Paul_SD

Couldn't read the full article, but saw a headline from Forbes that apparently WW has the second strongest run (legs) of any film that has opened above $100mil, just under one of the Shrek movies.
That is a remarkable, and as a fan of the character all these years, an edifying achievement.

Still haven't seen it, but I was hoping it would do well (creatively and financially). I vividly remember the discussions here in years past and how many members were of the opinion that "no one wants to see a Wonder Woman movie" and what a lame character she was. It drove me nuts.

Michael Corvin

You and me both. I "get" playing armchair critic, but Wonder Woman has always had appeal. It just took the right script, director and star to align(to actually get it made) to prove the naysayers wrong.

ntnon

Murkier than that, since ..Returns wasn't really a reboot... and WW went to TV first. That the pilot failed/was let go in favour of moving forward on a film might render it moot, but since 2004 there have been two Bat actors, two Super actors and two Wonder Women. Also, two Flashes...

Indeed, Flash has been supposed to be getting a film since before GL, and after it, and then again, and now a TV series and part of the film universe..

(Miller, Moore, Moore: the top tier of DC talent and comics-to-film persons. And neither has written for WW. Though if the cartoon hadn't done it well, "For the Man Who Has Everything" would have been an interesting film...)

You can't use that as an argument against her, though. Batman would have been cancelled had the Adam West show not revived him; the Silver Age ushered in by Julie Schwartz (and fandom figures like Jerry Bails and Roy Thomas) reinvented ALL the characters. Then Byrne, Miller and Perez rewrote the major origins in 1986/7...

Which is why I was a litle put out that some of the key elements - the contest of champions, WWII and America - were revised for the film. There was ample room for revisionism because her story has shifted (perhaps) more than some others' have, but... they changed quite a few elements for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

[Slight tangent - given that the film really, really, really seemed patterned after CA: TFA in so many ways, I do wonder if the war was changed to avoid some accusations of similarity... even though such claims would have been daft. And her being an Angle of Mons-type figure seemed ever so vaguely Promethea-like, looping back to DC's seeming Moore obsession... but... probably not!]

And both were weird muddles largely because of those factors. Making something familiar to not upset the fans of the earlier versions, but changing everything so oddly and poorly that you upset the fans of the earlier versions and confuse any potential new ones.

Which, ironically, is another argument for Learning from Marvel: STOP (RE)MAKING THE SAME FILMS - TRY SOMETHING NEW!

...like Wonder Woman.

ntnon

Very interested in your thoughts when you do.

ntnon

Numerical minority, probably yes. (But surely not 75/25, as I think was quoted.)

But in terms of star power? Money made for studios? Leading roles? Major roles? That does not seem accurate.

Very few female outlaws, sheriffs, prospectors, hunters, scouts. Many wives, prostitutes, sisters, daughters, singers, etc... but those would not be suitable roles to use to argue for female representation in films.

The mention of westerns was NOT to focus on them, but to push them aside for a discussion over numbers/representation/billing/lines/recognition of women in film 60&70 years ago. On the logic that it is hard to argue against women being underrepresented (and un-diverse, and sidelined and whathaveyou) in MODERN films, relative to many societal factors and the changes in how and what women do, But...

• If the argument is that this was also - and "as" - true in the 30s and 40s (despite the relative position of women in the industry and world then), then that seems like a flawed premise.
• So if "statistics" do indeed suggest that women were on-screen or billed highly or spoke less or something in a 3:1 ratio with their male counterparts, I wonder why that appears to be the case. i.e. whether another factor skews the statistics.
• ..and whether that factor may be including the very many War and Western films that more-reasonably underrepresent women (because women were essentually absent from most fields of war, and if not noticeably in a minority in the west - which they were - certainly noticeably fewer in roles that make up the core of western films).

It's a musing point to invite debate, question statistics and wonder whether things were once better (as in the makeup of comics readership, say) and somehow took a step backward, or if it has genuinely been a similar problem back to the dawn of motion pictures.


