DC Extended Universe THREAD

[YoungJRNYfan]

Sorry all you fappers, Justice League looks tres lame. It would have been smart to do a Legion of Doom movie. You could have had Clint Howard, Ron's brother, as Mister Mxyzptlk.

Saw the trailer for JL...great effects, lame plot.

[Monker]

DC deserves the critique for releasing an MOS, and two movies in a row that sucked in BvS and SS. THAT is why there is so much fan critique. Put out consistantly quality movies like Marvel does and things will change. Even the WORST of Marvel, IM2, for example, does not come close to the crap that BvS and SS represent.

Elmaybe throwing down the hammer on the smear DCEU campaign and how it exists with bloggers:



It's not discrete anymore than it is obvious nowadays, though.

[Monker]

Then go throw your money at Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and watch a bunch of stereotypes wash-and-wax the usual tropes and square off against a talking mudball.

Wonder Woman is going to be about as stereotypical as it can get for a hero origin story. Just from the previews I can see it has a "special birth" (IE: daughter of a god...kinda like Star-Lord), special gifts in her lasso and bracelets...it even has the special quest for her sword and shield of the gods. She has a call to adventure to save the world. She leaves an Amazon princess and at the end she is Wonder Woman. It is VERY MUCH the typical hero origin story.

But, of course, you will praise it as some type of unique thing and the big comeback for the DC universe....even though the very critiques you throw at Marvel are ALL OVER Wonder Woman. Even the silly humor (the sword doesn't go with the outfit) and such. It will get a huge thumbs up simply because it IS DC and the hypocrisy you dish out will continue.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Wonder Woman opens up with a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. Good job, Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot, especially after Gal took an unnecessary beating when cast as Diana. Petty, know it all, fuckface fans were wrong AGAIN, especially those timid males who still lived in their moms basement when they got mad that Gals boobs weren't big enough. Zack deserves credit for casting her. Happy for Gal. She's a sweet woman.

Wonder Woman
Critics Consensus: Thrilling, earnest, and buoyed by Gal Gadot's charismatic performance, Wonder Woman succeeds in spectacular fashion.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wonder_woman_2017

[Abitaman]

Wonder Woman is going to be about as stereotypical as it can get for a hero origin story. Just from the previews I can see it has a "special birth" (IE: daughter of a god...kinda like Star-Lord), special gifts in her lasso and bracelets...it even has the special quest for her sword and shield of the gods. She has a call to adventure to save the world. She leaves an Amazon princess and at the end she is Wonder Woman. It is VERY MUCH the typical hero origin story.

Maybe so, but that is her origin story, pretty much like most heroes.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Don't mind Monker, Abitaman. He's just being jealous, triggered, insecure and shill-like over that movie built for 12 year old children who talks about taking dukies in the toilet because it's...you know..hilarious. Nothing to see here

[YoungJRNYfan]

[YoungJRNYfan]

[verslibre]

Star-Lord: created in 1975 (debuted in 1976).

Wonder Woman: created in 1941. ...and everyone knows it, while nobody knows when Star-Lord was created, nor do they seem to give a toss.

Wonder Woman has a "typical" origin story? That's okay, because she was created before all of the characters currently appearing in CBMs by Sony, Fox and Marvel Studios, with the exception of Captain America (1940). The Human Torch of the FF is not the original Torch from the 40s, who was an android. (Johnny Storm, the modern Torch, first appeared in 1961 with the rest of the team.)

Maybe Wonder Woman's origin is the atypical one, and all the Marvel characters' are typical?

Diana brings Steve Trevor back to the world of men after he crash-landed on Paradise Island (aka Themyscira)? That's Golden Age WW. The biggest change is the time setting, from WWII to WWI.

Silver Age WW emphasized Diana's mythological background. When George Pérez revamped the character (and his revamp is what you'll see a lot of in the film), he added even more mythological elements.

Then go throw your money at Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and watch a bunch of stereotypes wash-and-wax the usual tropes and square off against a talking mudball.

Wonder Woman is going to be about as stereotypical as it can get for a hero origin story. Just from the previews I can see it has a "special birth" (IE: daughter of a god...kinda like Star-Lord), special gifts in her lasso and bracelets...it even has the special quest for her sword and shield of the gods. She has a call to adventure to save the world. She leaves an Amazon princess and at the end she is Wonder Woman. It is VERY MUCH the typical hero origin story.

But, of course, you will praise it as some type of unique thing and the big comeback for the DC universe....even though the very critiques you throw at Marvel are ALL OVER Wonder Woman. Even the silly humor (the sword doesn't go with the outfit) and such. It will get a huge thumbs up simply because it IS DC and the hypocrisy you dish out will continue.

^That's a load of crap. In my last response to you about GOTG2 (which you didn't reply to), I think I made it pretty clear why I don't like the movie.

I hear WW doesn't have nearly as much humor as people think it might (same for Justice League). Whatever humor it has won't be forced, unlike Marvel-style jokes. "Got any tape?"

[verslibre]

DC deserves the critique for releasing an MOS, and two movies in a row that sucked in BvS and SS. THAT is why there is so much fan critique. Put out consistantly quality movies like Marvel does and things will change. Even the WORST of Marvel, IM2, for example, does not come close to the crap that BvS and SS represent.

The "worst" of Marvel was Thor: The Dark World...but now it's GOTG2. All calories, no nutrition. All design, no substance. All schlock, no integrity. One in-your-face joke after another. One hammy gesture after another. There's less there to invest your mind in than a game of Connect Four. Even the death at the end is empty, a riff on the Bruce Willis-Ben Affleck sacrifice at the end of Armageddon.

If you really think stuff like IM2/Thor 2/GOTG 2 is so much better than BvS, it makes me wonder if you actually watched these movie. Or you can just admit Kevin Feige keeps forcing the writers to recycle the same approach over and over (which handily explains why Stephen Strange barely evaded being the Doctor In Name Only).

[Monker]

Star-Lord: created in 1975 (debuted in 1976).

Wonder Woman: created in 1941. ...and everyone knows it, while nobody knows when Star-Lord was created, nor do they seem to give a toss.

Star Lord was created in 1998 when Farscape was created and Ben Browder played the character as John Crichton.

Wonder Woman has a "typical" origin story? That's okay, because she was created before all of the characters currently appearing in CBMs by Sony, Fox and Marvel Studios, with the exception of Captain America (1940). The Human Torch of the FF is not the original Torch from the 40s, who was an android. (Johnny Storm, the modern Torch, first appeared in 1961 with the rest of the team.)

Nobody cares. This is the movies, not the comics.

As far as stories go, WW essentially steals much of it from th e Greek god demi-god stories, such as Perseus. Combined with a bit of King Arthur. This WW story has been told a million times.

Maybe Wonder Woman's origin is the atypical one, and all the Marvel characters' are typical?

As I have said, many time, ALL of the great hero stories are really the same story told many times over. The ones that deviiat from that Heroes Journey are the ones that suck, or are lacking in one way or other.

The bottom lines is, the CRITIQUE you lay down on Marvel stories is the very reason you will LIKE WW. But, you will NEVER ADMIT IT. Ever.

Diana brings Steve Trevor back to the world of men after he crash-landed on Paradise Island (aka Themyscira)? That's Golden Age WW. The biggest change is the time setting, from WWII to WWI.

I'm sure they don't want to make it too easy to compare her origin to Captain America's.

^That's a load of crap. In my last response to you about GOTG2 (which you didn't reply to), I think I made it pretty clear why I don't like the movie.

Yeah, no reason to argue when you are so far off the mark that you sound super jealous and silly.

I hear WW doesn't have nearly as much humor as people think it might (same for Justice League). Whatever humor it has won't be forced, unlike Marvel-style jokes. "Got any tape?"

[/quote]

Oh, please seeing the entire "sword " and "outfit" joke again, just made me roll my eyes....it's just not funny...and is EXACTLY the type of humor you critique Marvel for....and EXACTLY what you two said DC would never do. You must hate defending this and know how you sound.

[Monker]

The "worst" of Marvel was Thor: The Dark World...but now it's GOTG2. All calories, no nutrition. All design, no substance. All schlock, no integrity. One in-your-face joke after another. One hammy gesture after another. There's less there to invest your mind in than a game of Connect Four. Even the death at the end is empty, a riff on the Bruce Willis-Ben Affleck sacrifice at the end of Armageddon.

That is flat out not true and is just your incredibly biased opinion.

I saw it again last weekend and the end scenes effected a lot of people...it left it's mark.
You saying it is all "schlock, no integrity" is also not true. There was a ton of character development. Especially with Drax (with the help of Mantis), Gamora/Nebula...and Star Lord being forced to make a complete break from his past. And, of course, the Guardians becoming more of a family.

Now, you are dismisive of all of that, and that is your right. But, there are many, many people who are more deeply involved with these characters now because of Vol 2. GotG is now a franchise with as much popularity as Avengers and possibly Justice League (depending on if it sucks or not).

If you really think stuff like IM2/Thor 2/GOTG 2 is so much better than BvS, it makes me wonder if you actually watched these movie. Or you can just admit Kevin Feige keeps forcing the writers to recycle the same approach over and over (which handily explains why Stephen Strange barely evaded being the Doctor In Name Only).

It is statements like this that make you sound so jealous. Marvel knows how to make good movies. They make them over and over again - and people LOVE THEM FOR IT.

Yes, Thor 2, IM2, GotG 1&2 are far and away better movies that BvS or SS.

And, Thor 3...I do think JL is going to have a contender in Thor 3. I'm sure you are not going to like that and will dispute that, too. But, the Thor 3 trailer was a huge surprise when it was released. Everything from Led Zeppelin to Hulk, and the joke that I'm sure you hate. It was awesome. At the very least, JL will be splitting the gross with Thor 3, JL will not kill it.

[Monker]

Wonder Woman is going to be about as stereotypical as it can get for a hero origin story. Just from the previews I can see it has a "special birth" (IE: daughter of a god...kinda like Star-Lord), special gifts in her lasso and bracelets...it even has the special quest for her sword and shield of the gods. She has a call to adventure to save the world. She leaves an Amazon princess and at the end she is Wonder Woman. It is VERY MUCH the typical hero origin story.

Maybe so, but that is her origin story, pretty much like most heroes.

Exactly my point....like ALL other heroes.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Nobody cares. This is the movies, not the comics.

You've said this many times before when you are challenged and seem to discredit one or the other like somehow they are foreign to each other when they really aren't. I think it's starting to bother you that DC is about to find their groove while realizing these larger than life characters will survive when it is so obvious you want them to fail. Marvel continues to water down the essence of their own superhero library by regurgitating the same thing over and over again and you're taking it out on irrelevant ramblings about Wonder Woman's origin. You're getting quite defensive (especially over GoTG2) over this stuff more and more simply because you know Marvel is making the same stale movies to the point where you're getting annoyed by actually needing to defend something so successful. Deep down, you know GoTG2 is one big wasted pun of a movie. But hey, droves and droves of 12 year olds like it.

As far as stories go, WW essentially steals much of it from the Greek god demi-god stories, such as Perseus. Combined with a bit of King Arthur. This WW story has been told a million times.

Dis-credit, dis-credit, dis-credit. It's now pathetic.

The bottom lines is, the CRITIQUE you lay down on Marvel stories is the very reason you will LIKE WW. But, you will NEVER ADMIT IT. Ever.

No matter how bad you want it that way, it just isn't. I don't know if you watch these films or not because your hand has been caught in the Wikipedia jar before by maintaining your knowledge of dominance by reading nothing but reviews and masquerading what you read as some kind of superior knowledge so if you're going to do the latter with Wonder Woman, pay attention because the critics (Wonder Woman sits at 97% on RT) are saying that Wonder Woman is a fresh super-heroine movie (something Marvel has been scared of) that separates itself from the formulaic ho-hum drum of the brainwashing play-it-safe conveyor belt of the MCU. Wonder Woman's application is different, welcomed and fresh. Something the DCEU can ride the wave of.

