Sign in to follow this  
Jay

DC Cinematic Universe Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 There are worse movies to copy than the original Superman.

 

I think it's time movies stopped doing that and strive for a little more originality. 

 

Wonder Woman is actually a hybrid between Superman The Movie and Raiders Of The Lost Ark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That tells me you missed the Indiana Jones elements and feel, even though they were obvious. Thor and Captain America are not original enough to be the mould for Wonder Woman. They are the already copies of copies. You have to go back to the prototypes, the ones that inspired Jenkins. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

No. It's a hybrid between Superman, Thor and Captain America.

Fish out of water scenario:

Superman: An alien from another world must learn the ways of the native people in order to protect them from an unseen danger or villain.

Thor: An alien from another world/dimension must learn the ways of the native people in order to protect them from an unseen danger or villain.

Captain America: An alie... A skinny guy given superpowers must learn the ways of the U.S. military to fight a war and a villain.

Wonder Woman: An Amazonian woman must learn the ways of the native people in order to protect them from an unseen danger or villain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A god-like superhero (Superman/Thor/Wonder Woman/Indiana Jones according to Cremers) is forced to leave his homeworld (Krypton/Asgard/Themyscira/Marshall College according to Cremers) for Earth, where he/she will take part in the Great War (World War I for Wonder Woman/World War II for Captain America/pre-World War II for Indiana Jones according to Cremers). The hero will have mighty magical weapons at his/her disposal ot help him/her in his/her quest (Mjolnir/The Vibranium Shield/The Lasso of Truth and the God-Killer/The whip according to Cremers). During the hero's journey, he/she'll have to face a world he/she's unfamiliar with, leading to some funny moments (Thor in New-Mexico/Wonder Woman in London/Indiana Jones in Cairo according to Cremers). And of course, at the end of the film, a guy named Steve (Steve Rogers/Steve Trevor/Indiana Jones according to Cremers) has to sacrifice himself by flying a plane that contains a destructive device far away.

 

THE END.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't mind a movie being unoriginal if I'm digging the characters, the tone, the visuals, etc.  I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: plot is one of the less essential aspects of what can make a movie enjoyable to me.  Character/performance is always first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Wonder Woman gets right are not easy things to get right, in my opinion.  You either respond to the characters/story or you don't.  If someone made a new adaptation of  A Christmas Carol, I don't dismiss it for being unoriginal or not needing another adaptation.  It's either good or it's not.  I thought Gadot and Pine popped off the screen.  Real movie star performances I really enjoyed.

 

Anyway, we all know you'd be railing against whatever's popular at the moment, no matter what it is, for whatever reasons you can find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Sexism, probably

2. Racism, I'm sure

3. Ablism, definitely

4. Homophobia, yup

5. Ageism, uh-huh

 

And I dunno, other isms?  I just read the FSM editorial that raked Detroit across the coals because Kathryn Bigelow is white and therefore shouldn't tell stories about black people.  What a world.

 

And I'm usually considered a bleeding heart liberal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

And I'm usually considered a bleeding heart liberal!

 

The American left have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At least the new generation has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

The American left have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At least the new generation has.

 

I agree with most of their aims.  More opportunities for female composers, more opportunities for black filmmakers, etc.  These would be great, necessary things, but I don't agree, for instance, that a white director shouldn't tell stories about black people as a principle.  If directors only ever told stories about people just like them, how boring would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 If directors only ever told stories about people just like them, how boring would that be?

 

Honestly this has been the usual as a rule.

 

The root of any problem here, as usual, has a lot more to do with who gets to write scripts and direct movies and who gets to do projects that they really want to do, instead of characters being this-or-that. And the audiovisual medium tends to be really shitty about this.

 

I mean Gen Urobuchi wrote one of my favourite things about miserable time-travelling lesbians, and he's a dude, and so was the director, and it was awesome anyways. And there was no problem there. (They also had women as character designer and composer, though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

They just want white people and men to be shamed for existing.

 

Shame and fear of shame are necessary for society to function, so to defensively react by swinging too far into lack of shame and pride in that lack, what I see as the Breitbart/alt-right types, is just to be a pointless, pathetic troll.  It's not like people from minority groups don't have legitimate complaints and they're understandably passionate about them.  The people who really annoy me are the white people who performatively take on the plights of these groups just because they enjoy publicly shaming other people.  You don't change anyone's mind by public shaming.  You don't convince them to be in favor of issues that affect you by publicly shaming them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Just like when we say you should be ashamed of liking Bridge Of Spies?

 

It takes a huge amount of self-control for me to remember that it's just a movie I like!  If you keep at it, though, I'll eventually declare it the pinnacle achievement of life on Earth, what life has been building toward since the first amino acids self-replicated in the primordial ooze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been completely unable to watch it so far. Like with Lincoln. Now I see all this about Ready Player One (ugh) and The Post and Edgardo Whatever and I feel even more bored with the guy's project choices

 

Remember Moctezuma? sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Has any director had as dramatic a pivot as Miller going from Happy Feet 2 to Mad Max: Fury Road?  Talk about whiplash...

 

Victor Fleming directed The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind - in one year. :o

 

Also Speilberg directed Jurassic Park and Schindler's List - in one year. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

Also Speilberg directed Jurassic Park and Schindler's List - in one year. :o

 

This definitely comes closest.  But still, animated movie about dancing penguins to post-apocalyptic allegory about the patriarchy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brónach said:

I like late-period George Mill*is dragged away from the discussion*

 

He's barely done anything in the last 20 years.  Just penguins and Mad Max movies.

