Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 55
  1. #16
    Lover of Wonderful Things FutureWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Themyscira, Wundagore Mountain, Talok VIII
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

    1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.
    When they eventually make new Wonder Woman films, could you please write them??
    Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
    Now, don't get me wrong, I DO WANT Steve to be a part of every movie iteration of WW they make, but I want the next trilogy of Hollywood WW to have:
    the Olympian goddesses being the source of Diana's powers, Wonder Woman SAVING Steve's ass, multiple times, and if they need to have someone else trigger DIana's discovery of her inner strength, let it be a woman. There are plenty to choose from: Phillipus, Hyppolita, Julia or Vanessa Kapatelis, Etta Candy, etc. Heck, even Cheetah, as Greg Rucka wrote her, could inspire Diana to save the day.

  2. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureWonder View Post
    When they eventually make new Wonder Woman films, could you please write them??
    Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
    Now, don't get me wrong, I DO WANT Steve to be a part of every movie iteration of WW they make, but I want the next trilogy of Hollywood WW to have:
    the Olympian goddesses being the source of Diana's powers, Wonder Woman SAVING Steve's ass, multiple times, and if they need to have someone else trigger DIana's discovery of her inner strength, let it be a woman. There are plenty to choose from: Phillipus, Hyppolita, Julia or Vanessa Kapatelis, Etta Candy, etc. Heck, even Cheetah, as Greg Rucka wrote her, could inspire Diana to save the day.
    Look I have my issues with the Zeus origin too but there is nothing "male" about using a sword.

    The first three Spider-Man movies focused primarily on Peter and MJ's relationship (the opening narration of the first film even spells this out) and Lois has been integral in two or three Superman movies.

  3. #18
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureWonder View Post
    When they eventually make new Wonder Woman films, could you please write them??
    Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
    Now, don't get me wrong, I DO WANT Steve to be a part of every movie iteration of WW they make, but I want the next trilogy of Hollywood WW to have:
    the Olympian goddesses being the source of Diana's powers, Wonder Woman SAVING Steve's ass, multiple times, and if they need to have someone else trigger DIana's discovery of her inner strength, let it be a woman. There are plenty to choose from: Phillipus, Hyppolita, Julia or Vanessa Kapatelis, Etta Candy, etc. Heck, even Cheetah, as Greg Rucka wrote her, could inspire Diana to save the day.
    In fairness to the movie, Zeus being her father doesn't get too much focus and more time is spent showing the Amazons raising and training her. And while we are getting at least another flashback to the Amazons in this movie, I'm not sure if Zeus will be brought up either way. Plus she's ditching the sword in the sequel.

    I could have used a lot more Etta Candy though, and I'm a little annoyed that Barbara has to share a plotline with Steve and Max Lord (more so bothered by the latter- Steve at least makes sense and I'm willing to see where it goes). I'm hoping that if Steve doesn't make it to the end of this film, they limit him to a dream or a flashback in the third. Maybe Cheetah will make it into the third, and we can have appearances by the Amazons in the present day, maybe Donna, the Kapatelis women and female adversaries like Circe or Veronica Cale.

    Overall I think for the first ever Wonder Woman film franchise, there is room for improvement but it's been more hit than miss.

  4. #19
    Incredible Member Largo161's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    In fairness to the movie, Zeus being her father doesn't get too much focus and more time is spent showing the Amazons raising and training her. And while we are getting at least another flashback to the Amazons in this movie, I'm not sure if Zeus will be brought up either way. Plus she's ditching the sword in the sequel.
    Doesn’t get much focus? Isn’t the major plot twist of the third act the reveal that Zeus is her father? Isn’t the implication that the power of Zeus allows Diana to redirect Ares’ lightning back at him? How much more important could Zeus be?

    Heck, he created the Amazons in the movie —which doesn’t even come from Greek myths.
    Last edited by Largo161; 05-31-2020 at 09:18 AM.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureWonder View Post
    Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
    While Zeus is central in the world-building in the Wonder Woman movie, he is also very much a background element. He is much more of a MacGuffin than an actual character. The real stated text of the movie is that only by believing in love and by being able to absorb the attack and turn it against the attacker, one is able to defeat Ares. That's much more reflective of the Amazon lesson that fighting does not make one a hero.

    Also, note that the sword is very much a red herring, that is not only destroyed but also figuratively laid aside by Diana.

    I also wish that more love interests in other superhero movies got the same attention and care that Steve received.
    «Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])

  6. #21

    Default

    I lean closer to SiegePerilous's view.

    You could cut two or three of Ares's lines specifying Zeus is her father and nothing about the movie would change. The real reveal is that Diana is the Godkiller, not the sword--which, BTW, I always appreciated that in the end, the sword was useless and she defeated Ares by deflecting his power back at him.

    I also didn't get the implication she was only able to do that because of Zeus. The bracelets defending against and deflecting attacks has always been their trademark.


