Wonder Woman Movie Discussion & SPOILERS

[Korath]

True. But in BvS she said she turned her back on Mankind a century ago (thus roughly after WWI) so I expected the reason to be shown in the film. Overall, Wonder Woman still does a great job showing that in WWI there wasn't a "Good" and a "Bad" side but simply people. I wish it had done more in that vein, but it's a superhero film, so it's natural that it doesn't delve too deep in it.

[Dominick1216]

I finally saw the movie, and oh my God it was soooo good! It's definitely one of the greatest superhero films! You know what crossed my mind after watching it, Steve gave Diana her civilian name, 'Diana Prince'. Fast-forward to BvS, she goes by that name. She could have easily came up with some other civilian name or not even have a civilian name at all, if she wanted to; but, she goes by Diana Prince because it was the name that Steve gave her/came up with. I find that very, very sweet, like after almost 100 years, Steve Trevor is still the love of Diana's life.

[Jim Kelly]

We should get more revelations about the Amazons and Diana's past in JUSTICE LEAGUE, given Hippolyta and Antiope are to appear there. Although, it seems like that movie will be jam-packed--hard to see how the Amazons will have much time on screen.

[BiteTheBullet]

Powerful, yes. But he hasn't shown all his powers, which is BitetheBullet's complaint: that somehow not showcasing every single one of Diana's powers in a single movie is somehow a sign of disrespect to her, when in fact it's just par-for-the-course in the DCEU.

You constantly misstate what I say or intent.

I've said in the past that I wish to see at a minimum a superhero's core powers.

In this case, her core powers to me are:
--Super strength (ex. lifting a tank)
--Super speed (the 'blitz' attack on the german soldiers at the end scene)
--Physical prowess such as hand to hand (probably have to go with Antiope since nothing else in the movie had great fighters against her)
--Bullets and Bracelets (she did that enough times)
--Lasso (not quite liking some of the effects used, but she did use it many times in the movie)
--Flight (no flying, the best that I can come up with was the hover/glide which could have been the godly energy she channeled from Ares)

Any other abilities that Diana has shown or had in the comics would be just a bonus. The ones I mentioned are her core powers. These are the powers I want to see in a 'fully realized' Wonder Woman.

Anything less, especially in a origin movie, is just disappointment for me.

Why don't you want a fully realized Wonder Woman as I have defined it, and has been the way for the past 30 years in almost every incarnation of her?

[MikaelNovasun]

I remember an issue in Rebirth where WW was actually sniped by someone though? I thought they had to deflect bullets, hence their bracers. My knowledge of WW doesn't run deep though.

Rebirth is pretty inconsistent. She fought against Doomsday with Superman, and only got the wind knocked out of her once. While Superman bloodies his knuckles just punching Doomsday. Reading the issue the first time where she was shot, I wondered if the bullets being used were somehow magical.

[brettc1]

Did.......did your head explode after all?

LOL - never pocket dialed CBR before, but I guess the Wonder Woman movie thread is a likely first time. :P

[MikaelNovasun]

You constantly misstate what I say or intent.

I've said in the past that I wish to see at a minimum a superhero's core powers.

In this case, her core powers to me are:
--Super strength (ex. lifting a tank)
--Super speed (the 'blitz' attack on the german soldiers at the end scene)
--Physical prowess such as hand to hand (probably have to go with Antiope since nothing else in the movie had great fighters against her)
--Bullets and Bracelets (she did that enough times)
--Lasso (not quite liking some of the effects used, but she did use it many times in the movie)
--Flight (no flying, the best that I can come up with was the hover/glide which could have been the godly energy she channeled from Ares)

Any other abilities that Diana has shown or had in the comics would be just a bonus. The ones I mentioned are her core powers. These are the powers I want to see in a 'fully realized' Wonder Woman.

Anything less, especially in a origin movie, is just disappointment for me.

Why don't you want a fully realized Wonder Woman as I have defined it, and has been the way for the past 30 years in almost every incarnation of her?

Keep in mind Diana may not know she can fly. She was surprised when she managed to jump the ravine and make it to the armory/tower. She was surprised she had the strength to make her own hand holds on the armory wall. Diana couldn't fly on her own for years in the comic, I don't see the problem with her learning as she goes. My take is she is flying in in the closing scene of the movie. I would imagine we will see her fly in Justice League and her sequel.

[Pinsir]

Why don't you want a fully realized Wonder Woman as I have defined it, and has been the way for the past 30 years in almost every incarnation of her?

But your ideal version of Wonder Woman is peculiar only to yourself. Too me, Wonder Woman does not fly and in my favourite Wonder Woman stories she either doesn't or her flight abilities are downplayed, even forgotten. However I'm not a huge fan of Zeus-daddy origin, or even the overt mythological themes that have dominated the Wonder Woman narrative since Perez. We just have to accept that we will never fully be satiated and we will never 100% receive 'our' interpretation of the character.

[BiteTheBullet]

Keep in mind Diana may not know she can fly. She was surprised when she managed to jump the ravine and make it to the armory/tower. She was surprised she had the strength to make her own hand holds on the armory wall. Diana couldn't fly on her own for years in the comic, I don't see the problem with her learning as she goes. My take is she is flying in in the closing scene of the movie. I would imagine we will see her fly in Justice League and her sequel.

She has flown since day one of the Perez reboot which is thirty years ago. So to say she hasn't flown on her own for years is not accurate. Every iteration of her since Perez she has flown. Only once, in her animated movie, she didn't fly.

Also, we haven't seen her fly in BvS, all the Justice League trailers as well as the ambibuity of the last scene in Wonder Woman in which the argument can be made that she was jumping.

Why have they shown Cyborg to fly in the trailers, but not Wonder Woman? No one can really answer this, because they make it a point to show Cyborgs ability, but not Wondy's.

I don't think she will be a flyer in the Justice League, but as I have said before we will have to wait until November and the movie to hopefully end this discussion of whether she can fly or not.

[BiteTheBullet]

But your ideal version of Wonder Woman is peculiar only to yourself. Too me, Wonder Woman does not fly and in my favourite Wonder Woman stories she either doesn't or her flight abilities are downplayed, even forgotten. However I'm not a huge fan of Zeus-daddy origin, or even the overt mythological themes that have dominated the Wonder Woman narrative since Perez. We just have to accept that we will never fully be satiated and we will never 100% receive 'our' interpretation of the character.

It is not my ideal version. It's been the version since the Perez reboot over 30 years ago. Those are the core powers she has had since!

[Korath]

If Diana was the offspring of Zeus and Hippolyta, she would be a demi-god.

She is not a demi-god.

She is a god, which we know, because she can kill another god.

So that means Zeus brought the clay statue to life.

Right?

Nope. Hippolyta is the daughter of Ares (at lest, she is in Greek Mythology) and thus herself an half-goddess. Therefore, a child between an half-divinity and a God has great chance in this Mythology to be a God/Goddess herself. And even then, it isn't only limited to full-blow divinity : "inferior" spirits or "gods" have given birth to gods before (I'm thinking of Hermes's, the Twins and Dyonisos's mothers here).

All in all, I think that on the origin, the movie is vague enough for everyone to make it as they like about it. Personally, I find the clay origin ludicrous and extremely dangerous (because I can see it being twisted in some seriously wrong way if wanted too), so in the film I see her as the literal daughter of Zeus and thus a Goddess. But if someone want to assume that she is born form clay by Zeus, it also works.

[Rogue Star]

I finally saw the movie, and oh my God it was soooo good! It's definitely one of the greatest superhero films! You know what crossed my mind after watching it, Steve gave Diana her civilian name, 'Diana Prince'. Fast-forward to BvS, she goes by that name. She could have easily came up with some other civilian name or not even have a civilian name at all, if she wanted to; but, she goes by Diana Prince because it was the name that Steve gave her/came up with. I find that very, very sweet, like after almost 100 years, Steve Trevor is still the love of Diana's life.

I'm not sure if the hardcore feminists would agree but I don't mind her being given the name by a man.