 

3 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

And Wes Craven went from Scream 2 to.... Music of the Heart? :o

 

And then immediately made Scream 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  3 or 4 people around here will say "meh" though.  I think whatever humanity was in that film is what she brought.  Hopefully she'll be able to say "no" to the 3rd act boss fight for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally saw Wonder Woman last night.

 

I enjoyed it well enough, but I have to say, after all the hype, I was a little underwhelmed.  It was above average in terms of a comic book movie, and entertaining enough in terms of what those movies are supposed to deliver. But not much beyond that. It was pretty much a by the numbers comic book origin movie.  It's a bit tonally uneven, and I think the middle is probably the best part of the film.  It's bookended by pretty generic stuff however.  It most reminded me of a cross between Captain America and Thor (though it's better than either one of those origin films).  Chris Pine is servicable but not much more than that.  I did like that he got to do a little espionage (he is supposed to be a spy after all) in the party scene when he's talking to the poison gas woman. But the romance was completely unnecessary and almost counter productive. And a lot of the characters just didn't work, especially the oddly out of place Native American character. WTF was that supposed to be about? In fact they should have mostly just stuck to Pine and Gadot...the rest of the "team" was superfluous.  Especially since there's no chance we'll ever be seeing any of them again.  The Amazon island was cool I guess, but the CGI wasn't that good in those scenes.  I did like that Thewlis was cast against type, and while his character was largely wasted, I thought it worked well enough.  It did seem odd they'd kill of a god in that way, I thought for sure they'd want to save Ares as a big baddie for a future movie. 

 

I do like the look of the film (I generally prefer the look of the DCU to the MCU), and it must be said that Gal Gadot is distractingly gorgeous, and is quite possibly the most attractive woman on the planet. She also has nice, natural charisma. I can't decide yet how good of an actress she is.  She nailed the alternating innocent babe in the woods/fierce warrior thing quite well, but in other parts I was a little unsure of her delivery. It's hard to make someone who looks like that seem vulnerable and strong at the same time, so I give both Gadot and Jenkins credit for pulling that off. So all that said, I think she's a fantastic Wonder Woman and I think she'll get even better in the role. Gadot is far and away the best part of this film. Wonder Woman is an interesting hero, and I liked that way she was handled here. So there's a lot of good things to say about the film.

 

But I just just expecting more, and I can only conclude that all the glowing reviews and cultural hoopla was in part at least a reflection of the gender issues that went along with it. And along those lines, I have to say...I don't really get it. It's not like there haven't been LOTS of genre films featuring and centred around strong women, this is hardly the first (though you wouldn't know it from the press).  It's like how Discovery is being praised for it's "ground breaking" diversity and allegorically engaging in current political and social issues. I saw another article how Discovery is going to be the first Star Trek series that really tackles war (as if DS9 didn't exist).  And of course all those things have been done by Trek before, and well.

 

Back to the "strong woman" thing though...yeah, I guess she's role model for young girls, the same way Thor is supposed to be a role model for young boys? So sure, now little girls can aspire to be an unattainable god the same way little boys do...with all the concomitant disappointment that later comes along with that (as if discovering that you're not actually a princess wasn't enough). I Just think that aspect of it has been way played up.  And a lot of the comments on Facebook and Twitter..e.g. "FINALLY a strong woman in a genre film"  and "It's a feminist masterpiece" have been downright embarrassing.  

 

So a good enough movie to be sure, but a far cry from what social media has been saying about it. It's neither that great or that important. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I like it less and less the more I think about it. It just works a bit better than the other DC movies

 

"role models" are a tricky thing if you want to have cool or intelligent characters. Doing it on purpose can be distracting. It's similar with the idea of representation, where you can't actually calculate what people are going to be identified with or relate to, or what do they wish to see specifically, which varies from person to person.

 

The most interesting thing going with this character is her naivety. I liked that. The romance with the guy not so much. 

 

Otherwise, the movie is extremely shy about everything, from the Greek mythology to Lesbian Island to the native American (blackfoot?) character to actually having cool villains... it's only a bit on the "war is ugly" thing, but not that much either Because The Warrior Amazons Are Cool. The shyness in it is underwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

I didn't care for them. Just watch it again and you'll know what I mean. 

 

Isn't this a bit like taking a bite of cake then saying "Oh, this is awful...here, taste it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Isn't this a bit like taking a bite of cake then saying "Oh, this is awful...here, taste it!"

 

You never know people might say: "Hmm, it's not so bad. In fact, do you have some more cake?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone suddenly hate Batman Forever? I see some serious revisionist history at work here. It was the biggest movie in 1995. It was never a great movie, but as funny book movies go, the general consensus was that Forever was decent and Batman & Robin was bad. Not both. While Batman & Robin's awfulness is exaggerated and it's actually very entertaining as a 90s take on the 60s and 70s era Batman, it was considered bad upon release. Batman Forever was not. Just admit you like it. We'll give it a few more years as with the Burton movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I'm a huge fan of Batman Forever (it's OK). But you're definitely right that there's a lot of revisionist history when it comes to this film. It was very popular and well liked when it was released. Val Kilmer got good notices for his portrayal and in general there was praise for the light tone and comedy of the film.

 

I think it just suffers from association with the dreadful film that followed it....which in fact does deserve every bit of criticism it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one where Batman walks out of a massive inferno (while Goldenthal repeats his "people on fire" music from Interview with the Vampire) and Tommy Lee Jones yells "Why can't you just DIE?!" It's one of his coolest moments. That's one thing I didn't like about the Nolan movies. Batman was never cool and you would never, ever want to be him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you call "revisionist history" could just be something seeming cool in the mid 1990s and aging poorly.

 

i thought it was just OK at the time, and remained just OK the last time I watched it - which admittedly was some years ago.  The score is great though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this