DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Agent Z]

Phil Jimenez had a great explanation on Word Balloon for why it is a bad thing, and I agree with him. Basically it’s become Diana’s “thing” at the expense of everything else. Before Diana and the Amazons were the peace and love proponents, and Diana used her lasso because it was a non lethal weapon. But then it began to change, starting really with Perez’s run which had her initially kill before gradually softening her, then Kingdom Come started pushing the whole “she’s a warrior” aspect, and then it culminated in killing Lord. Now Diana is viewed as “the one who kills”, the one who gets her hands dirty, the most murderous of the DC Trinity. Phil thinks that’s not a good characterization for her and I agree.

In fairness, the story about her killing Lord was done with a lot more nuance (people forget she actually begged Lord not to go through with his plan before making the decision to kill him). It was Geoff Johns during Infinite Crisis that depicted her as the most murderous of the Trinity (not that Superman or Batman was anymore sympathetic during that story). And her killing Max doesn't have to make her look so monstrous. She killed people in her debut movie and most didn't have an issue with that. Diana killing isn't a problem, so much as the context.

[skyvolt2000]

I don't think the "general public" cares much about the race of fictional characters, they just want entertaining movies. Everyday people care a lot less about what color Superman or James Bond happen to be, than some people on social media would have you believe.

It's not like we DON'T have 2 black guys as Superman already in DC. You want to do that film with Jordan-have it on Earth 2 or another reality.

Does a Superman film need to hit $1B to establish validation?

NO. He has HOW MANY MOVIES ALREADY? He is already validated.

Carol, Panther & Aquaman made billions because they were good to decent to great films that starred someone NEW. Same with Deadpool, Blade and GOTG.

The general public is not interest in OVER EXPOSURE like comic book fans.
Folks get TIRED.
While the excuse of Batman SELLS-that might be true but how much UNSOLD stuff does he leave behind?
And his selling should NOT be used as an excuse to not do stuff with others.

I think the furor over changing Supe's color would make anything we have seen regarding the DCEU look quite mild in comparison.

Even if DC was to make it 100% clear Jordan was playing Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod-those trolls would still go NUTS.

[Ascended]

Phil Jimenez had a great explanation on Word Balloon for why it is a bad thing, and I agree with him. Basically it’s become Diana’s “thing” at the expense of everything else. Before Diana and the Amazons were the peace and love proponents, and Diana used her lasso because it was a non lethal weapon. But then it began to change, starting really with Perez’s run which had her initially kill before gradually softening her, then Kingdom Come started pushing the whole “she’s a warrior” aspect, and then it culminated in killing Lord. Now Diana is viewed as “the one who kills”, the one who gets her hands dirty, the most murderous of the DC Trinity. Phil thinks that’s not a good characterization for her and I agree.

What makes me laugh is that, if my numbers are correct, I'm pretty sure Superman has actually killed more people than Diana has, or if Diana is ahead of him it's not by much. Actually, Clark's probably killed more people than anyone in the League except for Hal, and that's only because of the Johns-era allowance to kill Sinestro Corps members.

[Frontier]

Why? It's not like Diana killing anyone is controversial save for a comic fans on a forum.

Eh...I don't think most people in the general public would want to see Wonder Woman snap a dude's neck. Especially after all the flack the neck snap in Man of Steel got.

I could see them having Cheetah do it.

Very little, IMO. The Reeve films were closer to Batman '66 than Wonder Woman.

Hmm...well, definitely in terms of that kind of hokeyness and camp there's a bit of a '66 factor but I think the idea of genuineness and humanity of Superheroes that WW was previously embodied by the Reeves films.

In fairness, the story about her killing Lord was done with a lot more nuance (people forget she actually begged Lord not to go through with his plan before making the decision to kill him). It was Geoff Johns during Infinite Crisis that depicted her as the most murderous of the Trinity (not that Superman or Batman was anymore sympathetic during that story). And her killing Max doesn't have to make her look so monstrous. She killed people in her debut movie and most didn't have an issue with that. Diana killing isn't a problem, so much as the context.

I don't think her kills in her solo movie were anywhere near as visceral as a neck snap in my opinion.

NO. He has HOW MANY MOVIES ALREADY? He is already validated.

I don't think Superman's felt generally validated in the movies since Superman 2.