I'm sure they don't want to make it too easy to compare her origin to Captain America's.

Stop acting like these characters were thought up in 2008. They weren't.

Yeah, no reason to argue when you are so far off the mark that you sound super jealous and silly.

The pot is extra negro tonight.

Oh, please seeing the entire "sword " and "outfit" joke again, just made me roll my eyes....it's just not funny...and is EXACTLY the type of humor you critique Marvel for....and EXACTLY what you two said DC would never do. You must hate defending this and know how you sound.

The pot is extra, extra negro tonight considering you flew off the handle the moment somebody had something bad to say about GoTG2 to the point where you need to bash the DCEU to counteract how bad your feelings are hurt over it. I said it over and over and over again. Humor is good. There was humor in BvS that I got a kick out of. But DC will never go overboard and use it like an 1990 MTV Pop-Up Video like the MCU does. In fact, here's what a top critic said about the humor in Wonder Woman: "It has a considerable amount of humor, which may not cause you to laugh out loud but sometimes triggers a smile. If it's possible to describe a superhero film as likeable, this is that film." Does that sound like a MCU-type of humor? I don't think so.

Exactly my point....like ALL other heroes.

These hero's are comic book hero's and these movies are about the same comic book hero's we are speaking of, something you very often belittle as if the two (comic book characters/movies) are separate things (see the first quote; quoted in this reply). You have no point, suckah.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Rick from Batman on Film:

[YoungJRNYfan]

LORDY. I had Wonder Woman at $106 OW a couple weeks ago. This thing could be MASSIVE. I always did say wonder what a DCEU film could do with good reviews. Wondy is SLAYING it sitting at 97% on RT, which could boost the BO immensely:

WONDER WOMAN Could Now Be Looking At A $175 Million-Plus Opening Weekend At The Global Box Office
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/wonder_w ... ce-a151482

[verslibre]

Rick from Batman on Film:

Justice League is going to kick ass. MUCHO ass!!!!!!

[Abitaman]

Here is a review I just finished reading on WW. Seems like he liked it!

Capone reviews and rejoices at the arrival of WOMAN WOMAN!!!
Published at: May 31, 2017, 12:40 a.m. CST by Capone
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

We could tell even from her abbreviated appearance in BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAW OF JUSTICE that Wonder Woman was going to be a major player in the DC cinematic universe specifically and the superhero oeuvre in general. As portrayed in that film and now her own movie by Israeli-born actor and former model Gail Gadot, Wonder Woman was the strongest and smartest (and an argument could be made, the most powerful) person in any room but she never had to act like she was. Her lifetime of training in battle and weaponry made her fight with surgical precision in a world filled with other superheroes exercising the subtlety of a wrecking ball.

As excited as I and many others are that this film even exists, none of that means much if the movie is no good. And I’m pleased to say that WONDER WOMAN is easily the best of the recent crop of films based on DC comics characters, and not just because it features a female lead. Judged on equal footing as all other superhero films, as it and all movies should be, this is a terrific action film, a sly take on gender politics of the early 1900s, and a wonderfully crafted antiwar picture, the latter of which I absolutely was not expecting.

It might actually be criminal that director Patty Jenkins hasn’t helmed a feature since her 2003 award-winning MONSTER (although her pilot for the great series “The Killing” is well worth seeking out), so for any studio to take a chance on her might seem like going out on a limb, when in fact, it’s not. Jenkins is a proven talent who knows how to pull performances out of her actors that reveal more about them as characters than likely anything in the screenplay. Witten by Allan Heinberg, Wonder Woman is a full-on origin story—not just a telling of how the Amazonian Diana made it off the hidden island of Themyscira and into the “world of men,” but also the story of how Diana as a young girl grew up to become the all-powerful warrior of her people, long before she ever set eyes on a male of the species.

