Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Gaius]

Yeah I'm in the camp it's silly regardless of Zeus or "Amazon training".

[John Venus]

There's a difference between a bad adaptation and one that doesn't line up to everything an individual fan wants. This is the latter, not the former, and no adaptation ever gets everything 100% accurate (look at everything for Superman and Batman). Again if we didn't get this during DC/WB's rush to chase the superhero genre boom, we weren't getting one any time soon if ever. And we got a movie that was pretty much a hit and proved the character could be viable when nobody gave a crap about her potential before.

If the criticism you mean is the Steve one, I think that applies more to the sequel than the first film. I honestly think the movie making everything about her love for Steve is an exaggeration and probably stems from having an axe to grind against Steve than anything that is in the film itself. Even her wishing him back in the sequel makes some sense on paper: she could conceivably see her mother and sisters again some day since they are alive, while Steve is dead and never coming back to her knowledge. The ultimate execution left something to be desired yes, but there is some logic to the basic idea.


I'd hardly call the movie that started to salvage the DCEU's reputation and made people notice WW in a modern context for the first time ever "scraps".

Live action Themyscira is pretty much Perez's Themysicra. Would I have preferred Marston's Paradise Island (there is a difference)? Yes. But we have comics where Themyscira doesn't have anything Wakanda or Asgard would. And the Perez era is considered the true version of the character and her mythos for a significant portion of the fanbase, and the general audience making up most of the ticket sales don't have a horse in this race. If the comics and fanbase can't agree with how Themyscira should be depicted, I can't fault the movie for just picking a version to be faithful to over another even if it's not the one I and others would prefer.

I think we are still free to criticize the creative choices made. Since this is the first big live action WW movie it is going to colour everyone's perception of the character and the franchise. Though as it is now, this is the only WW adaptation we have and we'll have to wait for another one to come out before we can compare and contrast it's strengths and failings.

The DCEU is still struggling, 'The Suicide Squad' has given it another shot in the arm but they are nowhere near to be a viable thing yet and non rhetroical question: how much has DC actually capitalized on WW's success?

I think most of us agreed that technologically primitive Amazons was one of the few misfires of Perez.

I'm honestly not certain what you're discussing here. If you look at the first quote box, which I am responding to in your quote, you were specifically talking about the movie. That is why I responded by quoting a quote from the film and how the film makes certain we know that Diana has an urge to save people and the world that has nothing to do with Steve Trevor. The comment was "She left her island for a man!" as it relates to the film. My response is that she did not and the film supports this. To say she left for a man is just factually inaccurate. I'm not certain what her being an Ambassador in the comics has to do with her not leaving for a man in the film - which was the actual point of debate.

The first quote box is me listing reactions I've seen from other people. I have my own criticisms as well.

You seem to working from the perception that I didn't understand the movie and that's not the case at all. I did understand it, I'm just crticizing the direction and choices it made in presenting the story such as:

-removing the contest and instead had Diana run away from Themyscira. Although I think Jenkins handled it the best way possible, I would still rather she earned the right to go fight Ares in a contest.

-changing Ares into Satan, having the Zeus create and empower the Amazons in the first and having Diana being his daughter. It changes Hippolyta's whole backstory and her reasoning for being in isolation and wanting to protect Diana.

-the second movie being 'STEEEEEVE' and not doing right by Cheetah. I would have preferred a movie that focused on Diana and Barbara and their friendship eventually breaking down into a fight between the two.

-Antiope's entire role (except for dying of course) should have gone to Phillipus.

-the 2009 movie actually did a better job integrating the Amazons into the plot; they had Artemis as a rival and the major Amazonian figure after Diana and Hippolyta, she took up reading more after her friend died and of course the Amazons showed up during the final battle against Ares. Don't get me wrong, that movie has issues, like it's handling of Steve Trevor and how it addresses sexism but I think their utilization of the Amazons was better than the 2017 movie.

Pining over Steve in the sequel doesn't change that she doesn't leave the island for him. (And as a reminder, I didn't like how prominent Steve's role in the sequel was either.)

I'm infering some of this desire stems from the 2013 Jimenez interview when he say the core relationship of Wonder Woman should be mother and daughter and he used Brave as an example. While I do not disagree at all, I must remind that in the layout of a movie, this kind of mother daughter relationship cannot work for an origin film. In a sequel, yes. In a TV show, yes. In a first movie, no.

Why it can't work, as I have stated previously, is that the start of Diana's journey is entering the outside world. Diana's mother is often presented as a direct obstacle, banning Diana from participating in the very competition she needs to achieve her goal. And then when she makes her mother proud by disobeying and winning, that is Hippolyta's entire character arch in her origin.

She's not going to college, she can't call Mom on the phone or write letters, she's completely cut off from the island so their relationship cannot progress any further. And I don't think a first movie should end with Diana returning to Themsycira or it opening up to the outside world, it should end like it always does with Diana rushing off to help someone in trouble. And you don't want to spend so much time on Themyscira that you limit Diana's heroism in the outside world.

And Diana's Amazon philosophies/values will present themselves in her character, not her relationship with her mother (once she leaves the island anyway, since they could pull the old "this is what you taught me so I'm leaving to save the world" like Bloodlines did).

I haven't read this Jimenez interview. This stems from my own take away from reading WW comics but I'm glad to know that he and I are on the same page on this.

IMO, Hippolyta is a character that probably needs her own movie to establish herself first but I don't think that will happen any time soon. Still I think the mother-daughter connection can still guide the movie. Hippolyta protectiveness of Diana is motivated by trauma inflicted on her by Heracles and Ares. The contest happens because an Amazon has to fight Ares. Diana wins much to Polly's dismay. Diana wants to explore Man's World and to use her gifts for good but she also realizes that Man's World is just as bad as her mother described. However, she also sees the good in the world and the importance of having a strong female role model and an example of peace, tolerance and justice so she chooses to be an Ambasador and stays in Man's World. She's still able to go back and forth between Themyscira and Man's World which will allow more development for the Amazons and Diana's relationship with her mother to progress further in sequels.

To me that's how you can keep the mother-daughter connection as well as the Amazons relevant for sequels. Diana opening up Themyscira is also true to how Perez did it in his run (although I can see people drawing comparison with Black Panther but it is an important story plot for WW as well). Cutting Diana off entirely from the Amazons and her mother only limits potential story telling possibilities. Hippolyta and the Amazons are underutilized for their potential.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think we are still free to criticize the creative choices made. Since this is the first big live action WW movie it is going to colour everyone's perception of the character and the franchise. Though as it is now, this is the only WW adaptation we have and we'll have to wait for another one to come out before we can compare and contrast it's strengths and failings.

We are free to criticize it because nothing is perfect, but I think calling it an outright bad adaptation for arbitrary personal reasons is a bit much IMO. At least that's what it sounded like you were saying in a previous post and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting that. But a movie that was a hit and got the mainstream to notice that Wonder Woman was cool and pulled most everything from comics (just ones that not everyone likes, but that's subjective) cannot be a bad adaptation.

The DCEU is still struggling, 'The Suicide Squad' has given it another shot in the arm but they are nowhere near to be a viable thing yet and non rhetroical question: how much has DC actually capitalized on WW's success?

It's struggling, but it was not going to be even as sustainable as it currently is trying to be without the critical success of Wonder Woman. Aquaman went on to make a billion and Shazam was a modest success when factoring in its budget to the point it's getting a sequel and Black Adam. It's hard to really determine the successes of the most recent films because of the pandemic and the new streaming releases. There was hype at least for WW84 pre-release and despite the critical backlash, it was deemed enough of a success that it helped launched HBO Max.

They have not don nearly enough to capitalize on her success, but they are also still doing a bit more than they were before the 2017 film (which was jack ****, and likely would have remained that way forever if not for the rush to copy Marvel's formula).

I think most of us agreed that technologically primitive Amazons was one of the few misfires of Perez.

I mean, I certainly think that was a big misfire on Perez's part, but I don't think that it's unanimous among the fanbase. At least not on here, we have posters who don't think his decision was a big deal and that the Amazon tech was superfluous to the story. Which is why a lot of them are not bothered by the depiction of Themyscira in the movie.

Antiope's entire role (except for dying of course) should have gone to Phillipus.

Philippus didn't exist until halfway through Wonder Woman's publication history and even after that point, she didn't take on the role of Diana's main teacher until the out-of-canon LoWW. Antiope's role in the film also wants to play up the "hero's mentor dies and they inherit the legacy and carry on their teachings" trope by doing it with a female mentor, and Diana donning her iconic tiara as something she wears to honor her fallen aunt is a great moment. We can't swap Antiope out for Philippus and leave Philippus alive and have the same effect.

I want the movies to do much more with Philippus in the Amazons spin-off and WW3, but there isn't a reason Phillipus "should" be the mentor over Antiope beyond subjective preference.

the 2009 movie actually did a better job integrating the Amazons into the plot; they had Artemis as a rival and the major Amazonian figure after Diana and Hippolyta, she took up reading more after her friend died and of course the Amazons showed up during the final battle against Ares. Don't get me wrong, that movie has issues, like it's handling of Steve Trevor and how it addresses sexism but I think their utilization of the Amazons was better than the 2017 movie.

I think Artemis and Alexa's mini arc was the only good thing to come out of the Amazons in that movie. Otherwise we have all the criticisms of them cutting themselves off from the world of men (despite very valid reasons), Hippolyta getting raped by Ares to have a son, and Persephone's main motive and criticism of Hippolyta being that she wasn't allowed to love men, all on top of Diana's lesson being "Not All Men" as taught by a terribly written Steve. Bringing the Amazons in for a fight scene at the climax really isn't worth all that IMO, especially as many of Diana's origin stories (Gods and Mortals, Year One, Sensation Comics #1, LoWW) are built around her leaving the nest for a solo adventure that she needs to accomplish herself while still carrying the lessons the Amazons taught her.

I think leaving the Amazons to the early portion of the movie where they train Diana and impart lessons on her is all the plot of an origin film requires, and they should be integrated more in sequels.

[I'm a Fish]

I haven't read this Jimenez interview. This stems from my own take away from reading WW comics but I'm glad to know that he and I are on the same page on this.

IMO, Hippolyta is a character that probably needs her own movie to establish herself first but I don't think that will happen any time soon. Still I think the mother-daughter connection can still guide the movie. Hippolyta protectiveness of Diana is motivated by trauma inflicted on her by Heracles and Ares. The contest happens because an Amazon has to fight Ares. Diana wins much to Polly's dismay. Diana wants to explore Man's World and to use her gifts for good but she also realizes that Man's World is just as bad as her mother described. However, she also sees the good in the world and the importance of having a strong female role model and an example of peace, tolerance and justice so she chooses to be an Ambasador and stays in Man's World. She's still able to go back and forth between Themyscira and Man's World which will allow more development for the Amazons and Diana's relationship with her mother to progress further in sequels.

To me that's how you can keep the mother-daughter connection as well as the Amazons relevant for sequels. Diana opening up Themyscira is also true to how Perez did it in his run (although I can see people drawing comparison with Black Panther but it is an important story plot for WW as well). Cutting Diana off entirely from the Amazons and her mother only limits potential story telling possibilities. Hippolyta and the Amazons are underutilized for their potential.

I think it is important that Diana leave Themyscira with no way to return in an origin movie, I think it is important to have her sacrifice something. Normally, I would say the threat of death from fighting Ares would be enough, but the problem is, we as an audience know she is not going to fail. I think it's important to have an extra layer in the sense that, even if she succeeds, she has still lost something. It keeps the potential for her to be viewed as a "prevailed princess" or "tourist" at arms length, because if she can't go home, she's not either of those things.

And make no mistake, I do think Themyscira is an unique setting worthy of exploration. And I think if Themyscira was to open up, it should be because Diana needs to return home to save the world, because returning to Themyscira is somehow vital to the plot (and not a gift from the gods). I think it has to be something that is impossible, but she has to make possible to save the world. Or because the Amazon's decide to return to the outside world themselves and follow Diana's heroism.

And IMO, I think a Wonder Woman movie franchise is never going to explore the full potential of the Amazon's, since Wonder Woman's story isn't about the Amazon's and movies themselves are very limiting in how much story they can tell (unless you start going into the 3 hour + range). I know Black Panther keeps coming up, but T'challa is King of Wakanda, Diana isn't queen of Themyscira, her story isn't there. Diana's story is really about using what she learned from the Amazon's to help others and save the world.

A Wonder Woman tv show or Amazon movie on the other hand, could explore the nuances of Amazon society, properly dissect its strength and weaknesses, and explore their technology (if they have any) without taking as much screen time from Diana. A 20 episode tv show mean ~900 minutes of screen time, much longer than the average 120 minutes movies seem to be pushing now-a-days.

[John Venus]

We are free to criticize it because nothing is perfect, but I think calling it an outright bad adaptation for arbitrary personal reasons is a bit much IMO. At least that's what it sounded like you were saying in a previous post and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting that. But a movie that was a hit and got the mainstream to notice that Wonder Woman was cool and pulled most everything from comics (just ones that not everyone likes, but that's subjective) cannot be a bad adaptation.

I think it's deeply flawed. I'm glad it made money at least. But certain elements don't sit right with me and breaks the movie for me. Right now I hope something better comes along so we can better compare the two. At the moment it's the movie vs the comic.

It's struggling, but it was not going to be even as sustainable as it currently is trying to be without the critical success of Wonder Woman. Aquaman went on to make a billion and Shazam was a modest success when factoring in its budget to the point it's getting a sequel and Black Adam. It's hard to really determine the successes of the most recent films because of the pandemic and the new streaming releases. There was hype at least for WW84 pre-release and despite the critical backlash, it was deemed enough of a success that it helped launched HBO Max.

They have not don nearly enough to capitalize on her success, but they are also still doing a bit more than they were before the 2017 film (which was jack ****, and likely would have remained that way forever if not for the rush to copy Marvel's formula).

The next couple of years should tell us how sustainable the DCEU is at least.

Agreed that they would have never made this movie if the MCU hadn't been a success. I still remember all the 'she's too complicated' and 'it would never sell' bs they used to make. At least the audience response showed the power of the character so I'm grateful for that at least.

I mean, I certainly think that was a big misfire on Perez's part, but I don't think that it's unanimous among the fanbase. At least not on here, we have posters who don't think his decision was a big deal and that the Amazon tech was superfluous to the story. Which is why a lot of them are not bothered by the depiction of Themyscira in the movie.

That makes two of us.

Philippus didn't exist until halfway through Wonder Woman's publication history and even after that point, she didn't take on the role of Diana's main teacher until the out-of-canon LoWW. Antiope's role in the film also wants to play up the "hero's mentor dies and they inherit the legacy and carry on their teachings" trope by doing it with a female mentor, and Diana donning her iconic tiara as something she wears to honor her fallen aunt is a great moment. We can't swap Antiope out for Philippus and leave Philippus alive and have the same effect.

I want the movies to do much more with Philippus in the Amazons spin-off and WW3, but there isn't a reason Phillipus "should" be the mentor over Antiope beyond subjective preference.

Not being around for most of her publication history isn't really a good excuse since they used characters like Maxwell Lord and the Daddy Zeus origin. Even Antiope wasn't a character in WW's mythology until Perez and even then she was someone who defected from Themyscira. Movie dropped the ball in utilizing Amazons who exist in the comics already.

And does Diana really need a dead mentor?

I think Artemis and Alexa's mini arc was the only good thing to come out of the Amazons in that movie. Otherwise we have all the criticisms of them cutting themselves off from the world of men (despite very valid reasons), Hippolyta getting raped by Ares to have a son, and Persephone's main motive and criticism of Hippolyta being that she wasn't allowed to love men, all on top of Diana's lesson being "Not All Men" as taught by a terribly written Steve. Bringing the Amazons in for a fight scene at the climax really isn't worth all that IMO, especially as many of Diana's origin stories (Gods and Mortals, Year One, Sensation Comics #1, LoWW) are built around her leaving the nest for a solo adventure that she needs to accomplish herself while still carrying the lessons the Amazons taught her.

Ooof good point.

I think leaving the Amazons to the early portion of the movie where they train Diana and impart lessons on her is all the plot of an origin film requires, and they should be integrated more in sequels.

I agree that their roles should grow in sequels.

Pretty much my ideal WW origin film would be a 1:1 version of Perez's Gods & Mortals but I would probably have Artemis or Mala showing up in the finale to back up Diana.

I think it is important that Diana leave Themyscira with no way to return in an origin movie, I think it is important to have her sacrifice something. Normally, I would say the threat of death from fighting Ares would be enough, but the problem is, we as an audience know she is not going to fail. I think it's important to have an extra layer in the sense that, even if she succeeds, she has still lost something. It keeps the potential for her to be viewed as a "prevailed princess" or "tourist" at arms length, because if she can't go home, she's not either of those things.

And make no mistake, I do think Themyscira is an unique setting worthy of exploration. And I think if Themyscira was to open up, it should be because Diana needs to return home to save the world, because returning to Themyscira is somehow vital to the plot (and not a gift from the gods). I think it has to be something that is impossible, but she has to make possible to save the world. Or because the Amazon's decide to return to the outside world themselves and follow Diana's heroism.

And IMO, I think a Wonder Woman movie franchise is never going to explore the full potential of the Amazon's, since Wonder Woman's story isn't about the Amazon's and movies themselves are very limiting in how much story they can tell (unless you start going into the 3 hour + range). I know Black Panther keeps coming up, but T'challa is King of Wakanda, Diana isn't queen of Themyscira, her story isn't there. Diana's story is really about using what she learned from the Amazon's to help others and save the world.

A Wonder Woman tv show or Amazon movie on the other hand, could explore the nuances of Amazon society, properly dissect its strength and weaknesses, and explore their technology (if they have any) without taking as much screen time from Diana. A 20 episode tv show mean ~900 minutes of screen time, much longer than the average 120 minutes movies seem to be pushing now-a-days.

I still disagree that she has to give up Themyscira in the origin movie even if she is able to come back later on. To me it's more powerful if she has the choice to go '**** y'all' and just retire to her cozy island yet she chooses to fight for Man's World anyway. Yes, the majority of the second and third act would be in Man's World and yes, she would have to be separated from her sisters for a while but I don't think she has to be exiled from her homeland to do so. Plus she's going to be a 'tourist' anyway regardless of whether she is an exile from Themyscira or not. I like the idea of her going back and forth between Themyscira and Man's World especially when she needs a break from the latter.

I think the Amazons already suffers from writers trying to write them out from the narrative. Be it Amazons Attack, Nu52 barbarian Amazons or in the Silver Age mod era. So I don't like the idea of incorporating Diana having to give up her homeland to go to Man's World into her origin story. It should have been left in the Golden Age along with the OG Egg Fu. Only way I would accept it is if it's a plot like in the Silver Age when Themyscira simply disappeared into another dimension before coming back, even then I wouldn't want that in an origin story.

Plus I enjoy stuff like the WW Vol 2 Annual #1 where Diana takes Julia and Vanessa to Themyscira and we get to see them interact with different Amazons. I would have rather seen something like that in the sequel rather than 'Steeeeeve'. I would love to see something like that animated or in a live action series. In terms of narrative, fleshing out Amazon characters means you get to establish where they are similar and where they are different from Diana.

As for movies, like I said above my ideal preference would be a 1:1 adaptation of Perez's Gods & Mortals though I would have Diana being backed up by Artemis or Mala in the finale. I think the interaction between Amazons and regular mortal characters are important as well. Plus, I think a lot of movies like these like Thor and Transformers and WW to an extent suffers from trying to shoe horn in too many human characters and bloating their role. I would prefer a balance between the more fantastical characters and the real world characters.

The WW comparisons with Black Panther are unavoidable since they are both isolationist warrior culture made up of a group whose marginalized in the rest of the world. Diana opening up the world to Themyscira and participating in a contest is a part of her culture too.

[SiegePerilous02]

Not being around for most of her publication history isn't really a good excuse since they used characters like Maxwell Lord and the Daddy Zeus origin. Even Antiope wasn't a character in WW's mythology until Perez and even then she was someone who defected from Themyscira. Movie dropped the ball in utilizing Amazons who exist in the comics already.

And does Diana really need a dead mentor?

It's not really an excuse, just pointing out that all throughout her publication history Diana doesn't have many comics where she has a singular important elder Amazon mentor to the point where picking someone other than Phillipus from the comics (or even making up a new one entirely) is changing anything substantial. And there was an Antiope in pre-Crisis comics who was an Amazon who rebelled against Hippolyta (though I don't think she was her sister). LoWW combined these two takes by having Antiope on the island as Diana's aunt and also a traitor. Basically, there isn't any one version of Antiope from comics nor any consistent Amazon mentor that making Antiope the mentor in the movie is upsetting any apple carts. Saying it should be Philippus is, IMO, a bit nitpicky.

That's incorrect, all the Amazons in the movie are from the comics. They are credited (and some are name dropped) as Philippus, Menalippe, Orana, Euboea, Timandra, Venilia, Mnemosyne, Acantha, Niobe, Venilia, etc. They didn't make up any new ones.

She doesn't really NEED a dead mentor, but it's a trope we see a lot with male mentors and their male students who become heroes and carry on the teachings and legacy. It's neat to see it with a female hero and her mentor in a mainstream movie. And since Philippus isn't remotely cemented as #1 mentor to begin with and Antiope ends up dead a lot anyway, it's harmless and frees up Philippus to be used later because she thankfully survived the Snyder Cut (RIP Euboea though).

I agree that their roles should grow in sequels.

Pretty much my ideal WW origin film would be a 1:1 version of Perez's Gods & Mortals but I would probably have Artemis or Mala showing up in the finale to back up Diana.

I'd go with Year One instead (IMO it lacks some of the pacing weaknesses of Gods & Mortals) but otherwise would be fine with that. But I'm also fine with the way the first movie did things aside from the Zeus origin (which was still implemented in the best possible way considering the circumstances- compare how its done in the Azz run).

The second film should have been the Diana/Barbara show entirely though. The plot that WW3 may have (returning to the Amazons) is actually a great way to end the trilogy in concept, but the second film is going to be the weak link. It really should have been the story of their friendship dissolving as the latter becomes the Cheetah and they continue that feud going into WW3's plot that involves Circe and the Amazons.

[HestiasHearth]

I think it's deeply flawed. I'm glad it made money at least.

The film not only made money; it was a critically acclaimed crowdpleaser (still the best reviewed DCEU film, and one of the very few times that the venerable American Film Institute places a superhero film on their annual Top Ten Films of the Year list). It was a beloved movie that many people consider one of the best superhero films ever made. Something like Batman V Superman and Captain Marvel "made money at least" (both made more money than WW), but neither is as well regarded, remembered, or held in high esteem as WW.
No, it is not "perfect" and it is not a perfect adaptation of WW, but let's not pretend that there will ever be a "perfect" WW adaptation. No film adapted from another highly successful medium will ever be a perfect adaptation for all fans of those properties. As beloved as Superman the Movie and Batman 89 are, there are many people out there that hate them. But that doesn't take away from their impact and overall solid reputation (and I am happy that Wonder WOman at least was a huge critical and financial success that FINALLY made Diana a viable movie property. It was about time).

Whether we find the WW film awesome or so-so, we have it to thank for the fact that from now on, Diana will get movies about her made until the end of time. And that I won't complain about.

[SiegePerilous02]

The film not only made money; it was a critically acclaimed crowdpleaser (still the best reviewed DCEU film, and one of the very few times that the venerable American Film Institute places a superhero film on their annual Top Ten Films of the Year list). It was a beloved movie that many people consider one of the best superhero films ever made. Something like Batman V Superman and Captain Marvel "made money at least" (both made more money than WW), but neither is as well regarded, remembered, or held in high esteem as WW.
No, it is not "perfect" and it is not a perfect adaptation of WW, but let's not pretend that there will ever be a "perfect" WW adaptation. No film adapted from another highly successful medium will ever be a perfect adaptation for all fans of those properties. As beloved as Superman the Movie and Batman 89 are, there are many people out there that hate them. But that doesn't take away from their impact and overall solid reputation (and I am happy that Wonder WOman at least was a huge critical and financial success that FINALLY made Diana a viable movie property. It was about time).

Whether we find the WW film awesome or so-so, we have it to thank for the fact that from now on, Diana will get movies about her made until the end of time. And that I won't complain about.

Yeah, both of those movies are still very beloved, but I don't think WW even has anything that stands out as "off" as much as Superman wiping Lois's mind with a kiss in II and Batman blowing people away with his machine guns in both B89 and Returns.

[BiteTheBullet]

Yeah, both of those movies are still very beloved, but I don't think WW even has anything that stands out as "off" as much as Superman wiping Lois's mind with a kiss in II and Batman blowing people away with his machine guns in both B89 and Returns.

Some would say her having sex without consent in WW84 might go as far as that (the man that Steve was occupying). Some even called it rape, so take that for what it is.

[John Venus]

It's not really an excuse, just pointing out that all throughout her publication history Diana doesn't have many comics where she has a singular important elder Amazon mentor to the point where picking someone other than Phillipus from the comics (or even making up a new one entirely) is changing anything substantial. And there was an Antiope in pre-Crisis comics who was an Amazon who rebelled against Hippolyta (though I don't think she was her sister). LoWW combined these two takes by having Antiope on the island as Diana's aunt and also a traitor. Basically, there isn't any one version of Antiope from comics nor any consistent Amazon mentor that making Antiope the mentor in the movie is upsetting any apple carts. Saying it should be Philippus is, IMO, a bit nitpicky.

That's incorrect, all the Amazons in the movie are from the comics. They are credited (and some are name dropped) as Philippus, Menalippe, Orana, Euboea, Timandra, Venilia, Mnemosyne, Acantha, Niobe, Venilia, etc. They didn't make up any new ones.

Well, I said 'utilize' not just using their names but having them be closer to how their characters are depicted in the comic. But I feel like pursuing this thread would be going around in circles.

She doesn't really NEED a dead mentor, but it's a trope we see a lot with male mentors and their male students who become heroes and carry on the teachings and legacy. It's neat to see it with a female hero and her mentor in a mainstream movie. And since Philippus isn't remotely cemented as #1 mentor to begin with and Antiope ends up dead a lot anyway, it's harmless and frees up Philippus to be used later because she thankfully survived the Snyder Cut (RIP Euboea though).

I think it's unnecessary and the story could have unfolded differently anyway.

I'd go with Year One instead (IMO it lacks some of the pacing weaknesses of Gods & Mortals) but otherwise would be fine with that. But I'm also fine with the way the first movie did things aside from the Zeus origin (which was still implemented in the best possible way considering the circumstances- compare how its done in the Azz run).

The second film should have been the Diana/Barbara show entirely though. The plot that WW3 may have (returning to the Amazons) is actually a great way to end the trilogy in concept, but the second film is going to be the weak link. It really should have been the story of their friendship dissolving as the latter becomes the Cheetah and they continue that feud going into WW3's plot that involves Circe and the Amazons.

I've grown cold on Year One over time. There is still some stuff I like. But I feel that while Gods and Mortals sidelined Steve too much, Year One did the opposite and had too much emphasis on Steve and Diana/Steve. Plus I think pushing Barbara so much into the tragic villain category pushed took away from narrative space that imo should have gone to Silver Swan. I'm also not a fan of 'can never return to the island again' trope and it's yet another reboot that screwed over Donna Troy again.

Hopefully the second film was the just the Thor: TDW of the WW movies and the third one is a banger.

Whether we find the WW film awesome or so-so, we have it to thank for the fact that from now on, Diana will get movies about her made until the end of time. And that I won't complain about.

