Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Robanker]

I think WB is worried it will make her look too much like a Disney princess. Which, if's that's the case is the dumbest reason.

That's almost certainly it. They're afraid of losing the middle aged crowd and young male audience with Wonder Woman (you know, the audience that they've got by the metaphorical balls with Batman, Superman, etc) because god forbid they appeal to another demographic. But with how WW84 was derided for being, well, more in line with her character, I don't think we'll be seeing Warrior Woman take a break for much longer.

It's a shame. Diana absolutely can play up her Disney Princess elements and still absolutely kick ass with the best of them. It's strange. They're afraid of losing guys too insecure in their masculinity to embrace the totality of Diana's character-- they're literally afraid of losing the very people Diana was created to combat. The same crowd who can't appreciate that Batman: The Brave and the Bold was flippin' awesome. What.

[SiegePerilous02]

I love Arthur and Diana relatively equally and let me tell you, my boy didn't get any "love" in this. If you honestly think fans love to see their boy turn into a nazi so long as he gets to punch people around, you're seriously delusional. They turned him into a nazi, mind-controlled or no. He was fighting to further the whims of a genocidal REAL WORLD army that almost took over the world and exterminated millions of people. I don't care who it happens to and who they beat under that influence, that's never fun for a fan to see a beloved character morph into.

Aquaman didn't get any love in this movie. He got much the opposite. You mentioned Flashpoint as well. Yeah, I love ultra militaristic jackbooted thug Aquaman who cheated on Mera and was destroying the world. Oh wait, no, it absolutely goddamn sucks. Are you seriously equating strength to appreciation? Christ. I hope tomorrow an alternate universe Diana appears in a book wearing the skulls of the JLA, Spectre, Presence, Spider-Man, Goku, Captain Kirk and Atlas and then bench presses the multiverse while simultaneously murdering everyone in it so you can genuinely smile that she finally got "respected."

Yes, it's a very narrow and unhelpful view of what "respect" for the characters should be, and one I can't wrap my head around. Regardless of Aquaman's strength level in the movie, I think being made a Nazi puppet supersedes all of that. Wonder Woman was more respected just for the bare minimum of not being turned into a Nazi villain.

Ditto with the belief that Superman was being respected in the Snyder verse because it sets him up as an all powerful "MVP"....only in service of setting him up to be brainwashed by Darkseid later on, so it mainly exists to establish him as a threat. One who was short changed as a character and is mainly just a plot device for the whole narrative that is supposedly his, but is actually Batman's.

Wonder Woman's power level needs to be respected in other media far more than it is, but being envious of these surface-level takes (one with Nazism thrown on top) is pretty bonkers.

[WonderLight789]

That's almost certainly it. They're afraid of losing the middle aged crowd and young male audience with Wonder Woman (you know, the audience that they've got by the metaphorical balls with Batman, Superman, etc) because god forbid they appeal to another demographic. But with how WW84 was derided for being, well, more in line with her character, I don't think we'll be seeing Warrior Woman take a break for much longer.

It's a shame. Diana absolutely can play up her Disney Princess elements and still absolutely kick ass with the best of them. It's strange. They're afraid of losing guys too insecure in their masculinity to embrace the totality of Diana's character-- they're literally afraid of losing the very people Diana was created to combat. The same crowd who can't appreciate that Batman: The Brave and the Bold was flippin' awesome. What.

What do you mean by that? WW hasn't been able to catch a break in a while now. Do you think they will try to ''fix'' WW84 with more generic super human warrior that depends a lot on a sword? Too bad. That already happened. And it's not like that image is making the middle age guys go running to the stores to buy her title. So maybe they should indeed try to be more originbal and embrase the character's essence more.

[Gaius]

And then the two of them could have bonded over being able to talk to sea life. Also, when will that power of hers be put into a cartoon? It's not even in the cute DC Superhero Girls cartoon!!! (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

Carter did it at least.