Also, as far as "historical accuracy" goes, it's a 'hazy' kind of accuracy. A "Queen Elizabeth I was a woman, Winston Churchill was a man' not a 'this is exactly what happened and how'. Having the Normandy beaches being stormed by a properly integrated (sex and race) group of all-ages soldiers would seem strange. Women sneaking onto the Elizabethan stage (Shakespeare in Love) or being pirates and gunslingers is less so, but also reasonably in the minority on film, as in life.

Mike86

It's a good film and the best DCEU film to date (though that's really not saying much) but that's a bit excessive. I'd say it's not even the best superhero film of the year (I still think that goes to Logan personally) and while it's great that it's had such a strong box office run as well as critical/fan reception it's not Best Picture worthy. That's wishful thinking from WB who are probably banking on it for achieving so much and setting records. If The Dark Knight couldn't get nominated I don't think this deserves it. That was a better film in my honest opinion. Also I'll say again that as much as I liked it I do think the hype was a bit bigger than the actual film. I'm not trying to take anything away from it but those who are acting like it's already this classic are exaggerating in my honest opinion.

brayzie

I've heard about Batman almost being cancelled but I find that hard to believe.

source

I used it as an example, in conjunction with my Green Lantern example. I believe that the success of Geoff Johns' tenure on Green Lantern was one of several contributing factors as to why the GL film was made instead of WW, Flash, etc.

Now, the circumstances for choosing to adapt comic book superheroes for film and television might have been different in the 60s as opposed to modern times. "Based on the Graphic Novel" was a popular promotional tagline for a minute, maybe based off of the success of Sin City and 300. Source material doubling as promotional material and tie-ins helps spread the word. WW didn't really have that at the time.

I don't think the Schwartz/Silver Age reinventions have that much bearing on Batman and Superman, as opposed to Flash and GL.

Batman has had his origin updated but he's pretty good either way. Superman and Wonder Woman have been considered problematic. Some fans didn't like the stripped down Byrne version, others liked the hokey Silver Age stuff, then there was the new 52 which affected WW and Superman, but not top sellers like Batman and GL.


That's the first thing I thought of when I read that WW was gonna take place in WW I! Promethea!
Damn, that was a good comic. Reading that at the time, was like reading a Wonder Woman comic done right.

brayzie

I remember that too. I saw youtube videos on it, some people on comic forums said that Wonder Woman's Greek mythology background was a hinderance...

Articles like this from 2008...
10 Reasons Why No One Cares About Wonder Woman

Paul_SD

That's kind of funny now.

Obviously I never agreed with a lot of that.
For example- lack of great villains.
Dr. Freeze was nothing but a generic thug with a gimmick until Dini and Timm (and Burnett?) put some thought into him and came up with a crackjack raison d'être.
No good stories?
That's a little like the bad tendency of Hollywood to only keep remaking movies that were already well done. The far more interesting thing to do is to take a failed movie with an good premise and finally do it right. Weak source material can be a springboard for something transcendent. It just takes creatives to put some thought and TLC into it.

Anyway, I'm glad we're finally over that particular hump.

Unless I hit it tomorrow (not likely) I probably won't be seeing it until November and it's hit Bd.

OldBoy

i love the Jerusalem/Tel Aviv commercials featuring Gadot. really makes me want to go half way around the world to the holy country...

Jay G.

If you mean this ad:

That's not Gal Gadot, but a model named Shir Elmaliach:
http://www.allenbyny.com/content/shi...lobal-campaign

OldBoy

well, that's a missed opportunity. sure looks like her...

TGM

so, finally saw it tonight and thought it was marginal at best.

Gal Gadot is Gadot Godamn Gadorgeous and I have a big man crush on Chris Pine and thought both were great, but I thought the entire movie was clunky, uber slow to pick up speed, gloomy as per DCMU's usual MO, hackneyed, predictable, not as funny or smart as I was led to believe, and the ending a bit insulting where Wonder Woman is supposed to be this feminist badass but only is able to get super powered pissed off because of LOVE.

Still the best of the DCMU but that's not saying much. Feh.

Inhumans99

Mike86, agree that Logan deserves an Oscar Nom push...the film deserves some effort from the Fox Marketing dpt to put Logan on the radar screens of anyone who votes for which films get nominated.

While I enjoyed the heck out of Wonder Woman it is not an Oscar caliber film.

Mike86

Yeah, Wonder Woman is very good (though honestly I do think its a tad overrated) but it isn't an Oscar worthy film. That's not trying to knock the film down but it isn't that much better than a lot of other superhero films in my opinion. I think some people hype it up more because its the first of the DCEU films that's above average. Overall there are still a lot of issues with it (namely the pacing is kind of slow at times and the villain is weak). Gadot is great and Pine is as well but I dunno. I'll purchase it once its out but I don't see it as one of the best superhero films of all time or anything as some people are hailing it as.

Iron_Giant

Amazing...the movie is now on the pace to surpass $400 Million. Only losing about 35% per weekend.

Iron_Giant

Those are some of the worst reason for why people do not care about WW.

gmanca

Yeah I agree with your comments though I may have liked it a bit better than you. I really didn't think it was deserving of the high praise it has and feel it's just because it's the first good DC movie; I too thought of the dichotomy of the feminist angle with the long model shots of Gadot and the whole "I choose Love" bit.

Mabuse

Love means a lot more than loving that hunky dude. She loves life, she loves humanity. All you need is love.

RichC2

I mostly agree with this review.

Michael Corvin

I dunno, TGM's review reads as someone going in with preconceived notions and an axe to grind to me.

I didn't think it was slow to pick up speed either. The Paradise Island stuff gets the ball rolling pretty quickly.

RichC2

To each their own I suppose

I liked most of the island stuff, but stacked with the 30 minutes between that and the breach scene the movie did drag on way too much. Then it was cool for a bit, the final battle was just lame. It's overall enjoyable, just wildly inconsistent.

Jay G.

To be fair, people's opinions can legitimately differ. Also, to give TGM the benefit of the doubt, he could've had really high expectations due to all the positive reviews, press, and word of mouth the film's had in the past few months. The Oscar push probably didn't help. It's a good film, and the best DCU film by far, but it's not a great film, and it has some issues.

It's interesting to think what the reaction to this particular plot point would be if the gender of the character were reversed. In some ways the first Thor movie comes close to this, with a "god" who becomes exposed to humanity mainly though a romantic interest, who decides against warmongering and chooses love and compassion.

TGM

I have no axe to grind. I'm not a Marvel fanboy (although those movies have been much better by far than the current DCMU slate... but then again, they have RDJ who breathes a brilliant snarkiness into everything which is fantastic). Yes, my expectations were very high given all the praise here and on the net. I thought the villain was weak (although the reveal was unexpected), and it literally was 1. sees love interest blow up 2. immediately tap into her super-duper badassery. Just seemed insulting to me... I guess I'm not against the concept of it, but perhaps it was something in the execution...

I am also not a fan of the constant use of slow-mo, and the dreary overall look of the DCMU. I think I was just more disappointed in the fact that it wasn't as witty or fun as I was told it was. I was expecting some really great banter between Gadot and Pine, and other than a few awkward forced scenes it just wasn't there despite the fact that the actors themselves were able to transcend above all of that and show some real chemistry.

My wife and I rarely actually go to the movies anymore... and it came down to seeing WW or Spiderman... and I think I chose... poorly.

Mike86

Yeah, the slow mo during the action scenes really bothered me too. Completely took me out of those parts and was distracting.

Also not trying to feed into this idea of me being a DC hater but I easily enjoyed Spider-Man: Homecoming far more. They're different films in the superhero genre but Spidey was a lot more entertaining and surprised me (I think it's been downplayed somewhat as just another Spider-Man/MCU film) whereas with this film I liked it but didn't feel like it lived up to the hype.