Wonder Woman Movie

Wonder Woman VS Faora FANMADE Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TkkuavXnHE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIsNoHF-cMA

Ralphthemoviemaker explains why he feels that Wonder Woman sucks. While I am more on the "yeah, it was kind of okay" camp, he does a great job to point out where the flaws are. How much you are bothered by them is another question.

I could stand about half of Ralphthemoviemaker's video; it felt that despite what he said, he went into the movie determined to both find fault in it and remember the faults. Most especially he decided never suspend his disbelief, while watching a superhero movie.

I also think he employed a double standard, where he stated the movie as being derivative compared to Captain America and Thor, and also found faults in its historical treatment of the First World War, while he ignored that Wonder Woman handled its historical setting far more accurately and nuanced than Captain America did.

I find my view as this.

WW was derivative of the First Avenger movie but every Marvel movie is derivative of itself now and at least it was entertaining.

I think he is half-right. I am inclined to agree that while the movie claims to be set in WWI, it pretty much acts as if it is WWII regarding the Germans, instead of providing the more nuanced tone I was hoping for. There are also a couple of things which feel lifted from Captain America, mostly because they are not necessarily part of the Wonder Woman mythos. The kind of howling commandos for example and naturally the big goodbye scene (though this in turn was lifted by The First Avenger from yet another WWII movie). But I don't think that there is much of Thor into the story. He has a point though that what Diana knows and doesn't know about humanity doesn't make much sense.

For the record, I HATE the whole No mans land scene. I feel that it is insulting to the common soldiers who fought in this war.

How is it insulting?

I just rented the movie the other day and had some thoughts, including on the World War I stuff:

So I agree that there's definitely an issue of treating the First World War German Army as if they were the Nazis. As much as the movie tries to lessen this by having Ludendorff be this rogue agent(and ahistorically killing a bunch of the high command), it paradoxically reinforces it because Ludendorff and Doctor Poison are so over-the-top evil. In some scenes, they reminded me of Doctor Evil and Farbissina- especially where chuckling over gassing their own soldiers and giving them gas masks that won't help. However, i think the presentation of Ludendorff is redeemed by his ending, where he's just this very confused and scared crazy guy who after all his bluster, has no idea what Diana is talking about as she's about to kill him.

And while the rank and file German soldiers aren't necessarily presented as evil, the movie definitely wants us to feel good about Diana killing them. And like while I don't really have a problem with it, especially because it's partly just because Diana fell in with Steve Trevor that she thinks killing more German soldiers will secure peace. If she fell in with the Red Baron, presumably she'd be doing the same thing to break the British ranks.

It kind of reminded me of this episode of Timeless where the characters (if not necessarily the story) treat the French during the French and Indian War as bad guys mostly because the French were on the opposite side of future Americans like George Washington.

Incidentally, I'm torn between thinking that Ludendorff and Diana either inadverentently prevented World War II and the Holocaust or made both worse due to the combination of everyone Ludendorff killed coupled with Diana killing Ludendroff and implicitly causing a worse loss for Germany than in our reality. I'm kind of worried that it would be the latter, with the DC Universe's version of Hitler coming up with conspiracy theories blaming Jews to account for the presumably covered-up events of the movie.

Now on a positive front, I really liked the movie's use of mythology. While obviously not a mythology-faithful take on Ares, I think the movie did something really clever in how its Ares is implicitly very Hephaestus-like, including the thrown from Olympus and limping and the association with weaponry/technology. Like I think it's so perfect when during the big fight, Ares is basically able to warp reality since it's almost like all machinery and weaponry "belong" to him.

Weren't the Germans the bad guys though in WW 1?

I mean, not Nazi level, and the propaganda about killing nuns and babies was pretty much false.

BUT if we took it on a 1-10 scale of Awfulness, the British side/allies were probably at a 4 and the German side/allies were probably at a 6.

I mean kind of. When you are the one doing the invading and your opponents are (on the side of) the invaded, that usually makes you the darker shade of grey int he conflict.

But I still wonder (pun intended) about presenting things such that the idea of achieving peace involves killing German soldiers in greater numbers. Like it totally makes sense to me that this would be Steve Trevor and co.'s idea of achieving peace, and I don't think the movie is totally on board with it, since we're definitely questioning all along Diana's assumption that it all has to do with Ares. But to the extent that the movie expects us to be relatively comfortable with Diana killing lots of Germans, it's definitely because of an association (which the movie plays up) between Germany and Nazi Germany.