Themyscira as a setting is a great way to kick off the film, a natural paradise that weaves Greek mythology with comic book lore—Diana was apparently molded from clay by her mother Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), with Zeus bringing her to life. The Queen attempted to protect Diana from the ways of fighting, but the Amazons top general, Antiope (Robin Wright), felt that teaching her to become the greatest fighter was the only way to prepare her for a destiny that is kept secret from us for most of the film. One of the nice touches WONDER WOMAN has is making the entire population of Themyscira have accents that match Gadot’s heavy Israeli accent, rather than going the usual route of having everyone sound British or American.

When an American spy working for the British military ends up crashing his World War I-era plane on the shore of Themyscira, Diana rescues him and opens up the flood gates of the modern world. Chris Pine plays Steve Trevor, whose mission is to find the location of German Gen. Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and his resident scientist/expert in deadly gas, Maru (the unrecognizable Spanish actress Elena Anaya of THE SKIN I LIVE IN), who has been nicknamed Dr. Poison by friends and enemies alike.

The first big battle sequence of the film is between the Amazonians and a battleship of Germans chasing Trevor. It’s the first time, the sword-wielding, spear-throwing, bow-and-arrowing Amazons have fought against bullets, and it’s a devastating awakening. It’s also the first time we get a sense that WONDER WOMAN isn’t simply an action film, as it never misses a chance to shine a light on the horrors of war. Although it carries a PG-13 rating, this film features a shockingly high body count, and it’s clear that Jenkins never wants us to forget how ugly war always is.

Without much convincing, Diana accompanies Trevor to London (which she deems “hideous”), where he meets with his assistant, Etta Candy (Lucy Davis) and his superior, one Sir Patrick (David Thewlis), who secretly tells Trevor to continue his mission to find Dr. Poison, even though the military higher-ups have told him to stop while a delicate peace treaty is being ironed out. Diana’s personal mission is a bit different. She’s convinced that this war is the result of the god of war, Ares, returning to earth to wreak havoc. Her theory is that if she can kill Ares with her special god-killing sword, the war will end immediately, and she feels certain that Gen. Ludendorff is Ares is human form, which is bad news for him.

Trevor gather a team of outcasts (naturally) to accompany him on his mission, including folks played by Ewan Bremner, Saïd Taghmaoui, and Eugene Brave Rock, each having a set of skills useful in getting into Germany and assassinating Ludendorff and Maru. In case you’re wondering, it’s well over an hour into WONDER WOMAN (maybe even about the halfway point) until we see Diana in her familiar full regalia—sword, shield, wristbands, even golden lasso, which doesn’t actually compel someone to tell the truth as much as it punishes them for lying. But that first time you see her march alone across a No Man’s Land (get it?) battlefield that Brits and Germans have been fighting over for a year, it will likely take your breath away.

The truth is Gal Gadot makes playing Wonder Woman appear both difficult and easy. Diana is meant to be one of the planet’s great beauties, and Gadot ticks that box quite effectively, but when she enters into battle, the men around her literally can’t contemplate what they’re seeing, including Trevor, even though he knows exactly where she comes from and what she is. It’s like they’re seeing a UFO for the first time or a species for which there is no visual frame of reference to identify. The idea that a half-naked woman can end a year-long battle in a matter of minutes is something their minds simply cannot comprehend, and capturing that reality is one of the best things about this movie.

The world of the 1910s was one in which women were effectively seen as less than fully human, so having Diana blow up in a meeting of Parliament (or even be in the room at all) was seen as shocking, bordering on offensive. But she sees the world in a much more black-and-white way than everyone else. She is about saving innocents from the horrors and certain death of what is to come, which is the only reason she’s willing to fight alongside Trevor and his group. In many ways, she’s too good and naive for this world, and while she never seems in any real danger of being killed, it’s her spirit and innocence that are certain to be casualties of war. Diana sees herself as the protector of those who can’t protect themselves, and while that is certainly a noble mindset, it’s destined to lead her down a path to pain and disappointment.