    They do give Zeus a lot of weight, but the impression I got is they didn't want to dwell on it that much.
    "Never place your trust in us. We're only human. Inevitably, we will disappoint you."


  7. #22

    Default

    And regarding love interests, but I thought Mary Jane was HUGE part of Peter's character in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

    She doesn't get involved in the action the way Steve does, but a lot of Peter's motivation, conflicts and actions in those movies revolve entirely around Mary Jane.
    "Never place your trust in us. We're only human. Inevitably, we will disappoint you."


  8. #23
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Largo161 View Post
    Doesn’t get much focus? Isn’t the major plot twist of the third act the reveal that Zeus is her father? Isn’t the implication that the power of Zeus allows Diana to redirect Ares’ lightning back at him? How much more important could Zeus be?

    Heck, he created the Amazons in the movie —which doesn’t even come from Greek myths.
    It's a couple throw away lines that is mainly to reveal Diana's power, and not put much focus on Zeus himself. He's a posthumous plot device, not a character. Meanwhile, the Amazons actually receive screen time to get the audience invested in them, and it largely seems to have worked.

    For the record, I don't like Zeus creating the Amazons or Diana. But if you change the dialogue to be Aphrodite creating the Amazons...not much changes, at least for the general audience. The gods aren't around as anything more than background lore. And Zeus doesn't seem to have a part to play at all in the next movie, going by just the trailers if not also the plot leaks. This isn't an invasive element the way it was in the new 52, which also greatly altered the characters of the Amazons.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member mathew101281's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    I don't really see the sword and shield as a problem. To me, it should be just another element in her arsenal. To me, one of the things that make Diana interesting is that she strikes an interesting balance between Superman's more heavy focus on powers (and their uses) and Batman's focus on gear and tools. Sure the lasso is her main tool, but she at the end of the day an amazon, and is equally skilled with all manner of weapons. I would actually add to her arsonal in some respects.

  10. #25
    Incredible Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    698

    Default

    I was annoyed but not particularly bothered by the Zeus origin in the film since it was shown the Amazons (mainly Hippolyta and Antiope) were more influential in shaping who Diana is as a person. That Zeus and the other gods are background elements and, presumably, off the table for any sequels definitely helps though.

  11. #26
    Fantastic Member wonder39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Look I have my issues with the Zeus origin too but there is nothing "male" about using a sword. .
    Well it's phallic... it's basically a metal penis that gets swung around ....it penetrates the body and sort of symbolizes the aggression and killing of Man's World. Marston gave her weapons of defense... A lasso to ensnare and bind. Bracelets to deflect ...

  12. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonder39 View Post
    Well it's phallic... it's basically a metal penis that gets swung around ....it penetrates the body and sort of symbolizes the aggression and killing of Man's World. Marston gave her weapons of defense... A lasso to ensnare and bind. Bracelets to deflect ...
    This feels like taking Marston's "symbolism" way too seriously. Most people aren't thinking of a penis when they see a sword and they certainly don't think a woman is less feminist for using one, unless they have some very troubling views about gender.

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    While this sounds like a good idea in theory, it's one of those things that makes Diana sound naive at best, condescending and apathetic at worst. People kill for a variety of reasons and not all of them are malicious. There is a problem with emphasizing the warrior part of the Amazons that I agree with but it doesn't mean them using lethal force at times is problematic. The "show man's world a better way" thing is arguably as much of a cause for takes like the Azzarello run as the misconception of them just being warriors.



    This says more about how DC writes Superman and Batman than anything. How often is what happens in the Trinity's books relevant to each other anyway? And besides, another thing they won't do is rehabilitate the Joker so they're proving Diana right either way. Of course, they could just not make it so Bruce is fighting people that are for intents and purposes terrorists.
    Sounds like it would be a good way to give Diana organic storytelling drama, when her ideals are ridiculed as “naive and out of touch” how does she respond? In a post-9/11 world where America wages total war abroad while the majority of its citizens shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day, I think you could have a lot of interesting stories about how Diana views the way America kills and it’s reasons for doing so, as well as the cultural attitudes toward killing. I mean that sure sounds more interesting to me than daddy issues and crying over her boyfriend.

  14. #29
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Sounds like it would be a good way to give Diana organic storytelling drama, when her ideals are ridiculed as “naive and out of touch” how does she respond? In a post-9/11 world where America wages total war abroad while the majority of its citizens shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day, I think you could have a lot of interesting stories about how Diana views the way America kills and it’s reasons for doing so, as well as the cultural attitudes toward killing. I mean that sure sounds more interesting to me than daddy issues and crying over her boyfriend.
    Do you think that Diana's role as an ambassador of peace can still work today?

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zahina View Post
    Do you think that Diana's role as an ambassador of peace can still work today?
    Yes but it requires writers to invest time and effort into what that look like and how it goes about. Who are the two sides Diana must broker peace between? What do they want? What’s their relationship with each other? What do the people in each group want? How about their leaders? It’s a lengthy process that’s not really something you can do in a 2 part arc or what not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •