Wonder Woman (2017)

team_actimel

I really enjoyed this film and thought Gal Gadot was perfect in her role. She was so charismatic and I am looking forward to the next WW installment.

ionapaul

Brego888 wrote: »

Gal Gadot is almost too beautiful to play the role that she becomes distracting! They did a good job though at not over sexualising her.

I said the same thing to my wife after we watched it (both enjoyed it) - I almost would have preferred they used a less attractive person in the WW role, as Gadot was so stunning it was hard to concentrate on other stuff (dialogue, plot, etc...)!

team_actimel

ionapaul wrote: »

I said the same thing to my wife after we watched it (both enjoyed it) - I almost would have preferred they used a less attractive person in the WW role, as Gadot was so stunning it was hard to concentrate on other stuff (dialogue, plot, etc...)!

Spare a thought for some of us who were too distracted by Henry Cavill to enjoy Man of Steel.

Nervous Wreck

team_actimel wrote: »

Spare a thought for some of us who were too distracted by Henry Cavill to enjoy Man of Steel.

I was too distracted by the plot to enjoy Man of Steel.

Tony EH

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Only 30 movies have ever gotten over a billion at the box office the odds are against it big time.

If it does anywhere between 500/750m it will have done amazingly well.

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

BvS fumbled an opportunity for a slam dunk, monewise. All it had to do was be good. Not even great. They could definitely have broken the billion. Funnily enough, the only thing now that can get Justice League over the billion is the good will created towards Wonder Woman.

Tony EH

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As a major history buff....not thrilled about how they basically Nazified the WW1 German army, wonder how the Germans feel about that one.

This is one of the reasons why I am probably going to dislike this film I reckon and the trench warfare idea sounds woeful.

But, in any case, I've always thought that Wonder Woman was a stupid character, along with Thor. The "god" superhero is a bloody awful idea.

This film, though, seems to be getting a pass from a lot of people in interweb world, but i've yet to see any real general criticism. It just seems to be "I liked it, because it wasn't 'Man of Steel' or 'Batman vs Superman", or simply because it didn't suck, so therefore it "great".

For the record, I actually liked 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Man or Steel' and think they get a lot of unnecessary flak. 'Wonder Woman' may be fine too, but I just know the setting alone is going to annoy the - expletive deleted - out of me.

pjohnson

Tony EH wrote: »

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

With the pull and fanbase both Batman AND Superman have in their own right combining them obviously should have made a helluva lot more.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

BvS fumbled an opportunity for a slam dunk, monewise. All it had to do was be good. Not even great. They could definitely have broken the billion. Funnily enough, the only thing now that can get Justice League over the billion is the good will created towards Wonder Woman.

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

Tony EH

pjohnson wrote: »

With the pull and fanbase both Batman AND Superman have in their own right combining them obviously should have made a helluva lot more.

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

It's the internet. Things can only be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

Edit: For what's its worth I do think BvS should have made more than it did. Had word of mouth been good I've no doubt it would have made another 300-500m at the box office. There's a lot of people out there who just didn't bother once they heard it was "bad". A lot people won't take that chance at the cinema and instead wait for something that everyone is buzzing about.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

Yeah it achieved an astounding amount of money so was by no means a financial flop. Critically, a complete flop but financially did very well. BUT it definitely could have broken the billion if it had just been a good film. And the thing is, the source material is there by the truckload to support a great film. They've made animated versions that were great. But they still fumbled it.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

I think it speaks more to the nature of the Blockbuster these days rather than the critical or fan consensus. The Hollywood Blockbuster has become a massively bloated and mutated economy within an industry itself already fairly obscene. From what I understand, it's an economy where the done thing is now to inflate budgets, not penny pinch.

870 million is clearly not chump change, but within the context of how and for what the movie was produced, it likely under-performed in the eyes of those counting on certain results. I don't pretend to understand how high finance works, let alone within the context of film production, but there would likely have been a lot of projections made about this films potential success - not just financial either, but in terms of brand visibility & that sort of thing. It was a film about comicbook royalty, by all accounts it should have made at least a billion dollars without trying, and sat top of the heap of the cultural and box-office pyramid, yet that's not how it panned out.

Ben Gadot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

4?! I commend your fandom.

I love The Dark Knight Trilogy, and think I saw each twice respectively in the cinema.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

It's a fan that's few and far between that will watch the same film 4 times in a cinema, no matter how good it is.

pjohnson

Tony EH wrote: »

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

Hardcore fans probably those with a more passive interest no. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew nothing about either hero. If it was a competent movie with two such massive characters it would have pulled in casuals quite easy.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I think it speaks more to the nature of the Blockbuster these days rather than the critical or fan consensus. The Hollywood Blockbuster has become a massively bloated and mutated economy within an industry itself already fairly obscene. From what I understand, it's an economy where the done thing is now to inflate budgets, not penny pinch.

870 million is clearly not chump change, but within the context of how and for what the movie was produced, it likely under-performed in the eyes of those counting on certain results. I don't pretend to understand how high finance works, let alone within the context of film production, but there would likely have been a lot of projections made about this films potential success - not just financial either, but in terms of brand visibility & that sort of thing. It was a film about comicbook royalty, by all accounts it should have made at least a billion dollars without trying, and sat top of the heap of the cultural and box-office pyramid, yet that's not how it panned out.

Sure. There are loads of predictions made about every big budget film that goes out. I'm sure the makers of the 'Total Recall' and 'Ghostbusters' were expecting huge returns too and if either of them had made anywhere near 870 million, they'd be hailed as roaring successes.

I just find the idea that BvS "lost" money, when it sits atop such a fortune a crazy idea, expecially when the count for films that break a billion are so small. People talk as if BvS was such a flop that it forced the DCCU to quit. It's hilarious.

It's funny also, that that small list contains films that are much, much, poorer examples of filmmaking. 'Transformers 10', I'm looking at you.

In any case, I fully agree that the hollywood product is obscene as present and all this BO guff becomes extremely tiresome TBH.

Tony EH

pjohnson wrote: »

Hardcore fans probably those with a more passive interest no. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew nothing about either hero. If it was a competent movie with two such massive characters it would have pulled in casuals quite easy.

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

The film was completely incompetent, to be fair.

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

Ben Gadot

All hail Snyder.

Drumpot

I actually enjoyed MOS and BVS.... I think if people objectively think they are good or bad movies, then they are right in their own ways. Discussing the merits of a movie with somebody who thinks the opposite to you is kind of waste of time.

I've notice a consistent trend with people who hate a movie that they really wanted to do well or had some sort of excitement about it. They highlight moments in the movie they hate but ignore similar irritants in movies they enjoy. Confirmation bias is rife when judging movies, I think we are all guilty of it.

Take the hate for "Martha" moment. I don't have a problem with them using this as a plot device and I think on repeat viewings it gets more powerful. Both parents were called Martha in the universe so its not like they made it up for the movie. Superman using that name in such an emotional moment for Bruce would pack the punch it did. It would knock him off his rage fuelled vendetta, anybody who knows anything about human behaviour would tell you that's very much possible if not probable.

I allow myself to get invested in the movie and allow myself to be entertained without all the BS prejudice or pre conceived ideas of what I should expect. When I first viewed the movie I didn't overly like it, but I have found it more enjoyable on repeat viewings (which seems to happen with me and shnyder movies). If there is a movie, like BVS or MOS, that I don't completely love on first viewing, but I want to like them I will go and see them again and try to see what I can take from the movie (not go to see them to confirm I hate it!).

People who hate movies, dig their heels in and don't try to take anything else from a movie will just have their disappointment. Where is the fun in that ? Maybe as I get older I see the benefit to lowering expectations and trying to look for the good as opposed to the bad in things. It actually makes movie going experiences frequently more enjoyable.

In terms of the WW movie, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I must stress that I had three children, 2 of which were driving me mad, so I will reserve how I really feel until I see it again. I didn't feel compelled to goto the cinema again (which is unusual for me) to watch it because it felt a lot like Captain America 1 which I thought was so so.

I liked the fact that DC were trying a very different approach to Marvel, but would be concerned now that they will revert to the ingredients used in those movies. DC felt darker and dirtier and less refined, whereas Marvel feels forumulated and safe. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

It is comparable with Transformers in that it shows that making money is not about making a good movie or trying to be different, its about appealing to as wide an audience as possible. So now, instead of DC trying to be different, they are being told to feed us more mainstream generic superhero movies. I hope the whingers are happy.

IncognitoMan

Drumpot, that's one of the best posts I've read on these threads in a long long time.

fluke

Drumpot wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

I think where WW differs from a lot of the other fare (in both DC and Marvel) is that she truly seemed heroic and someone to aspire to be. Almost any screengrab from the movie frames her as an icon.

Drumpot

fluke wrote: »

I think where WW differs from a lot of the other fare (in both DC and Marvel) is that she truly seemed heroic and someone to aspire to be. Almost any screengrab from the movie frames her as an icon.

WW turned her back on humanity for nearly a 100 years, how is that heroic or something to strive ? She gets one bad experience with humans and rights us off!

You could put Captain America (not necessarily my favourite superhero) into your post and it would pretty much fit perfectly. There is no better example of heroism or somebody who strives to protect what is right, even if its at his own expense.

The Cap's had more life experience and pain to get to where he is and never turns his back on those weaker then him. He knows what its like to be weak and pushed down by those stronger/bigger then him. His characters unyielding moral compass and desire to at least always try and do the right thing is heroic and makes him an even bigger icon (IMO).

fluke

Drumpot wrote: »

You could put Captain America (not necessarily my favourite superhero) into your post and it would pretty much fit perfectly. There is no better example of heroism or somebody who strives to protect what is right, even if its at his own expense.

None of the Cap America scenes in any of his appearances look anywhere near as iconic as any of the WW scenes.

Drumpot

fluke wrote: »

None of the Cap America scenes in any of his appearances look anywhere near as iconic as any of the WW scenes.

You said she seemed heroic and somebody to truly aspire to be. . I don't know how you came to that conclusion. She opted out of helping humanity for 100 years.. If anything she came across more like a generation snowflake hero then anything else.

What screenshots are you talking about that sets her apart from other hero movies. I was dragged out of cinema a few times by kids and missed parts of the movie so I could of missed some of these moments.

To be fair, I do think that watching it with my children has not helped my perception of the character or the movie. I am only sharing my initial feelings of the movie...

Ben Gadot

Drumpot wrote: »

I actually enjoyed MOS and BVS.... I think if people objectively think they are good or bad movies, then they are right in their own ways. Discussing the merits of a movie with somebody who thinks the opposite to you is kind of waste of time.

I've notice a consistent trend with people who hate a movie that they really wanted to do well or had some sort of excitement about it. They highlight moments in the movie they hate but ignore similar irritants in movies they enjoy. Confirmation bias is rife when judging movies, I think we are all guilty of it.

Take the hate for "Martha" moment. I don't have a problem with them using this as a plot device and I think on repeat viewings it gets more powerful. Both parents were called Martha in the universe so its not like they made it up for the movie. Superman using that name in such an emotional moment for Bruce would pack the punch it did. It would knock him off his rage fuelled vendetta, anybody who knows anything about human behaviour would tell you that's very much possible if not probable.

I allow myself to get invested in the movie and allow myself to be entertained without all the BS prejudice or pre conceived ideas of what I should expect. When I first viewed the movie I didn't overly like it, but I have found it more enjoyable on repeat viewings (which seems to happen with me and shnyder movies). If there is a movie, like BVS or MOS, that I don't completely love on first viewing, but I want to like them I will go and see them again and try to see what I can take from the movie (not go to see them to confirm I hate it!).

People who hate movies, dig their heels in and don't try to take anything else from a movie will just have their disappointment. Where is the fun in that ? Maybe as I get older I see the benefit to lowering expectations and trying to look for the good as opposed to the bad in things. It actually makes movie going experiences frequently more enjoyable.

In terms of the WW movie, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I must stress that I had three children, 2 of which were driving me mad, so I will reserve how I really feel until I see it again. I didn't feel compelled to goto the cinema again (which is unusual for me) to watch it because it felt a lot like Captain America 1 which I thought was so so.

I liked the fact that DC were trying a very different approach to Marvel, but would be concerned now that they will revert to the ingredients used in those movies. DC felt darker and dirtier and less refined, whereas Marvel feels forumulated and safe. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

It is comparable with Transformers in that it shows that making money is not about making a good movie or trying to be different, its about appealing to as wide an audience as possible. So now, instead of DC trying to be different, they are being told to feed us more mainstream generic superhero movies. I hope the whingers are happy.

Fair play for saying that even if saying it is a hiding to nowhere. I would of thought the same before WW but there's plenty of people on here who were negative about the film to the lead up to its release only to hold their hands up and admit they were wrong.

Drumpot

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Fair play for saying that even if saying it is a hiding to nowhere. I would of thought the same before WW but there's plenty of people on here who were negative about the film to the lead up to its release only to hold their hands up and admit they were wrong.

That's great and I think people can be like that about more movies with the right approach.

I think it's setting yourself up for more falls to have a higher bar for movies. That's why, so often I find (like others) that something I am really looking forward to ends up dissapointjng. I enjoy many movies, some more then others and some might dissapoint initial but get better on repeat viewing. Some movies wow me and some movies surprise me. People with higher expectations and subjective critical analysis on movies limit their own chance to enjoy more movies.

