DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[SiegePerilous02]

Look, I'll tell you what I think.
I think that these movies are simply not made to deal with real-life, recognizable tragedies unless they are extremely distant in time or unless they are presented through the form of allegories. Sokovia and Wakanda are OK. Making characters with an extremely simplistic moral view such as Wonder Woman deal with World War I or Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as some moments in WW84 may suggest), not so much. Especially when - as it happens in the first movie - they claim to give some kind of closure, or a simplistic overview, to something as complicated as a world conflict.

But...they don't though?

I can see the point that they should have avoided either of the World Wars and maybe set it in the present day with Ares utilizing something like Rucka's SEAR Group that doesn't represent any particular real world thing. But to say the film provides closure to WWI with Ares's defeat is criticizing something that isn't really there, IMO. It's sort of creating a problem that isn't explicit in the film just to criticize it.

[Agent Z]

But...they don't though?

I can see the point that they should have avoided either of the World Wars and maybe set it in the present day with Ares utilizing something like Rucka's SEAR Group that doesn't represent any particular real world thing. But to say the film provides closure to WWI with Ares's defeat is criticizing something that isn't really there, IMO. It's sort of creating a problem that isn't explicit in the film just to criticize it.

A common occurrence of at least 70% criticisms aimed at DC media these days.

[Sodam Yat]

I haven't agreed with everything Johns has done but I don't put a lot of blame for WW84 on him. The story was the biggest issue with the movie. Say what you will about his ideas but the guy knows story structure. Unfortunately I think the majority of the blame falls on Jenkins as she said she was given a lot of freedom on the film.

Sounds like to me things goes bad whenever he touches something. I'm more than sure Jenkins has said that for PR purposes. Doesn't make sense to be openly critical to a project she's promoting imo.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Sounds like to me things goes bad whenever he touches something. I'm more than sure Jenkins has said that for PR purposes. Doesn't make sense to be openly critical to a project she's promoting imo.

Johns has many hits and critically acclaimed projects in his resume. Smallville, CW Flash, Young Justice, Aquaman, Justice League Action, Batman: Arkham Knight, DC Super-Hero Girls, Green Lantern TAS, Blade: The Series, Stargirl, Doom patrol, Harley Quinn & Birds of Prey, Shazam all him doing something as a writer, creator and producer. Diana from the first movie is more like how Johns writes the character, the one in '84 is nothing like that that's classic Wonder Woman he prefers the battle hardened warrior version I trust Jenkins with that characterisation over Johns. Jenkins is the director so she'll get the credit or blame for her movies, and Johns is able to take care of himself. He no stranger to putting himself in the spotlight for controversial creative choices, at his peak at DC he was very Snyder-like in being super edgy and killing and maiming characters - he made a joke out of Superboy prime ripping of Risk's arms every time they fought.

[Vordan]

Sounds like to me things goes bad whenever he touches something. I'm more than sure Jenkins has said that for PR purposes. Doesn't make sense to be openly critical to a project she's promoting imo.

Aquaman. The first WW movie. Stargirl. And that’s just the start.

I’m hardly Johns greatest fan but to trying to say “things go bad whenever he gets involved” is pretty blatantly false.

[HsssH]

A common occurrence of at least 70% criticisms aimed at DC media these days.

Yeah, those WW takes are weird and sound like something a person who didn't watch the movie, but read about it on some "here is why DC sucks" blog would make.

[Myskin]

Yeah, those WW takes are weird and sound like something a person who didn't watch the movie, but read about it on some "here is why DC sucks" blog would make.

I don't know whether you are referring to me, but just to be clear this was one of the main problems I had with the movie since the very first time I watched it.
As far as I am concerned it's a likable movie with some relatively minor flaws up to the final act, when everything goes downhill. Because of the HORRIBLE CGI slugfest, but mostly because this interesting ambiguity (who is responsible for wars?) they successfully kept up to the end of the second act is basically destroyed at the very moment when Ares appears. That is, when they prove that Diana was actually right regarding the presence of Ares. The fact that they tried to suggest that Ares "just" pushed some particularly bellicose people sounds like an attempt to patch things up, because at this point they have introduced a supernatural element as some kind of "mastermind" behind the war, and it becomes just unclear where the evil German general and Poison's responsibility ends and where Ares' starts. Not ambiguous, just unclear. Isn't there a bunch of generals at some point who clearly say that they are going to end war or asking for an armistice? So - basically - what Ares is doing at the end, after the evil general's death and Poison's demise is personally intervening trying to stop Wonder Woman and making war continue thanks to a plane full of poison. Again, it's incredibly unambiguous and terribly disappointing after a couple of hours which proved to be interesting enough to make me watch the movie.