[RealWonderman]

Finally got to see the film, and it was a good one. I don't find it great (BvS and Avengers remain at the top of my personal super-heroes movies quality chart) but it is definitely a solid origin story, in a complicated setting (WWI) and that's all I wished it was, at the very least. But I still feel that the end is clunky and awkward, and that this film fails to explain why Diana turned her back on Mankind. I really think that it should have ended in London with the allies wishing to use Dr. Maru's weapon or study it for "further usage in the future" and Trevor sacrificing himself to prevent it for her to retreat in the background.

It does explain...she didn't turn her back on mankind, and that is never stated this way....she says I "walked away." And at the end of Wonder Woman she explains that she (paraphrasing) "walked away" from the idea that a hero could end war and force people to be good. All of mankind has darkness in their light, so she fights for the world that she "knows can be."

"That is my mission. Forever."

Here is how Patty explained it...she was in a bit of an awkward spot to explain that line away, but she did it wonderfully, IMO.

Well, I think that I can only tell the origin story of who she is. I think that there is potentially a misunderstanding between what it means to turn her back on mankind... there could be a difference between having people save themselves and knowing that people must save themselves, and even still, being optimistic and loving about them. I think that they were sort of more [synched] up, but we were aware that her snippet [in Batman V Superman] versus the story that unfolded, you know... there is a journey of time between.

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1664...man-v-superman

(For me it's Wonder Woman, BvS, then Captain America. )

[RealWonderman]

Nope. Hippolyta is the daughter of Ares (at lest, she is in Greek Mythology) and thus herself an half-goddess. Therefore, a child between an half-divinity and a God has great chance in this Mythology to be a God/Goddess herself. And even then, it isn't only limited to full-blow divinity : "inferior" spirits or "gods" have given birth to gods before (I'm thinking of Hermes's, the Twins and Dyonisos's mothers here).

All in all, I think that on the origin, the movie is vague enough for everyone to make it as they like about it. Personally, I find the clay origin ludicrous and extremely dangerous (because I can see it being twisted in some seriously wrong way if wanted too), so in the film I see her as the literal daughter of Zeus and thus a Goddess. But if someone want to assume that she is born form clay by Zeus, it also works.

But Hippolyta is not the daughter of Ares in this universe though. She and the Amazons were created by Zeus. So this idea,as stated, doesn't work.

But I agree, perfectly and intentionally wonderfully and exactly vague enough. But the clay origin WAS/IS her true origin...minus an unfortunate 5 yr blip. And I believe it still is. I've seen the movie 6 times, and I have paid so so so close attention to this scene...and IT. IS. VAGUE. haha

Of all of my "woman/man on the street" type friends who've seen the movie, and are unaware that there is a debate about this, there is a 50/50 split on the origin question, and the flying question. Very interesting to me.

[Vanguard-01]

Why don't you want a fully realized Wonder Woman as I have defined it, and has been the way for the past 30 years in almost every incarnation of her?

Now who's misrepresenting? Not once have I said that I don't WANT to see Diana with all her powers in the DCEU. I have said that it's not some horrible insult to her if they want her to build up to that. Especially not if they're still portraying her as powerful and competent even without some of her powers.

Diana is on a journey in the DCEU. So is Superman. So is Batman. So will Flash and Cyborg, very likely. Aquaman is just about the only Leaguer who may start out with his full powerset simply because he doesn't have very many powers. Obviously, he'll be able to swim fast and breathe underwater because "Aquaman" doesn't work if the sea isn't his natural environment. Other than that? He's strong, tough, and commands sea life. Unless they give him some additional powers, that's all he's got.

I don't mind going on a journey with Diana. That has been the entirety of my position since we started up this little dance.

It is not my ideal version. It's been the version since the Perez reboot over 30 years ago. Those are the core powers she has had since!

And then in the New 52, she was Wonder Woman for at least five years before she gained flight. Rebirth? Didn't have it right away either. Heck, she didn't have ANY of her powers right away.

Golden Age? Never had flight. Silver Age and Bronze Age? Had flight-lite.

Perez is just one of many interpretations of Diana's power set. Was it a very good one? Yep. Was it iconic. Absolutely. Is it the be-all-end-all? Nope. That was one interpretation. Going with a different interpretation is completely valid and in no way insulting to anyone.