Yeah. That sounds about right. Also reminds me that while I'm sure that the Germany army mistreated civilians in countries it occupied (all armies probably do), I was a bit uncomfortable at the movie's presentation of civilian suffering under Germany, as it was reminiscent of those false accounts. Which ironically of course were 100% true two decades later.

Edit- Also, while possibly also undeserved, I was a bit surprised that how in the movie, Haig is shown to be at worst a bit of a sexist bumbler. Since my understanding is that his reputation in England is as a bloodthirsty Upper-Class Twit whose strategy was based around We Have Reserves. Might be misremembring, but I believe that General Melchett in Blackadder is a stand in for (how people think of) Haig.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:53:03 AM by Hodor2

WWI is...complicated. You have to consider a couple of things:

1. This was a war between Kings. And not just Kings, those were Kings which were all related to each other. It was, in a lot of ways a family argument which went out of hand.

2. The original conflict was not between Germany and anyone else, it was way between Austria and Russia. Germany agreed to back Austria, but a lot of the Säbelrasseln (sabre ratting) Germany did back than was exactly that, an empty gesture. Let's just say that we had a particularly insecure and immature king. When Russia actually reacted by going in attack position, he did try to talk his...I think cousin...down.

3. In addition to all the England was angry about Germany building too many ships, because they saw his position as leader of the oceans in danger, and they just couldn't wait to take Germany down a peg.

4. On top of all this, Russia was allied with France.

5. And now you have to go further back and consider that before the German states united, they were constantly overrun by their neighbours. When they united under Prussia they had to fight quite a war, one they only won by surprising France and taking it out first. So what does Germany do knowing that both Russia and France mobilize, and they will be squeezed in between both of them? Well, they attack first. And because they need to march through Belgium doing so, and Belgium does allow them free passage, England gets involved too and we end up in a four your conflict basically because a bunch of monarchs were itching to show each other how great they were.

So, yeah, Germany was responsible, but it is actually quite unlikely that Germany would have attacked hadn't it felt threatened by everyone. Wilhelm II would have been perfectly happy playing Captain and Soldier, he didn't actually want to be one. And his various cousins most likely knew this, but Germany had become too powerful for their likening (it's kind of the course of Germany).

Point is, this is a very different mind-set from what was behind WWII. WWII was about conquering the world. WWI was about the feeling that Germany really had to defend itself, and that their only chance to survive a war was to hit first (following a strategy which had rescued the young country in the past).

Thus said, Ludenforff actually was a Nazi later on, and quite a despicable person during WWI, too. But he was hardly representative for Germany in general back then, more a representation of military leadership taking the power our of the hands of the actual officials. And you also have to consider that the reason why the war ended in 1918 was not because Germany simply lost, but because parts of the German population revolted. The leadership of Germany would have continued fighting or at least started one last big offensive, but the Germans were frankly tired of this sh... and proceeded to get rid of their monarchy (yep, it wasn't the allies which ended monarchy in Germany, the Germans took care of that themselves).

Basically it is complicated, but all this isn't even the reason I am insulted. What bothers me is the notion that the soldiers who spend years in the trenches could have just stormed forward and done something. No, they couldn't. It is called no mans land for a reason, there was no chance to enter it and survive. I could accept the notion of Wonder Woman being able to just walk through it (though, yeah, unlikely, even with her power show would have been hit by a canon), but NOT a bunch of men just following her and surviving the attack. This smacks WAY too much about the American sentiment that the French were "hiding in the trenches". BS!!!!

The main point anyone has to take away from WWI is that a bunch of soldiers suffered because their leadership put their personal pride over finding a peaceful solution. Remember the whole Christmas peace in 1914? Yeah, the various officers had a hell of a time to get their soldiers back to fighting each other. Which is why one year later the order was given to shot every soldier who dared to "fraternize with the enemy" during Christmas. Which is why most movies about WWI don't deal with "defeat the evil Germans", but with officers abusing their power and soldiers suffering in a senseless war.

edited 18th Dec '17 10:02:39 AM by Swanpride

Yes. Germany pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia, because they feared if they didn't have a war now, they'd be incapable of fighting one later. Germany invaded France, not the other way round. Germany pioneered strategic bombing, unrestricted submarine warfare, and chemical warfare. Germany looked the other way while its Austro-Hunagarian committed numerous atrocities in the Balkans, and Germany allied with the Ottomans, who proceeded to use the war as cover for the Twentieth Century's second campaign of genocide—the first having been committed by the Germans themselves.

The claim that this film treats WWI Germans as Nazis is honestly offensive. It doesn't depict the Germans putting people in death camps. It doesn't depict Einsatzgruppen style shooting campaigns of civilians. It has one crazed German general prepared to commit mass murder, and having to go against—and eventually execute his own superiors—to do it.