The fact that it concerns a real-life event just makes it all a bit weirder to me, because of the scope of the god of war's powers. Again, it all just sounds clumsy because it could be easily suggested that Ares was behind a LOT of what unleashed World War I (maybe he suggested with his magical whisper to kill Archduke Ferdinand too?). I actually have way fewer problems with the Red Skull and some evil Indiana Jones nazi characters because they actually belong to an old tradition of pulp-ish anti-nazi propaganda, and most of the time they are not THE responsible for something which really happened (I mean, how weird would it be if they said that the Red Skull was actually the one who suggested nazis to invent death camps? My memories of original Marvel books are foggy but as far as I remember he's mostly responsible for bizarre sci-fi Dieselpunk plots, giant robots and magical cubes). And I have actually zero problems with Ares being behind a possible nuclear war in Perez's Gods and Monsters, because he's basically the embodiment of a fear regarding a war which NEVER really took place. That's what I call a good attempt at making the character work.

However, quite frankly, I find it a bit exhausting (and a bit irritating too) to have to show that I have actually seen a movie as if I had to prove a point, so I'll just end it here.

[Castling]

Sounds like to me things goes bad whenever he touches something. I'm more than sure Jenkins has said that for PR purposes. Doesn't make sense to be openly critical to a project she's promoting imo.

This Fox News talking point about Johns is getting ridiculous, and I usually see it coming from Zack Snyder fans. The fact is Johns has been more successful at DC than Snyder simply because he has greater insight to the characters. He's not 100% but his take on the characters on the big and small screens have been better-received.
As for WW84, he's only 1/3 of the writing team which includes a director who will have the final say on certain choices. If you wanna put something on Johns, then I firmly believe he's the one that got a lot of deep cut DC Comics references into the movie, and probably came up with Asteria.
In the end, it was a team effort I thoroughly enjoyed.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I don't know whether you are referring to me, but just to be clear this was one of the main problems I had with the movie since the very first time I watched it.
As far as I am concerned it's a likable movie with some relatively minor flaws up to the final act, when everything goes downhill. Because of the HORRIBLE CGI slugfest, but mostly because this interesting ambiguity (who is responsible for wars?) they successfully kept up to the end of the second act is basically destroyed at the very moment when Ares appears. That is, when they prove that Diana was actually right regarding the presence of Ares. The fact that they tried to suggest that Ares "just" pushed some particularly bellicose people sounds like an attempt to patch things up, because at this point they have introduced a supernatural element as some kind of "mastermind" behind the war, and it becomes just unclear where the evil German general and Poison's responsibility ends and where Ares' starts. Not ambiguous, just unclear. Isn't there a bunch of generals at some point who clearly say that they are going to end war or asking for an armistice? So - basically - what Ares is doing at the end, after the evil general's death and Poison's demise is personally intervening trying to stop Wonder Woman and making war continue thanks to a plane full of poison. Again, it's incredibly unambiguous and terribly disappointing after a couple of hours which proved to be interesting enough to make me watch the movie.

The fact that it concerns a real-life event just makes it all a bit weirder to me, because of the scope of the god of war's powers. Again, it all just sounds clumsy because it could be easily suggested that Ares was behind a LOT of what unleashed World War I (maybe he suggested with his magical whisper to kill Archduke Ferdinand too?). I actually have way fewer problems with the Red Skull and some evil Indiana Jones nazi characters because they actually belong to an old tradition of pulp-ish anti-nazi propaganda, and most of the time they are not THE responsible for something which really happened (I mean, how weird would it be if they said that the Red Skull was actually the one who suggested nazis to invent death camps? My memories of original Marvel books are foggy but as far as I remember he's mostly responsible for bizarre sci-fi Dieselpunk plots, giant robots and magical cubes). And I have actually zero problems with Ares being behind a possible nuclear war in Perez's Gods and Monsters, because he's basically the embodiment of a fear regarding a war which NEVER really took place. That's what I call a good attempt at making the character work.

However, quite frankly, I find it a bit exhausting (and a bit irritating too) to have to show that I have actually seen a movie as if I had to prove a point, so I'll just end it here.

From my perspective this is a conflict between expectations and what happens in the movie. Would it have been exciting for the movie to do this things? Sure, but it didn't. This isn't about scope of Ares powers or what could have occurred it's about what was canon in the movie and the movie didn't say Ares did that to Arch-Duke Ferdinand and they only have two hours to fill and the studio is more interested in two deities fighting each other to the death with CGI and explosions than a philosophy debate about the causes of the world war. They don't even do this in Cap's first movie, Red Skull is a Nazi who went rogue and attacked both sides to rule over the ashes.

[Myskin]

From my perspective this is a conflict between expectations and what happens in the movie.

To me it's more about the perspectives created in the first two thirds of the movie and its final third. It's as if they belonged to two different movies (well, CGI aside, because it's bad at the beginning too, even if not in such an evident way as in the final battle).

. They don't even do this in Cap's first movie, Red Skull is a Nazi who went rogue and attacked both sides to rule over the ashes.

OK, but I'd actually say that the ambitions behind Joe Johnston's Cap movie actually are actually lower than the ones of WW.
The First Avenger is more of a pure, pulp-ish escapist film as if it was an Indiana Jones rip-off. I actually barely remember it, but I remember the No Man's Land scene from WW. So I'd say that to me the first 2/3 of WW are actually better and more ambitious than TFA, and up to a certain moment, the successfully fulfill such ambitions. But the final third is actually way worse than everything in TFA and it basically destroys many of the interesting ideas WW had kept alive up to a certain moment.