[phantom1592]

Phil Jimenez had a great explanation on Word Balloon for why it is a bad thing, and I agree with him. Basically it’s become Diana’s “thing” at the expense of everything else. Before Diana and the Amazons were the peace and love proponents, and Diana used her lasso because it was a non lethal weapon. But then it began to change, starting really with Perez’s run which had her initially kill before gradually softening her, then Kingdom Come started pushing the whole “she’s a warrior” aspect, and then it culminated in killing Lord. Now Diana is viewed as “the one who kills”, the one who gets her hands dirty, the most murderous of the DC Trinity. Phil thinks that’s not a good characterization for her and I agree.

Exactly.

Wonder Woman's core principle was Peace and Love. Her entire mission and the Amazons were all about how screwed up the violent men were with their wars and how violence was their first choice. She came to Man's world to teach the Amazon's way was better and to help the world reach the ideals of Paradise island...

Somewhere along the line, the focus shifted. She started to become Xena-lite and the amazon's entire focus was on Warriors. They're just as violent... even more so than 'Man's world'. Wonder Woman swinging a sword/axe/shield... is a great visual, but it really hurts the character. She really doesn't have anything to teach anymore. Her basic skills went from 'non-lethal lasso' to a sword and bracelets to a shield.... entirely because 'It looks COOL!!!'

Then it moved into Kingdom Come, Flashpoint, Injustice... and Wonder Woman is the first character go straight up EVIL in any of them.... because 'violent and agressive' is the new starting point.

It's really done a disservice to the character.

[Agent Z]

Exactly.

Wonder Woman's core principle was Peace and Love. Her entire mission and the Amazons were all about how screwed up the violent men were with their wars and how violence was their first choice. She came to Man's world to teach the Amazon's way was better and to help the world reach the ideals of Paradise island...

Somewhere along the line, the focus shifted. She started to become Xena-lite and the amazon's entire focus was on Warriors. They're just as violent... even more so than 'Man's world'. Wonder Woman swinging a sword/axe/shield... is a great visual, but it really hurts the character. She really doesn't have anything to teach anymore. Her basic skills went from 'non-lethal lasso' to a sword and bracelets to a shield.... entirely because 'It looks COOL!!!'

Then it moved into Kingdom Come, Flashpoint, Injustice... and Wonder Woman is the first character go straight up EVIL in any of them.... because 'violent and agressive' is the new starting point.

It's really done a disservice to the character.

For all the preaching about peace and love, she wasn't any less violent than other superheroes.

Also, Diana at her most warrior-focused came from Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You know, those two writers who are always going on and on about how superhero comics are too dark and edgy these days.

[Frontier]

For all the preaching about peace and love, she wasn't any less violent than other superheroes.

Also, Diana at her most warrior-focused came from Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You know, those two writers who are always going on and on about how superhero comics are too dark and edgy these days.

Hmm...? I thought both had a pretty reasonable portrayal of Diana. Aquaman and Batman were the more aggressive ones back then.

[Vordan]

In fairness, the story about her killing Lord was done with a lot more nuance (people forget she actually begged Lord not to go through with his plan before making the decision to kill him). It was Geoff Johns during Infinite Crisis that depicted her as the most murderous of the Trinity (not that Superman or Batman was anymore sympathetic during that story). And her killing Max doesn't have to make her look so monstrous. She killed people in her debut movie and most didn't have an issue with that. Diana killing isn't a problem, so much as the context.

I agree that it’s an over simplification, but the problem is it’s still what people began to takeaway from the stories about what Diana is “supposed to be”. You see this all the time now “well of COURSE Diana kills, she’s a warrior!”. Yeah that’s technically true but it oversimplifies Diana and reduces her complexity. It also damages her morality by making her constantly the one who has to be reigned in by Batgod and SuperJesus, it makes her look bad so they can look good.

It’s like Injustice in that what people took away from the story isn’t “Superman has a mental breakdown and egged on by a bloodthirsty Diana and a Batman who constantly chose to escalate things until it was too late, becomes a tyrant.” Instead people took away “Superman is a moron who is easily tricked by the Joker, gets beaten up by Batman and Alfred, and will throw morality out the window to become SuperHitler if he suffers ANY loss (but especially if Lois dies because she’s the key to stopping him from going full fascist) because he’s so much weaker and stupider than Batman”. I hate Injustice for giving people that conception of Superman and it’s partly why I’m glad Snyder is gone because he was continuing to push this “Lois is the key to Superman’s morality” crap. Yeah these stories are Elseworld, yes there’s some complexity involved, but to pretend that they don’t affect how people view the characters is frankly naive. I don’t want Diana snapping Max’s neck because it will taint public image of the character right when she’s making huge gains in public awareness and appreciation.