It's like Irish soccer fans versus fans that are only able to enjoy their team when they win. It's not that I don't care about movies or don't want them to be better. It's that life has thought me that being able to find the good in things is simply more enjoyable then critically picking things apart.

Ben Gadot

Drumpot wrote: »

It's like Irish soccer fans versus fans that are only able to enjoy their team when they win. It's not that I don't care about movies or don't want them to be better. It's that life has thought me that being able to find the good in things is simply more enjoyable then critically picking things apart.

Aye I know what you mean. I'm the same in outlook not withstanding disasters like Batman and Robin.

I think I exhausted myself so much defending what I thought BvS deserved credit for that it negatively impacted on my actual enjoyment of the film.

It's weird though because I exhausted myself in a similar manner defending TDKR all those years ago yet it hasn't effected my enjoyment of the film in any way.

laserlad2010

Just saw it last night in Odeon Charlestown - screen was almost empty apart from us.

I felt that some scenes were quite enjoyable, good score etc.

My biggest gripe was that it was too long.

I love long movies. I love being dragged in and realising that 2 hours have passed in what seems like the blink of an eye.

However, most of the second act last night had me bored. The simplification of WWI was insulting. Why not use WWII if you wanted a good side and bad side?! I know we needed the 100 years reference but still.

There was very little attempt to muddy the waters for Diana. Redskin Indian fires off a one liner about Chris Pine being just as bad and she's all shaken?!

Frank Bullitt

Saw it last night and loved it, great stuff.

Looper007

It is a tad too long and the last 20 minutes weren't the best (did Zack have his hands in that last battle) but overall the Best DC film that isn't a Nolan Batman film. Gal Gadot really impressed me in this cause I didn't think much of her in BVS. It helps she's stunning to look at while great at kicking ass, but she brings a lot of heart to the role. But the film was stolen by Chris Pine as Steve Trevor and

His death scene and last scene with WW was one of the more touching

in a superhero film.

It did feel a little like Richard Donner's Superman film, but it wasn't afraid to have it's darker moments. Could tell from a mile away that David Thewlis

Was the main villain

but he's such a great actor he pulls it off again. Danny Huston and Elena Anaya weren't great villains and were underused. But Robin Wright was great in the scenes she has and I wanted to see more of her character. Overall and mass improvement over the last two duds in the DC cannon.

take everything

Saw it today and thought it was great.
I am completely in love with Gal Gadot.
God she is beautiful.
And her character is so perfect.

I'm still a bit unsure about

the British guy being Ares

and what that means.
Great film though.

take everything

Kinsley Long Beanbag wrote: »

Watched the movie today and I am thoroughly impressed. Gives me hope that DCEU can start producing good movies.

What I especially liked about the film is how it handled gender dynamics. It's all empowering for women without ****ting on men. Superbly done.

I like how Wonder Woman is sceptical of the ould wan's man-hating spiel when she's leaving with Chris Pine.
Of course if you look like Chris Pine, most women will probably be inclined to give men a chance.

dublinman1990

I finally saw this movie at The Odeon in Stillorgan today. Out of all of the DCEU movies that I have seen in the cinema or at home so far; I'd say that WW is by far the most visually stunning of them all to date. That credit goes goes to WB & DC for making this great movie such with great effort & creativity.

It has a good story, the plot has nice pacing, it included a clever easter egg near the beginning the movie which was

a Wayne Enterprises van coming into The Louvre Art Gallery in Paris which delivered a suitcase to Diana containing a photograph of herself and her team (which was also seen in BvS when Bruce Wayne was looking the Lexcorp files in his Batcave). There was a letter contained in the suitcase from Bruce Wayne. The thing is thought I did not read properly what was written on the letter from Bruce Wayne to Diana. Does anyone know what written in that message by Bruce Wayne was by any chance? I assume that this happens after BvS; am I right? Does this scene tie up with JL afterwards in November?

Gal Gadot's role as WW was really superb. Her WW outfit was very beautiful. The colours from it looked amazing.

I think the movie is a big winner in terms of what the DCEU has produced so far. I had a glance of some reviews from The Odeon Website before hand that were a mixed bag. I was doing this to look up the screening times of the movie either last night or the night before. But I decided to go today and I really enjoyed it.

WW is a very well worked movie for all to see. It's great.

Nerdlingr

Saw it last night and thought it was very average. There is so much wrong with the film I don't even know where to begin.
Very disappointed as it got great reviews. Left wondering did we watch the same film?!!!

FutureGuy

Thoroughly enjoyed it. A little ropey and cheesy/predictable in places but it didn't detract from it.

