Wonder Woman Movie

Yeah, God of only that episode of SU came out during the time of the making of Ghostbusters.

. . . Dammit! I did it again! I really need to stop mentioning that film.

Hey that's my comment! If you read all my supplementary comments, I don't really mind Wonder Woman is treated as a feminist. The thing is I don't want it to be the only defining trait to her character. She is many things like a warrior, a diplomat, a super hero (already said these before); so I want the movie to explore those elements as well as give a feminist message. No need to roll your eyes and groan at me for not being interested in Wonder Woman the feminist than Wonder Woman the super heroine.

edited 24th Jul '16 11:23:35 AM by BigK1337

Wonder Woman's panel.

"I never wanted to cast a sidekick for Wonder Woman."

I guess that means no Donna Troy or Cassie Sandmark then.

• Gal Gadot likes low-cut outfits. More at 11'.
• They haven't told us who the villain would be, didn't even show them.
  • So this movie might be really different, like someone else pointed out, there really isn't any Big Bad to fight, no epic supervillain. Wonder Woman never really had a "Lex Luthor, a Joker, a Sinestro, a Reverse-Flash" etc. So that's actually kind of a neat direction for the film if true. No main bad guy to punch in the head or any portals to throw missiles into.
  • It's an alternative to just making Ares the bad guy.
• Lots of comic-con actor fluff, but five minutes in, this is a pretty neutral panel.
  • "The most important thing was to portray this character in ways that everyone can relate to ... She has such a beautiful, universal story."
• Q: Do you fly, or do we get the jet?
  • A: There's no jet in this film. But, maybe in the future.
  • MOTHERF-
• That little girl who asked how Gal prepares and if she could do her best Wonder Woman pose. I love watching these panels, I need to go to one someday.
  • She brought up the bracelets. I wonder if they'll address people shooting at Diana's bracelets instead of her feet. This is where I start to agree she should just have full body armor, the conceit that she always deflects bullets with her bracelets was always a little ridiculous. I mean she's bulletproof so it doesn't matter, but then the point of the bracelets is pure accessory? Superman doesn't even bother and her invulnerability is usually on par with his.

edited 24th Jul '16 11:40:28 AM by Soble

As a rule of thumb, there is always criticism for how a show handle feminist themes. Some say Jessica Jones is too dark and heavy-handed - even though it really fits the theme of abuse. Some say Agent Carter goes too far with the everyday sexism, even if The '50s really were like that. So obviously, some will complain about the way feminism is handled in Supergirl. I mean, on the surface, Callista Flockhart plays a pretty obvious expy of Meryl Streep's character in The Devil Wears Prada which is not exactly considered to be a feminist movie - but she also gets a very impressive characterization over the episodes that allows you to see her as more than a cold-hearted dictator.

Again, where does that worry come from? Where is the Straw Feminist character in any live superhero universe? I haven't met her yet, whether it is in the MCU, the DCCU, the Arrowverse or the Deadpoolverse.

edited 24th Jul '16 11:28:02 AM by Julep

Why couldn't the DCEU be more like the Arrowverse? They care about their sidekicks!

Guess we won't be getting that Teen Titans movie after all.

Woah, woah. I have to stop you right there.

I don't want Felicity in the DCEU ever.

Considering that Teen Titans has quite a lot of fans even outside of the comic book community due to the success of the animated series, it would be pretty surprising if they didn't get their own movie at some point.

edited 24th Jul '16 11:33:36 AM by Paradisesnake

x4 >implying that I am worried that Wonder Woman is going to be turned into a Straw Feminist

No seriously, my opinion wasn't on her becoming such character its on her (at worst) being a preachy one of the Lisa Simpson variety. Post Good Season Lisa Simpson where all she is is the mouthpiece for the writers beliefs. Besides, after looking at the trailers she obvious isn't going to be one and found it to be a good representation of her character.

True. I wonder if they are still working on that Titans show.

edited 24th Jul '16 11:39:36 AM by BigK1337

There was nothing about the Force Awakens that was remotely preachy or heavyhanded. Ghostbusters was just an incredibly tiresome and stupid controversy that ended up having little bearing on the final film by all accounts. Both your examples make no sense and I don't get what your point is.

No invisible jet super confirmed.

Movie is a failure now. Everything I thought I knew was a lie. DC failed me.

No, no, you see, the Invisible Jet is every frame of the movie. You just can't see it. Because it's invisible.

Then how come we don't see somebody pilot it? Everybody knows only the jet is invisible, not the person driving it. So it will be a person sitting down in thin air piloting a non existent vehicle

edited 24th Jul '16 12:00:04 PM by BigK1337

I don't know, maybe Wondie just forgot where she parked it and now it's lost forever?

Nobody's driving it. It's on autopilot.

Or Bear is driving.

edited 24th Jul '16 12:03:36 PM by alliterator

W.W. gets in the jet. Cue GIR: "I can still see you!"

Can WW fly in this universe?

They say she can leap In a Single Bound and it's practically flying for her (think old version Superman). That said, she doesn't have the ability to fly around the globe like Superman does. Personally, I'm fine with that as I've seen too many superheroes and supervillains have Superman's flight in the Justice League cartoon.