Exactly.

Wonder Woman's core principle was Peace and Love. Her entire mission and the Amazons were all about how screwed up the violent men were with their wars and how violence was their first choice. She came to Man's world to teach the Amazon's way was better and to help the world reach the ideals of Paradise island...

Somewhere along the line, the focus shifted. She started to become Xena-lite and the amazon's entire focus was on Warriors. They're just as violent... even more so than 'Man's world'. Wonder Woman swinging a sword/axe/shield... is a great visual, but it really hurts the character. She really doesn't have anything to teach anymore. Her basic skills went from 'non-lethal lasso' to a sword and bracelets to a shield.... entirely because 'It looks COOL!!!'

Then it moved into Kingdom Come, Flashpoint, Injustice... and Wonder Woman is the first character go straight up EVIL in any of them.... because 'violent and agressive' is the new starting point.

It's really done a disservice to the character.

Phil had a great point about this, you can make WW about love and sex or you can make her about War. And during the last days of Post-Crisis and during all of New 52 they chose to make Diana about war. Now I liked Azz’s run as controversial as it was, so I’ll admit as Phil did that I can see the appeal about choosing to play up the “warrior” aspects of Diana. But having read a lot more WW since the New 52, I do think Diana is a stronger character when she’s not just about war. The love, sex, and peace aspects of Diana are what make her stand apart from Xenia and other “warrior women”.

For all the preaching about peace and love, she wasn't any less violent than other superheroes.

Also, Diana at her most warrior-focused came from Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You know, those two writers who are always going on and on about how superhero comics are too dark and edgy these days.

Yeah Waid is a bit of a hypocrite and he’s admitted as much. He’s said that he didn’t really “get” WW at the time of KC and has said he would like another shot at her to do right by her. Morrison in his JLA run was still getting a handle on the characters and has said that he struggled with them at times. He wrote Supes as basically Einstein + The American Flag in JLA but I think we can all agree his take on Superman evolved past that. While his WW EO books have been judged a failure by a lot of Wondy fans, I do appreciate how he’s trying to do something with the Marston material and has made it a big part of WW’s EO history.

[SiegePerilous02]

Even ignoring whether or not the bolded is true, none of this makes the "Superman annihilates a city and Pa Kent tells him to let a bus full of kids drown" thing that gets bandied around any less of a b.s. claim. It honestly feels like people who say this are trolling half the time.

I've defended MOS in the past, and still like it more than half of the DCEU movies, but I think the bolded in Holt's statement is pretty much true.
If people liked MOS, they didn't like it enough. Otherwise we would have gotten a stand alone sequel by now and the current cinematic situation for Superman wouldn't have as completely dire as it is right now. There really is no other way to look at it at this point.

The general public is not interest in OVER EXPOSURE like comic book fans.
Folks get TIRED.
While the excuse of Batman SELLS-that might be true but how much UNSOLD stuff does he leave behind?
And his selling should NOT be used as an excuse to not do stuff with others.

I think you're projecting onto the casual audience. You bring up the unsold Batman comics a lot, but the general audience doesn't give a **** about comics period despite the fact that these characters are in it.

There really is no evidence that people are tired of these characters, just that they won't go see a movie or embrace it if it isn't good. The hype leading up to BvS was insane, you do not see that with many other characters based on name alone. The MCU characters got there but they needed the strong brand and inter connectivity to get there.

If Reeve's Batman film is marketed well and is received well, people will go see it in a heartbeat. Let's not kid ourselves. Especially for the novelty of seeing how Edward Cullen does in the role.

Eh...I don't think most people in the general public would want to see Wonder Woman snap a dude's neck. Especially after all the flack the neck snap in Man of Steel got.

I could see them having Cheetah do it.

Yes, Cheetah killing Lord and supplanting him as the villain seems like a strong possibility.