At some point during WONDER WOMAN, Trevor actually forbids our heroine from doing something, to which she replies “What I do is not up to you.” It’s such a short, simple statenebt, but it’s one that fuels the entire movie and drives everything that happens. Diana is one of the only women on the planet who hasn’t grown up being told what to do or not to do by men. Forget all of the other things John Lennon sings about in “Imagine”—imagine THAT world. Watching this film made my mind jump to the Diana Prince we met in DAWN OF JUSTICE, who has just spent the previous 100 years learning what it’s like to be a woman in a world run by men—sublimated, treated as less than, looked at as an object.

WONDER WOMAN is a film so good and thorough in building its title character that it actually makes you think about the world through Diana’s eyes after this story ends. And it might make you weep a bit, for her and for history. I haven’t thought this much about a superhero’s place in history since the first CAPTAIN AMERICA movie, but even with him, I didn’t think much past how tough it must be for him to understand a cell phone. Cap was lucky; he got to sleep for decades and didn’t have to see the world or his country fall apart in bits and pieces. Wonder Woman was wide awake for all of the 20th century, and I hope that future installments of her solo films jump back and show us her adventures during World War II, the 1960s, the Reagan years, etc. I want to watch as the times try to break Diana down and she emerges victorious.

-- Steve Prokopy

[verslibre]

^I'm watching it tomorrow night, so I'm not reading any reviews. I know more than enough about the movie. It sounds like a slam dunk!

Also check out Mark Hughes' review on Forbes. Just read the first few paragraphs and the last one. He might talk about stuff in-between you don't want to know.

[RedWingFan]

Even the death at the end is empty, a riff on the Bruce Willis-Ben Affleck sacrifice at the end of Armageddon.

At least the dude is going to stay dead. Unlike the lame attempt at pulling the heartstrings of filmgoers in BvS by pretending to kill Superman after 1 film and a cameo in BvS. (Fun fact: Spiderman/Peter Parker had more lines in Civil War than Superman/Kent had in BvS)

Hilarious that nobody fucking cared when Superman "died". Pisses me off that movie sucked so bad.

[YoungJRNYfan]

At least the dude is going to stay dead. Unlike the lame attempt at pulling the heartstrings of filmgoers in BvS by pretending to kill Superman after 1 film and a cameo in BvS.

Superman's death is canon and was always going to happen. It has major mythological undertones that dated back to Man of Steel. His death has biblical consequences attached (personally, I'm glad it happened this early to get it out of the way so we don't have to wait for it in the back of our mind's and have the inevitable storyline weigh things down in future installments.) Snyder's Superman and most interpretations of Superman in general represent him as Christ-like. In Man of Steel, he was betrayed by the people of Earth but is looked up to by their modern savior. He was betrayed again where death was prominent in BvS and on the third day or in this case, Superman's third appearance in Justice League, he will rise again. It's all there. The death of Superman is meant to represent a rebirth of the superhero, not necessarily death as we know it. That's where the deconstruction comes into play. It has much more meaning that has yet to be played out. Superman's death was supposed to be short-lived since Justice League is the next setting in the Snyder trilogy and you can't have Justice League without Superman. Things can't be empty if there's an ongoing story yet to be seen and meant to be a pillar for future films. But hey, atleast Kal's death was done respectfully and iconic (Bruce lowering Kal down to Diana was very well done and majestic) instead of using quips and giggles like that pathetic and horrific Quicksilver embarrassment. Now THAT shit is empty as fuck and serves absolutely no purpose. At all. Zilch...but it was funny.

Hilarious that nobody fucking cared when Superman "died"."

Maybe it was hilarious to you because Marvelites are programmed and brainwashed into taking death as comedy . Tell that to the online editorial sites that put out clickbaiting material where fanboys ask non-stop where Superman is at in the Justice League trailers and marketing where it gets quite entertaining. You can't deny the fact that films like Thor, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange and a handful of other Marvel films (and soon to be GoTG2) are already or will be off the map and forgotten about soon while lingering debates are raging on for BvS and even Man of Steel. Editorial bloggers already addressed the fact that DC brings in the most traffic for their clicks, which is the reason why so many rumors and cliclbaiters take full advantage. DC puts the food on their table and they know it.