[achilles]

You said this before that these characters didn't go anywhere, but it's a complaint that doesn't make sense.

The main characters who mattered in this movie were Diana, Steve, Antiope and Hippolyta, and I'd say all of them fulfilled their narrative function perfectly well. Everyone else is a support player, which every CBM has, so it seems odd to complain that they didn't go anywhere.

It makes plenty of sense. Those characters did literally NOTHING of any importance to the plot, and set up character arcs...but then didn't follow them. You seem to be thinking that "character arc" applies only to the lead characters. It doesn't. You don't set up a bunch of supporting characters and then do nothing with them. We have the Scottish sniper with PTSD who can't shoot, who then is presented with the chance to shoot. A better script would have had him take the shot. Whether he makes it or not is mostly irrelevant; he should have taken the shot. It would have taken no more screen time than they already devoted to that waste of space, but would have closed out his arc. And..those guys had no narrative arc. They ended the same as they started, and as I said should simply have been left out of the movie as they did not effect the plot in the slightest. The best comic book movies don't do things like that. Good movies of any genre don't do that.

[SiegePerilous02]

Sounds like to me things goes bad whenever he touches something. I'm more than sure Jenkins has said that for PR purposes. Doesn't make sense to be openly critical to a project she's promoting imo.

For all intents and purposes, this movie is her baby. The main things drawing criticism, the lack of action and focus on romance and the campier Donner-like tone, seem to be all her.

It's pointless to blame Johns, especially when we have the first Aquaman and Shazam, both of which were based on his storylines. We can't make him the boogeyman for the screw ups of the directors

[HsssH]

However, quite frankly, I find it a bit exhausting (and a bit irritating too) to have to show that I have actually seen a movie as if I had to prove a point, so I'll just end it here.

Well you see, when you post things like this:

That is, when they prove that Diana was actually right regarding the presence of Ares. The fact that they tried to suggest that Ares "just" pushed some particularly bellicose people sounds like an attempt to patch things up, because at this point they have introduced a supernatural element as some kind of "mastermind" behind the war, and it becomes just unclear where the evil German general and Poison's responsibility ends and where Ares' starts. Not ambiguous, just unclear.

it is hard to understand how someone could have watched the movie and came out with such impressions. Or post about how it attempts to provide some commentary/closure on WW1. Maybe you are giving this movie too much of a credit and as such you are over-analysing it.

[Agent Z]

It makes plenty of sense. Those characters did literally NOTHING of any importance to the plot, and set up character arcs...but then didn't follow them. You seem to be thinking that "character arc" applies only to the lead characters. It doesn't. You don't set up a bunch of supporting characters and then do nothing with them. We have the Scottish sniper with PTSD who can't shoot, who then is presented with the chance to shoot. A better script would have had him take the shot. Whether he makes it or not is mostly irrelevant; he should have taken the shot. It would have taken no more screen time than they already devoted to that waste of space, but would have closed out his arc. And..those guys had no narrative arc. They ended the same as they started, and as I said should simply have been left out of the movie as they did not effect the plot in the slightest. The best comic book movies don't do things like that. Good movies of any genre don't do that.

The only character among the Oddfellows with a set up character arc was Charlie (and no, that isn't a bad thing). He doesn't shoot because his arc isn't about becoming a killer again, it's about overcoming his PTSD and finding value in something he loves that doesn't involve killing. What you are describing here are common tropes for movies, not hard and fast rules. Not every movie is the same and Wonder Woman is not a bad movie, least of all because it doesn't follow the same trends as others.

[Frontier]

To me it's more about the perspectives created in the first two thirds of the movie and its final third. It's as if they belonged to two different movies (well, CGI aside, because it's bad at the beginning too, even if not in such an evident way as in the final battle).

I feel like part of that is intentional to where the setup is there for Diana thinking she's on a grand quest to end all war by stopping Ares only to find out that she was wrong about the conflict and what incited it, which is what the big twist is for.

Personally I've seen worse CG fights than WW vs Ares.

OK, but I'd actually say that the ambitions behind Joe Johnston's Cap movie actually are actually lower than the ones of WW.
The First Avenger is more of a pure, pulp-ish escapist film as if it was an Indiana Jones rip-off. I actually barely remember it, but I remember the No Man's Land scene from WW. So I'd say that to me the first 2/3 of WW are actually better and more ambitious than TFA, and up to a certain moment, the successfully fulfill such ambitions. But the final third is actually way worse than everything in TFA and it basically destroys many of the interesting ideas WW had kept alive up to a certain moment.

I don't think it's a question of ambition but of character/genre and stories being told. Captain America is a different character than Wonder Woman so they tell different kinds of "war" movies.

But I also love TFA and enjoyed WW 3rd act, so what do I know...