[Agent Z]

That's almost certainly it. They're afraid of losing the middle aged crowd and young male audience with Wonder Woman (you know, the audience that they've got by the metaphorical balls with Batman, Superman, etc) because god forbid they appeal to another demographic. But with how WW84 was derided for being, well, more in line with her character, I don't think we'll be seeing Warrior Woman take a break for much longer.

It's a shame. Diana absolutely can play up her Disney Princess elements and still absolutely kick ass with the best of them. It's strange. They're afraid of losing guys too insecure in their masculinity to embrace the totality of Diana's character-- they're literally afraid of losing the very people Diana was created to combat. The same crowd who can't appreciate that Batman: The Brave and the Bold was flippin' awesome. What.

WW1984 was not in line with Diana's character. And I say that as someone who doesn't like Diana being excessively violent either nor do I think she was short changed in the JSA movie.

The first movie was true to Diana's best depiction while still being updated. 1984 is only like WW in the most shallow of ways while still being incredibly offensive, primarily in its racial politics and the violation of consent that is never acknowledged.

[Robanker]

WW1984 was not in line with Diana's character. And I say that as someone who doesn't like Diana being excessively violent either nor do I think she was short changed in the JSA movie.

The first movie was true to Diana's best depiction while still being updated. 1984 is only like WW in the most shallow of ways while still being incredibly offensive, primarily in its racial politics and the violation of consent that is never acknowledged.

1984 seemed more consistent to her history her resolution being one of pleading to rise above our wants to find salvation was more in character to me than Diana being a fish-out-of-water on a video game quest to kill the baddie and save the world. She comes to an epiphany at the end that she's been going about things the wrong way, sure, but the arc of her character over the film seemed less like the character I've been reading for 20 years. The fish-out-of-water sword-and-board D&D lawful good character is a more recent iteration and I wouldn't necessarily call it her truest take.

In WW84, she was preoccupied with saving civilians, disarming and defeating her opponents using non-lethal maneuvers, did have her own emotional stake in the plot and was interested in getting her foes to mend their ways and start their redemption as opposed to generic "must save world and defeat Ares" which has put Diana in the holding pattern she is now-- Warrior Woman. A character which exists to fight stuff and really not much else.

Yes, WW84 has massive, glaring flaws, but I would argue it felt a lot truer to Wonder Woman's entire history than the first movie did which felt very much like the last 15 years. This may seem strange, but it reminds me of those guys who plant their feet and say that John Bryne's Superman is the truest incarnation of the character and that deviating from his take is why Superman sucks now. You don't see it much here, but sadly I see it many places elsewhere. Likewise, the first WW movie is great but it's very much just a shade of Diana's character rather than a great representation of how rounded she is. You can argue being set in WWI limits their ability to show her being more compassionate and placed more urgency on resolving the threat immediately, but I'd remind you the movie didn't have to be about WWI. It's specifically crafted so that they don't have to highlight the more complex qualities of her character. It's a cheat. A very entertaining cheat that is the best outing she's had in live action since Carter, sure, but I still consider WW84 to have an overall stronger representation of Diana's core character and thematic than WW did.

[PopQuezy]

That's almost certainly it. They're afraid of losing the middle aged crowd and young male audience with Wonder Woman (you know, the audience that they've got by the metaphorical balls with Batman, Superman, etc) because god forbid they appeal to another demographic. But with how WW84 was derided for being, well, more in line with her character, I don't think we'll be seeing Warrior Woman take a break for much longer.

It's a shame. Diana absolutely can play up her Disney Princess elements and still absolutely kick ass with the best of them. It's strange. They're afraid of losing guys too insecure in their masculinity to embrace the totality of Diana's character-- they're literally afraid of losing the very people Diana was created to combat. The same crowd who can't appreciate that Batman: The Brave and the Bold was flippin' awesome. What.

I completely disagree with this assessment. WW84 was obviously targeting women and queer men. Some of the posters and the marketing for that movie were to specifically hit female audiences. There's also Superhero Girls, the various young ages books for Diana, and the many photos of Gal as Wonder Woman visiting children at the hospital, etc. I actually think WW84 and Birds of Prey were two recent films that actually weren't exclusively targeting straight, white men.