Pisses me off that movie sucked so bad.

Stop. No it didn't. You hated the movie way before it came out and take pleasure in taking jabs. Good thing DC is dodging all the hata's. Since you're the Rotten Tomato junkie and with Wonder Woman sitting at 95% as a Certifiably Fresh film, go check it out at the theater and watch a good superhero flick featuring the most badass heroine the genre will ever see. Then you can thank it for the eventual Captain Marvel and inevitable Black Widow movie Marvel will follow suit with since we all know Marvel formulate's their slate around what DC is doing since Captain America 3 was turned into Civil War because of Batman v Superman (Feige and the Russo Brothers' words, not mine.) Though, that's if Marvel has big enough balls to give Scarlett Johansson her due but their history has proven they've come up short between the legs in that category so I'm not sure they can be trusted with that yet.

(Fun fact: Spiderman/Peter Parker had more lines in Civil War and will unfortunately have more lines in 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' because Tom Holland sounds like an out of breath, annoying, over-acted dweeb on speed and helium.)

Fixed.

[brywool]

Pisses me off that movie sucked so bad.

Stop. No it didn't.

While I know YoungJrnyFan is a huge DC fan, I also grew up with the DC comics stuff (preferred the art in DC). I'm not nearly as 'into it' as YJF is, but TO ME it was not a brilliant movie (at least the normal, un-extended version wasn't-There's no way I was going to pay 25.00 to rent the extended one) but I did watch the unextended version twice to make sure I didn't miss something. It went on and on and on and on. Just like Man of Steel. The fight sequences in both were so long that they got extremely boring. They did the same thing in one of the Avengers flicks (the one that came after MOS I think) and in one of the horrid Transformers movies (such great looking effects in those movies just driven into the ground by the long battle sequences and ridiculously bad writing and acting). I really wanted to like BvS because I'm such a Batgeek.

Other than the long, drawn out, and ultimately dull battle scenes in BvS, I ABSOLUTELY HATED (H-A-T-E-D) Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor. To my mind NO movie has gotten that character right. Gene Hackman, who I love, didn't get it right. Kevin Spacey, who is also 'the sh*t!' didn't get it right and Jesse Eisenberg was BY FAR the ABSOLUTE WORST. It was like he'd never read a Superman comic in his life. Luthor wasn't some babbling psycho ala The Joker or when Jim Carrey plays The Riddler. He was this evil genius and evil geniuses don't act as ridiculous as this guy. They come off pretty uber-normal. He was WAY too over the top trying to be some kind of cartoon character.

WHY IN THE HELL didn't they use the Smallville guy (Michael Rosenbaum) for this role?? HE is the ONLY one (to my mind) that has nailed that part. Never over the top. Never a caricature. Never unbelievable in the role. The guy NAILED Lex Luthor. Eisenberg was so absolutely distracting, grating, and just terrible that it just made the entire movie suck. Had they replaced him with Rosenbaum, it could've at least been something that you could come back to and watch a few times. I liken his portrayal to the ridiculousness of Superman III with Richard Pryor. Just didn't fit.

One other comment - These DC movies always try and cram SO MUCH into them. Take the Batman flicks (prior to the Bale ones): You'd have movies with two, three, or more different story lines or villains going on. Batman Returns with Penguin, Walken, and Catwoman and Christopher Walken... how many villains do you need? Totally took away from all of them (other than the Nicholson/Keaton one, which was brilliant). They ended up doing that a bit with the last Bale movie too. The more villains (and now with JL the more heroes) you have in a film, it just distracts.

I'll keep watching the DC flicks, but between all the Marvel and DC movies, it's getting just ridiculously dull. Haven't watched the last batch of Marvel movies, though I did sort of like Antman and Deadpool.

YoungJRNYFan- When did Aquaman start looking like a grunge rocker? I missed that whole rebirth I guess.I remember him in those great Mike Grell drawn comics and that are from soooo long ago. Now, the character looks like he should be dressed in plaid holding a Starbucks cup. If he has a manbun in JLA, I will loudly retch. You will probably hear it from wherever you are.
+

[verslibre]

Star-Lord: created in 1975 (debuted in 1976).

