by their fans, and attempt to deconstruct them to show that they didn't come out of the mold fully formed, especially by showing they had to overcome more darkness and adversity than normal people. It simply isn't how we know these characters.

But it's also interesting in its own way, given that's how most heroes in the real world behave and/or are formed.

But this isn't the real world.

All that said, I liked WW a lot better than MOS, with BvS still a challenge for me. WW movie was just a fun celebration of a core DC character with the values we've seen for so many years.

Smallville TV tried to show how Superman became who he was, but that drove me nuts (except for Laura V's appearances and a few other moments). That wasn't the Superman I knew. Too wimpy and conflicted and weak and unsure of himself. A stupid soap opera. He didn't have the heart of Superman, at least as I see him.

I liked Snyder's Superman more than that, but I never walk out of a Snyder movie feeling great. I walked out of WW feeling like I was walking on air.

I suppose in the end that's more important than satisfying my curiosity about how such powerful characters were formed by their experiences.

Shadar

Sometimes, just sometimes I'm really glad I'm just a 08/15 dude who's into strong and muscular women. Not even exclusively. And the comics with all those universes, and relations, and issues and stuff ... weill, suit yourselves.

Edit: Still fun to read your rants, though

I agree with you that there is great danger in taking characters who have behaved a certain way for decades, and are beloved by their fans, and attempt to deconstruct them to show that they didn't come out of the mold fully formed, especially by showing they had to overcome more darkness and adversity than normal people. It simply isn't how we know these characters.
But it's also interesting in its own way, given that's how most heroes in the real world behave and/or are formed.
But this isn't the real world.

Exactly. Agree.

All that said, I liked WW a lot better than MOS, with BvS still a challenge for me. WW movie was just a fun celebration of a core DC character with the values we've seen for so many years.

And I think a lot of people, i.e. the general audience, including myself, agree. They stuck with the core aspects of the character and it resonated with them.

Smallville TV tried to show how Superman became who he was, but that drove me nuts (except for Laura V's appearances and a few other moments). That wasn't the Superman I knew. Too wimpy and conflicted and weak and unsure of himself. A stupid soap opera. He didn't have the heart of Superman, at least as I see him.

Yeah I will never understand the reasoning behind Smallville. I couldn’t get in it and found it drivel tbh. But yeah, was always nice to see Laura

I liked Snyder's Superman more than that, but I never walk out of a Snyder movie feeling great. I walked out of WW feeling like I was walking on air.

This hits the nail on the head for me, specifically with respect to the comic book genre. Comic books were conceived as escapism from reality. As such, this is what they are about, a celebration of heroism, of good over evil. Sure, you can have ups and downs, that’s drama. But the morality of the hero and villain is clear cut. And I agree, you should feel great when the hero (or heroine) triumphs at the end.

Snyder out? Ummmm, you might want to look at the end credits BLAH BLAH of Wonder Woman. If you do, you'll see "Story by Zack Snyder" and "Produced by Zack Snyder".BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
You can believe what you want about the DCEU being "soft-rebooted" if it helps you sleep at night. The fact is that WB has been talking about Justice League having a lighter tone than BvS and MOS since before BvS even hit theaters.BLAH BLAH BLAH

Dude, believe whatever you want. I'm done with people like you. In fact, even people who were like you, are done with you. You are the small minority and luckily Warner and DC aren't listening to you. Good day to you sir.

Peace.

/K