9/10

Brief_Lives

Just saw it.. Wonderful movie.
Patty Jenkins did a great job. Could have been tasteless, was shot with perfect closeups.
I never realized how beautiful Gadot is.
She can act with her eyes alone.

Some of the more innocent moments had me head rolling, but her growth was timed to perfection throughout.

I love the electric cello.

iguana

Saw it last night and thought it was just ok. Some bits were really good but it was so long I was really bored at times. I was also left really confused as to why WW turned her back on humanity after the climax of the movie was her seeing the potential for greatness in people. It made no sense. Seeing it so long after it's release, I had heard bits and pieces of the plot so knew Ares was a real cause of the war and that there was an amazing No Man's Land scene. So between that and the fact that WW was so disillusioned with people in BvS, I had imagined the movie being set really early in the war. WW battling Ares in December 1914. His death allowing soldiers the recognition of their enemy's humanity that led to the Christmas Truce, that being the amazing No Man's Land scene. WW being all super happy that she'd saved humanity from being forced into an awful war. Then two days later the top brass ordering the shelling of the opposing trenches and the war going on for nearly 4 more years. (Because in reality WW1 had fúck all to do with Ares and everything to do with humanity's worst impulses.) Diana would then be heartbroken to see that humans could do that to each other all on their own and retreat from people until Doomsday appears in BvS.

Nervous Wreck

I was pretty underwhelmed with the No Mans Land scene tbh...

pixelburp

Yeah although I generally enjoyed Wonder Woman and thought it an overall success, the way the hype spoke of that No Mans Land scene, I was expecting something unforgettably epic. It was simply ok really, certainly the definite moment Diana had arrived as a heroic figure, but nothing instantly iconic or anything ...

Drumpot

fluke wrote: »

None of the Cap America scenes in any of his appearances look anywhere near as iconic as any of the WW scenes.

This is interesting.. Captain America may not look like an iconic character but he certainly has more heroic traits and principles then WW.. He never wavered in his intentions and his life experiences made him a true hero...

WW led a sheltered life , went on a journey to "save humanity" , got burned , looked very naive and then dissapeared for 100 years in a strop. But since she "looked" iconic , you feel she is a hero that people should strive to follow over the Cap?!

I actually think this viewpoint is exactly why humans follow the wrong people. Politicians "who look" like they want to do the right thing but their actions tell us otherwise...

Nervous Wreck

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah although I generally enjoyed Wonder Woman and thought it an overall success, the way the hype spoke of that No Mans Land scene, I was expecting something unforgettably epic. It was simply ok really, certainly the definite moment Diana had arrived as a heroic figure, but nothing instantly iconic or anything ...

I hadn't read anything about it in advance and after I'd seen the film and read about the amazing NML scene, I was like "..... uh, that?"

Avatar MIA

Only got to see it today, was majorly impressed with Gadot. Enjoyed the prologue and most of the film ripped along nicely. Wasn't a bit phased by the length.

There was no surprise in the twist. And Ares dying from a redirected lightening bolt :rolleyes:. He who defeated all the gods, including Zeus. Riiiiight.

Surprising 90's level CGI in places (did they not review their own film before releasing?)

The above is nitpicking.

But, have I mentioned how gorgeous Gadot looked? And Chris Pine was solid.

8.5/10.

techdiver

iguana wrote: »

I was also left really confused as to why WW turned her back on humanity after the climax of the movie was her seeing the potential for greatness in people. It made no sense.

The quote from BvS was - "A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind — from a century of horrors. Man made a world where standing together is impossible."

Now my impression from it was that WW1 was not the reason she walked away. My take on it was that despite the fact that Ares was defeated and WW1 ended, mankind still spent the next century knocking 7 colours of ****e out of each other.

The line may have been clumsy but I think that was where the tie in comes in.

She is right. We are an unsavable race in many ways and no matter what hero comes along we will **** it up down the line.

The turning point was the arrival of Doomsday which signalled an escalation of the threat. Mankind despite their wars are unlikely to completely wipe their own race out but beings from another planet could.

Just my take on it.

Tony EH

If Wonder Woman fucked up the WWI nazis in spectacular fashion, how come nobody knew about it in BvS? Or MoS for that matter. How can such a bizarre event be completely forgotten?

Surely such a monumental event would have been known about?

Avatar MIA

Tony EH wrote: »

If Wonder Woman fucked up the WWI nazis in spectacular fashion, how come nobody knew about it in BvS? Or MoS for that matter. How can such a bizarre event be completely forgotten?

Surely such a monumental event would have been known about?

Don't you think it's time you actually saw the movie

Tony EH

Not yet.