Wonder Woman debuted during WWII. She was created to be the exact same kind of Nazi basher that Captain America was. That you are not aware of this doesn't mean the film is ripping off Marvel.

Because First Avenger did so much with the Howling Commandos. Oh wait, it used them as scenery. Seriously, if you want to dislike the movie that's fine, but dislike it for itself, and stop trying to make silly claims about "they ripped off Marvel". And frankly, all this blather about how the movie is "offensive to the soldiers"? Be a lot more believable if you weren't defending First Avenger—you know, the movie that its fictional villains were more important than the Nazis and made Captain America save Berlin from them?

edited 18th Dec '17 10:07:37 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

I've seen a hell lot more respect for soldiers, both fictional and non-fictional in the DCEU than any other superhero story.

I watched the First Avenger prepared to hate it. And it won me over with one single line: "The first country the Nazi's conquered was their own." I also was glad that they didn't go for a realistic depiction of WWII, because, let's be honest here, there is nothing more distasteful than using the Holocaust as a backdrop for a fun action movie. I therefore really appreciated that The First Avengers ended up being a critical commentary on this kind of nostalgic view warfare in general.

The Issue with Wonder Woman is that it does not sidestep the issue but claims to address it, and then totally botches it up by not really exploring what WWI was actually about, a powerplay between men who didn't care how many people died for their damned pride.

The DCEU might have some respect for US soldiers. They obviously have no respect for the French who suffered in the trenches.

edited 18th Dec '17 10:21:52 AM by Swanpride

Ah. So it won you over by whitewashing the German people's complicity in Hitler. Gotcha.

Because nothing says tasteful like replacing the Nazis with Hydra and forcing Captain America to save the Nazi capital from being annihilated by this guy who is totally worse than Hitler, y'all.

You mean you liked how it ignored the historical reality of the era it was set in and disrespected every single person who put something on the line to stop Hitler. Good to know.

Wonder Woman is vastly more respectful of the actual soldiers then First Avenger. The war is front and centre. The villain's plan is not to Take Over the World but to restart the war, which in the process of winding down. The horror of WWI is the core of the movie, where it should be.

...Says the person trying to absolve Germany of blame for invading France. While praising First Avenger and the great steaming piss it took on the people who fought to stop Hitler by deciding "Hydra was totally a worse threat then the Nazis, guys."

Every flaw you've claimed Wonder Woman has is actually present in First Avenger. To the point where it's practically comedic. This isn't you having an issue with historical representation, or the actual flaws and merits of the respective films. This is "Marvel good, DC bad." Which does not have a place in this thread. Or any thread.

It won me over by NOT going for the simplistic "all Germans are evil" portrayal which, imho, is part of the reason why US Americans are so unwilling or unable to recognize the Alt-right movement for what is actually is, and how dangerous it is.

Anyway, I have thought about it, and I think that part of the issue with Wonder Woman is that through movies, the portrayal of a German officer of WWI and a Nazi in WWII is heavily codified. No matter how realistic it is, the general idea behind WWI officers is that they were upperclass men, so they are usually still acting like gentlemen, but gentlemen who don't care one bit who dies for them and certainly not for whoever they consider beneath them. The Nazi officer is a cold hearted killer and sadist. In Wonder Woman the way the Germans are portrayed dips heavily in WWII iconography instead of borrowing from the WWI movies.

Oh, btw, I really doubt that Germany committed the first genocide ever. I think the Spaniards and the Brits got there first. Not that this makes anything better. Which is exactly my point here.

As I said, WWI is complicated. Back in the 1910 there were a bunch of people on all sides who really really wanted the war to finally order Europe after their fashion. So was Germany guilty? Oh yes, it was, I never disputed that. Were the allies innocent? The hell no! They wanted this war and they pushed for it. And that the movie has a scene which acknowledges this collective guilt, but undermines the very scene by portraying one side as the clear better one and then goes on top of it and says "yeah, the Germans did this on their own, the poor allies, they were influenced by Ares"...yeah, no matter what you think about history, this doesn't even work in the context of the movie itself.

edited 18th Dec '17 10:41:53 AM by Swanpride

You are either deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or did not actually read what I said. I said the Germans conducted the first genocide of the 20th Century. Which they did.

Portraying the German public as innocent, conquered victims of Hitler with no responsibility for or complicity with the regime is also utterly dangerous.