Also, the first movie has quite a few Disney Princess homages. Lastly, the demographics for the first movie were one of the few - if not the only - superhero movies that had a larger female demographic than male demographic, and it also skewed older than the usual superhero movie.

[PopQuezy]

1984 seemed more consistent to her history her resolution being one of pleading to rise above our wants to find salvation was more in character to me than Diana being a fish-out-of-water on a video game quest to kill the baddie and save the world. She comes to an epiphany at the end that she's been going about things the wrong way, sure, but the arc of her character over the film seemed less like the character I've been reading for 20 years. The fish-out-of-water sword-and-board D&D lawful good character is a more recent iteration and I wouldn't necessarily call it her truest take.

In WW84, she was preoccupied with saving civilians, disarming and defeating her opponents using non-lethal maneuvers, did have her own emotional stake in the plot and was interested in getting her foes to mend their ways and start their redemption as opposed to generic "must save world and defeat Ares" which has put Diana in the holding pattern she is now-- Warrior Woman. A character which exists to fight stuff and really not much else.

I love both movies, and I think both do a great job with Diana's character. I disagree that Diana is Warrior Woman in the first film. She's quite compassionate, and she's isn't fighting for the love of the fight but because she genuinely believes that killing Ares will make the world a better place and man will be good again.

There are scenes of Diana showing her trademark compassion, i.e. the entirety of the No Man's Land scene where she wants to save the village of Veld. There are also scenes with each of the Oddfellows where she shows genuine compassion for each of their individual struggles and provides a beautiful comfort to Charlie about singing again.

Also, there are only two major fight scenes with Diana in the first film, hardly a Warrior Woman.

Honestly, people complain about Warrior Woman much more than she's actually depicted in media. Having a sword doesn't automatically equate to Warrior Woman, and I am someone who prefers she not have it. I however do think people are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the text.

[Gaius]

I love both movies, and I think both do a great job with Diana's character. I disagree that Diana is Warrior Woman in the first film. She's quite compassionate, and she's isn't fighting for the love of the fight but because she genuinely believes that killing Ares will make the world a better place and man will be good again.

There are scenes of Diana showing her trademark compassion, i.e. the entirety of the No Man's Land scene where she wants to save the village of Veld. There are also scenes with each of the Oddfellows where she shows genuine compassion for each of their individual struggles and provides a beautiful comfort to Charlie about singing again.

Also, there are only two major fight scenes with Diana in the first film, hardly a Warrior Woman.

Honestly, people complain about Warrior Woman much more than she's actually depicted in media. Having a sword doesn't automatically equate to Warrior Woman, and I am someone who prefers she not have it. I however do think people are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the text.

I’d say it’s more that when that interpretation of the character does show up, it tends to be pretty bad (most of DCAMU outside of Bloodlines, Injustice, large parts of the DCAU) so I’d say that’s what makes some critical of stuff that suggests it.

[marhawkman]

I agree with this and the power levels matter, but I do agree with the other posters that having 3-4 separate threads devoted to this topic gets very exhausting.

I think all the regular know where each other stand at this point.

MY thought is that it's like in boxing where you have lightweights and heavyweights. For example:

Yup, I don't see why this isn't just the norm or that people seem to think you can't have both.

I think it's a side effect of the Bat-god. DC treats "Martial artist" like it's a superpower.... even though by common sense rules, someone like Dru-Zod should BE a good enough martial artist for him to beat Batman.... in an actual fair fight and not one where Batman is wearing clothes made of Kryptonite. Batman should NEED a lot more than a single cheap trick to beat Dru-Zod.

Batman: lightweight.
Dru-Zod: heavyweight.

from an in-universe PoV it doesn't make sense for Batman to have any advantage at all.

And by "Dru-zod", yes, I mean that guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjriZKUBPs

He should kick Batman's butt pretty much any time they meet unless Batman pulls out some superweapon.