Eeeeeeh, it's still WB/DC. I wouldn't be so quick to make a bold declaration like that.

Some would say her having sex without consent in WW84 might go as far as that (the man that Steve was occupying). Some even called it rape, so take that for what it is.

Yeah, I don't think Patty thought too deeply about the 80's tropes that she wanted to incorporate into her flick. The movie would have benefitted from having more than one cook in the kitchen.

Still, the point is Superman and Batman had problematic elements even in their movies and no adaptation is ultimately perfect. The difference is that Superman and Batman have had multiple franchises so every one is free to just stick with their faves and ignore what they don't like.

[SiegePerilous02]

Some would say her having sex without consent in WW84 might go as far as that (the man that Steve was occupying). Some even called it rape, so take that for what it is.

I meant the first film, not the second film. I agree that that is a terrible creative choice, and it's kind of demented that we now have the Trinity doing sketchy things like this in movies: Diana and the body swapped Steve, Clark erasing Lois's memory and Bruce sleeping with Vicki in B89 when she's drunk and he seems sober.

I think it's unnecessary and the story could have unfolded differently anyway.

It could have, but every story can unfold differently. There's nothing wrong with how that particular aspect unfolded even if it could have worked as well in a different way

I've grown cold on Year One over time. There is still some stuff I like. But I feel that while Gods and Mortals sidelined Steve too much, Year One did the opposite and had too much emphasis on Steve and Diana/Steve. Plus I think pushing Barbara so much into the tragic villain category pushed took away from narrative space that imo should have gone to Silver Swan. I'm also not a fan of 'can never return to the island again' trope and it's yet another reboot that screwed over Donna Troy again.

I don't really think it emphasized Steve too much considering the role he has in her mythos. If he's going to be there, he needs to be one of the leads and very important. I feel like it successfully balanced his importance with the Amazons. Barbara being pushed into tragic villain category is a consequence of beefing up her importance and restoring aspects of Priscilla Rich. Cheetah was doing the tragic villain stuff long before any of the Swans came into existence and while Perez's Barbara Minerva was really cool, she went her entire post-Crisis career without much purpose or clear reason to hate Diana. By fusing the best aspects of Rich and Minerva, they IMO created a much stronger character than either are solo.

The Donna thing sucks, but that's part of a larger debate if she should even be the WW verse's problem anyway and Gods and Mortals is really the first one to screw her over and did it with less wiggle room to squeeze her in than Year One did (which of course nobody took advantage of)>

[I'm a Fish]

I've grown cold on Year One over time. There is still some stuff I like. But I feel that while Gods and Mortals sidelined Steve too much, Year One did the opposite and had too much emphasis on Steve and Diana/Steve. Plus I think pushing Barbara so much into the tragic villain category pushed took away from narrative space that imo should have gone to Silver Swan. I'm also not a fan of 'can never return to the island again' trope and it's yet another reboot that screwed over Donna Troy again.

Diana spent 50% of Year One not knowing what Steve was saying.

And I think Steve's panel time in Year One was really more character establishment than emphasis. Steve got sidelined hard after Year One with the plot full on shifting to Diana/Barbara/Cale, and Barbara literally got her own comic issue in Year One after her introduction. So I don't think Steve was the character being emphasized.

[BiteTheBullet]

I meant the first film, not the second film. I agree that that is a terrible creative choice, and it's kind of demented that we now have the Trinity doing sketchy things like this in movies: Diana and the body swapped Steve, Clark erasing Lois's memory and Bruce sleeping with Vicki in B89 when she's drunk and he seems sober.

I figured that since you brought in Superman II with the Lois mindwipe I would bring in WW84.

[John Venus]

Damn, I sound like a Steve hater. For the record I don't hate him. My main interest in WW is in the character herself, the Amazons themselves, the villains and the interplay between the Amazons and Man's World. My expectations are lofty and my view on how certain characters should be portrayed can be too specific at times.

[TheRay]

Wonder Woman should get to punch Warrior like Batman did. Maybe more than once.