Everything Ludendorff says about why war is great? Stuff that actual WWI era German officers and bureaucrats alike believed. I can find you the quotes. And at this point your complaint is shifting from "it's not accurate" to "it doesn't look like other WWI movies". Which, as a connoisseur of war movies I would disagree with to start with, and is, in any case, a very different argument from the one you've been making.

That all sides bear some blame for WWI does not mean they bear equal blame. One side was worse than the others. Learn to live with it.

And hey, if you're going to bash the movie, would it kill you to bash it for things that actually happened in it? Ares never says he influenced the Entente into starting the war. He in fact disavows all responsibility for starting the war—his only goal now is to stop them from ending it.

Let's face it though—Ares is hiding among the Entente leadership? You say the film is exonerating the Entente of blame (even though it's not). If Ares turned out to be hiding in the German leadership? You'd say the film was putting all the blame on Germany for starting the war. I can recognize patterns as well as anyone, and you've changed your argument multiple times in this thread, Hell in this conversation, so long as it let's you continue to bash the film. Because again, this isn't really about anything that's wrong with the film. This is about "Marvel good, DC bad," and it's not the first time or first place you've made that obvious.

edited 18th Dec '17 10:48:35 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

I’m pretty sure the Armenians would disagree as to who perpetrated the first genocide of the 20th century.

Oh? Armenians are now predating their genocide, which took place from 1915 onward, to 1904 to 1907? That's news to me.

This is, by the way, the second time I've linked this article. I also linked it above when I first said that the Armenian genocide was the twentieth century's second. Really wish people would read before responding.

edited 18th Dec '17 11:08:30 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Could be if we were back in the 1950s, when the Germans were still in denial.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. This leads to nowhere, especially since I don't quite get how you disagreeing with me about another issue makes me pointing out that the whole No mans land scene has more than a whiff off the American narratives of the French hiding in the trenches in any way invalid. You seem to take this on a way too personal level for a productive discussion.

edited 18th Dec '17 11:07:05 AM by Swanpride

Ahhh, Ambar and Swanpride locked in bitter argument over the supposed insult this movie does to WWI era Germans. Feels like a little bit of June gone by.

Which I appreciate because this cold is killing me .

Actually we are talking about the insult to the French soldiers (and everyone else in the trenches, but the whole "hiding in the trenches" thing is something Americans love to say about the French).

Says the person claiming the film is personally insulting to them.

Yeah, you don't get to absolve Germany of responsibility for invading France, then claim that it's the Americans who are insulting the French. That's not how things work. Nor do you get to keep changing your argument about why the film is bad, and expect that the person you're debating with won't notice.

You don't like the film because it didn't whitewash the Germans. And because "Marvel good, DC bad." You are entitled to feel that way. But please stop trying to dress it up as anything deeper than that.

The "insult" you only discovered when it became clear that "the movie is unfair to Germany" wasn't working out as an argument. Seriously, do you really think that I can't read your previous posts?

And man do you not have a clue what "Americans love to say." You're inventing a problem with America, to justify your dislike of a film. All because your real argument—made clear by making up problems with this film that are actually present in a film you keep defending—is "Marvel good, DC bad" but you know that isn't going to fly.

edited 18th Dec '17 11:18:03 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

One of her companions is French Algerian. Plus it’s not like the French were depicted as cowards, just people pinned down by machine gun fire.

“And because "Marvel good, DC bad." You are entitled to feel that way. But please stop trying to dress it up as anything deeper than that.“

Sounds like something Julep would say. Wonder what he’d think about this debate since he’s French.

edited 18th Dec '17 11:18:06 AM by thatindiantroper

Not to me, to the soldiers who died in the trenches. Because the movie suggests that they could have just come out of it if they had been brave enough.

And you would be surprised how many movies there are out there which not only not "whitewash the Germans" (as you put it) but outright demonize them or turn them into caricatures which I do like. Difference is: The likes of Indiana Jones don't claim to have anything profound to say about the war. I even like the Disney war shorts, and those are propaganda, but the kind of propaganda which actually tries to say something about the war.

But that is exactly what I mean. I discuss an issue with the movie, and instead of arguing why it isn't insulting or just saying "yeah, I disagree", you are trying to make my opinion invalid by attacking me on a personal level. Even though I don't even outright dislike Wonder Woman as a whole. I dislike that specific scene (and the chosen one plot and the stupid ending). If anything I am frustrated that the movie had such a great idea going and then thoroughly botched it in execution. Because, imagine that, you can actually like something and still dislike certain aspects of it. If you don't believe me, read my rant about a specific episode of The Punisher.

edited 18th Dec '17 11:25:43 AM by Swanpride