[Perseus]

I love both movies, and I think both do a great job with Diana's character. I disagree that Diana is Warrior Woman in the first film. She's quite compassionate, and she's isn't fighting for the love of the fight but because she genuinely believes that killing Ares will make the world a better place and man will be good again.

There are scenes of Diana showing her trademark compassion, i.e. the entirety of the No Man's Land scene where she wants to save the village of Veld. There are also scenes with each of the Oddfellows where she shows genuine compassion for each of their individual struggles and provides a beautiful comfort to Charlie about singing again.

Also, there are only two major fight scenes with Diana in the first film, hardly a Warrior Woman.

Honestly, people complain about Warrior Woman much more than she's actually depicted in media. Having a sword doesn't automatically equate to Warrior Woman, and I am someone who prefers she not have it. I however do think people are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the text.

I think "warrior woman" is a mentality/mental state she's written in, not her just having a sword and shield. The Nu52 DCAU movies or the entirety of John's run in JL during the Nu52 for example.

[Perseus]

MY thought is that it's like in boxing where you have lightweights and heavyweights. For example:
I think it's a side effect of the Bat-god. DC treats "Martial artist" like it's a superpower.... even though by common sense rules, someone like Dru-Zod should BE a good enough martial artist for him to beat Batman.... in an actual fair fight and not one where Batman is wearing clothes made of Kryptonite. Batman should NEED a lot more than a single cheap trick to beat Dru-Zod.

Batman: lightweight.
Dru-Zod: heavyweight.

from an in-universe PoV it doesn't make sense for Batman to have any advantage at all.

And by "Dru-zod", yes, I mean that guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjriZKUBPs

He should kick Batman's butt pretty much any time they meet unless Batman pulls out some superweapon.

I mean I'm fine with Batsy fighting some meta-humans or super soldiers and coming out on top due to skills and/or gadgets. Putting him in a ring against a kryptonian of any kind without any plan, prep, kryptonite, and super suit is just well... IDK if you've seen the first episode in INVINCIBLE.

I actually don't know if Zod is a superior fighter to Batman, if we are just talking about skills and train and exp.

[I'm a Fish]

Carter did it at least.

YES!!!

Man, that conversation she had with the bird looked intense though.

I love both movies, and I think both do a great job with Diana's character. I disagree that Diana is Warrior Woman in the first film. She's quite compassionate, and she's isn't fighting for the love of the fight but because she genuinely believes that killing Ares will make the world a better place and man will be good again.

There are scenes of Diana showing her trademark compassion, i.e. the entirety of the No Man's Land scene where she wants to save the village of Veld. There are also scenes with each of the Oddfellows where she shows genuine compassion for each of their individual struggles and provides a beautiful comfort to Charlie about singing again.

Also, there are only two major fight scenes with Diana in the first film, hardly a Warrior Woman.

Honestly, people complain about Warrior Woman much more than she's actually depicted in media. Having a sword doesn't automatically equate to Warrior Woman, and I am someone who prefers she not have it. I however do think people are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the text.

I mean, I didn’t like how she was depicted in the DCAU most of the time and she never had a sword.

Although I have come to take her having a sword in the beginning as a bad sign, obviously it’s not always, the first Wonder Woman being an example (the first movie actually had her hold the sword by the blade and hit people with the hilt in a few scenes so she wouldn’t cut them.) I also like how in the first film the sword was completely useless against Ares.

And it Bloodlines she only went to the sword for the final boss after trying to talk to her. Plus it was Medusa and the way you kill her is by cutting off her head.

[Alpha]

WW84 was obviously targeting women and queer men.

How was it targetting queer men? There is no LGBT representation in the movie. Like, yes queer men can enjoy just as much as anyone, but how is it targetting them?

When someone like Phil Jimenez talks about the influence of Wonder Woman on him, he's not saying the story is written for gay men, he's just saying he can personally find a message that he can connect with his experience, though it wasn't intended that way.

Heck, the main crux of the story is about the main character sacrificing her love for the sake of the world. Not a great messagr if it's about homosexuality.

[Alpha]

But we don't have to argue about this, I just thought it was a weird statement