Also, Diana at her most warrior-focused came from Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You know, those two writers who are always going on and on about how superhero comics are too dark and edgy these days.

Outside of maybe Kingdom Come, which wasn't how the DCU characters were meant to appear as they normally are, I don't think Waid has ever written Diana that way. Morrison, for all his faults with her, definitely hasn't. Neither's efforts with her contributed to darkness and edginess.

[Agent Z]

I've defended MOS in the past, and still like it more than half of the DCEU movies, but I think the bolded in Holt's statement is pretty much true.
If people liked MOS, they didn't like it enough. Otherwise we would have gotten a stand alone sequel by now and the current cinematic situation for Superman wouldn't have as completely dire as it is right now. There really is no other way to look at it at this point.



I think you're projecting onto the casual audience. You bring up the unsold Batman comics a lot, but the general audience doesn't give a **** about comics period despite the fact that these characters are in it.

There really is no evidence that people are tired of these characters, just that they won't go see a movie or embrace it if it isn't good. The hype leading up to BvS was insane, you do not see that with many other characters based on name alone. The MCU characters got there but they needed the strong brand and inter connectivity to get there.

If Reeve's Batman film is marketed well and is received well, people will go see it in a heartbeat. Let's not kid ourselves. Especially for the novelty of seeing how Edward Cullen does in the role.



Yes, Cheetah killing Lord and supplanting him as the villain seems like a strong possibility.



Outside of maybe Kingdom Come, which wasn't how the DCU characters were meant to appear as they normally are, I don't think Waid has ever written Diana that way. Morrison, for all his faults with her, definitely hasn't. Neither's efforts with her contributed to darkness and edginess.

Waid himself has admitted that his take on Diana in KC contributed to her being seen as a bloodthirsty warmongerer and Morrison pretty much did nothing to counter that take until Earth One (which honestly is as deplorable as Injustice or KC for different reasons).

[SiegePerilous02]

Waid himself has admitted that his take on Diana in KC contributed to her being seen as a bloodthirsty warmongerer and Morrison pretty much did nothing to counter that take until Earth One (which honestly is as deplorable as Injustice or KC for different reasons).

If Waid is admitting it, he's not exactly a hypocrite for wanting superhero comics to not be edgy and dark, and it doesn't change the fact that he wrote her that way in a possible future elseworld and not when he used her in, say, his JLA run at least.

Morrison didn't counter it, but he didn't contribute to it either. He made other mistakes, but not dark edgy warrior focused Diana. And YMMV on the flawed Earth One, but I have to say "deplorable" is kind of a strong a word and equating it to Injustice seems a bit much.

[byrd156]

Phil Jimenez had a great explanation on Word Balloon for why it is a bad thing, and I agree with him. Basically it’s become Diana’s “thing” at the expense of everything else. Before Diana and the Amazons were the peace and love proponents, and Diana used her lasso because it was a non lethal weapon. But then it began to change, starting really with Perez’s run which had her initially kill before gradually softening her, then Kingdom Come started pushing the whole “she’s a warrior” aspect, and then it culminated in killing Lord. Now Diana is viewed as “the one who kills”, the one who gets her hands dirty, the most murderous of the DC Trinity. Phil thinks that’s not a good characterization for her and I agree.

Exactly this, the sword wielding goes along with that as a visual representation/short hand to me.

[Pinsir]

Whenever Wonder Woman is a supporting character she's almost always poorly written. I'd love to read a good JL story with WW in it, but. there are none (I've read Golden Perfect and League of One btw). To be fair though, whenever she's written at all, either as a lead or supporting character, she tends to be poorly written.

[Vordan]

Whenever Wonder Woman is a supporting character she's almost always poorly written. I'd love to read a good JL story with WW in it, but. there are none (I've read Golden Perfect and League of One btw). To be fair though, whenever she's written at all, either as a lead or supporting character, she tends to be poorly written.

Justice League Dark has her as the lead and it’s great. League of One is also a popular rec for a JL story starring Diana.

[Pinsir]

Wonder Woman has been consistently murdered people since her inception, the reason why Maxwell Lord's murder seems to have stuck is because its the only Post-Crisis event that really shook up the character, similar to Joker killing Jason Todd and Doomsday killing Superman.

It's kind of funny that Post-Crisis Wonder Woman has pretty much been distilled into a single, violent moment.