I don't know. To be fair I never knew Wonder Woman can fly until that Justice League cartoon. Even so they explain her flying ability as just gliding on the wind as a similar vain as the Hulk's so called flight during the Silver Age.

Agree. I personally think that only the alien characters (and to some extent magic characters) to display the ability of flight. If not, then expect Aquaman to fly just like in that Superfriends intro

Speaking of flying Aquaman: will Marvel ever give Namor his big screen debut?

edited 24th Jul '16 12:29:54 PM by BigK1337

I'm going to respectfully recant the statement you're referring to and move far away from this discussion.

What's sad about this is that's actually brilliant.

edited 24th Jul '16 12:34:49 PM by Soble

They really are going Golden Age with it.

I'm really interested to see who the Big Bad is going to be.

If they are going all out on the Golden Age: chances are it might be her first enemy the Duke of Deception. Especially after that Legend of Wonder Woman comic.

Again as much as I'm not personally a fan of the jet, you can make it work in present-day. You can even maybe make it work in WWII (because the earliest fighter jets saw their debut there anyway). But a jet in WWI, that'd just be pushing things. And it's not needed really.

edited 24th Jul '16 12:43:58 PM by Punisher286

Yeah, I think the invisible jet would work best in one of the Justice League films or a hypothetical Wonder Woman 2 set in modern day. Then it can just be just a regular military jet equipped with some fancy experimental cloaking technology.

In WW 1, given that they were still figuring out the fundamental concepts of military aircraft would mean the invisible jet could potentially have a far bigger impact on the war then Wonder Woman herself. Heck, the aircraft with the forward-facing machine gun we see Steve Trevor using in the trailer was developed and introduced during the war.

Wonder Woman's invulnerability tends to fluctuate Depending on the Writer. Sometimes, she can tank an entire army's worth of ordinance just like Superman. In others, her bracelets serve the purpose of being the only genuinely invulnerable part of her costume - she can be shot if someone gets lucky or if she's unable to deflect a stray bullet, but the result is only akin to her being sliced by a nasty papercut.

Which leads me to wonder if Reality Ensues after the trailer sequence showing Diana lead an Allied charge against a German trench line. Diana initially absorbs the Germans's firepower with her shield, bracelets, and armor. Once she manages to get into the occupied trenches though, she gets over her head and is unable to deflect all of the incoming bullets being fired at her from all directions instead of only one. She then either has to be rescued by the Allies, is taken prisoner, or barely survives with the skin of her teeth.

I was the one who criticized Supergirl's pilot (emphasis on the pilot, I can't really judge the show as a whole because it put me off so badly), so I guess I have to clarify: My issue with Supergirl is not that there is a feminist message, but that they keep pushing it without anything to back it up. Supergirl in her pilot feels to me like a "hand-me-down Superman", just that "female" apparently means that for her Jimmy Olson is not someone to rescue but a Mentor figure/potential love interest, and while Superman pretends that Clark Kent is an awkward person, for Supergirl it is her actual personality (and a cliché for female characters I particularly hate). The writers focussed so much on pointing out that she has "girl power" that they forget to sit back and think about what makes Supergirl different from Superman (which is mainly that she is younger and actually remember Krypton, having a very different view on humanity as a result...in short, her two more interesting character traits didn't make it into the pilot, instead we got a "lesser" version of Superman, which is exactly what she shouldn't be). As a result the oh so feminist pilot came of as unintentionally sexist in my eyes (I am still fuming just thinking about the speech that I should see the word "girl" as something empowering...if it is so god damn empowering, why is Superman not called Superboy, or Spider-man Spiderboy?).

That Agent Carter or Jessica Jones works so much better for me is not because the feminist message is in any way more or less overt, but because the writers focus on the character and the story enough to back said story up (I have a few issues with the second Season of Agent Carter, but that's too complicated to discuss here).

And then there is Agents of Shield. Which manages to be a feminist show without ever feeling the need to point out any particular feminist issues. No, it is simply feminist, because it offers a myriad of different female characters, and because it is consistent in identifying "badass" not with "Male" or "female" but with "Field agent". Every field agent is by definition a badass, even if he or she is actually a scientist. The show also sidesteps toxic masculinity at every turn.

In the case of Wonder Woman, there is no need to turn her into a feminist icon, because she already is one. She has been at least since Lynda Carter graced out TV screen. So yes, I am pleased if the writers are aware of that and focus on doing justice to her character. Because the biggest danger in all this is that the movie does lip-service to the concept of feminism and then turns around and makes Trevor the actual hero of the story.

Diana's has always suffered from "plot-convenient" strength/abilities. And yes all comic book characters get that to a degree, but it happens A LOT with her. Like she can take a punch from freaking Doomsday with only minimal damage (in the film, she just kind of shrugs it off and in the recent SM/WW comic she only suffers a broken arm out of it), not to mention any number of other superhuman/metahuman/mystical attacks. But bullets and pointy objects are lethal to her, to the point that she has to deflect them. Yeah it's weird.

The synopsis did say that she was just beginning to discover/learn about her powers. So perhaps even she doesn't initially know what she can really do/is capable of.