Wonder Woman: created in 1941. ...and everyone knows it, while nobody knows when Star-Lord was created, nor do they seem to give a toss.

Star Lord was created in 1998 when Farscape was created and Ben Browder played the character as John Crichton.

No, that's Gunn's inner fanboy taking over. Peter Quill aka Star-Lord was created by Steve Englehart 42 years ago. In 2008, Quill-In-Name-Only was introduced by Marvel. Gunn is simply doing QINO his own way.

Wonder Woman has a "typical" origin story? That's okay, because she was created before all of the characters currently appearing in CBMs by Sony, Fox and Marvel Studios, with the exception of Captain America (1940). The Human Torch of the FF is not the original Torch from the 40s, who was an android. (Johnny Storm, the modern Torch, first appeared in 1961 with the rest of the team.)

Nobody cares. This is the movies, not the comics.

Wrong. Proof? Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_Wonder_Woman
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Wonder-Woman/dp/0804173400
https://karcossa.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/wonder-woman-a-cultural-icon/
http://www.academia.edu/24892106/Wonder_Woman_Feminist_Icon_or_Patriarchal_Pawn
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nell-minow/wonder-woman-feminism-and_b_8199126.html
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news/in-news/wonder-womans-secret-history-and-surprising-lessons
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wonder-woman-robert-greenberger/1102955209?ean=9780789320353
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/01/wonder-woman-learning-to-love-the-comic-behind-the-icon/384160/

Plenty more out there. Have a looksee.

As far as stories go, WW essentially steals much of it from th e Greek god demi-god stories, such as Perseus. Combined with a bit of King Arthur. This WW story has been told a million times.

Sorry you find so much to whine about in her origin. Call a medium and hold a séance so you can bitch about it to William Moulton Marston. But before you do that, start tweeting George Lucas about ripping off tons of shit for his movies. And go tweet Joe Quesada about all the times Marvel tried to reinvent Batman, and couldn't (their best rip-off is Moon Knight, and I actually like him, but he's a 90% clone with a silver cloak).

...not to mention you're strokin' it so hard to the Guardians flicks because of Gunn's wholesale love for Farscape. Hmmm...

The bottom lines is, the CRITIQUE you lay down on Marvel stories is the very reason you will LIKE WW. But, you will NEVER ADMIT IT. Ever.

Which is what? The humor in the trailers? If it fits the context of the situation, it works. Shit like "Anyone got any tape?" for the sole purpose of manufacturing another cutesy bit doesn't work. It's stupid.

I'm sure they don't want to make it too easy to compare her origin to Captain America's.

Again, context. ALL the heroes who debuted in the late '30s-early '40s dealt with WWII themes in their books. All of them. From every publisher. For the MOVIE (because you keep saying the comics don't matter, except when you think they might support some flaccid argument you keep shaking at us), they changed it to WWI. Which I think is going to be a huge boon to the story. I'll let you know when I get back tonight!

Yeah, no reason to argue when you are so far off the mark that you sound super jealous and silly.

You're the one who sounds bent. Is it because most people agree GOTG2 is a big step down from the first movie, and Wonder Woman's enjoying a parade of two-thumbs-up reviews?

I hear WW doesn't have nearly as much humor as people think it might (same for Justice League). Whatever humor it has won't be forced, unlike Marvel-style jokes. "Got any tape?"

Oh, please seeing the entire "sword " and "outfit" joke again, just made me roll my eyes....it's just not funny...and is EXACTLY the type of humor you critique Marvel for....and EXACTLY what you two said DC would never do. You must hate defending this and know how you sound.

Let it go. Even my Marvel-centric buddy from high school, whose favorite title was Thor during Walt Simonson's epic revamp (which is being sloppily sourced for the movies) said "'I know him from work'...Thor never talked like that. That's movie bullshit."

[verslibre]

I saw it again last weekend and the end scenes effected a lot of people...it left it's mark.
You saying it is all "schlock, no integrity" is also not true. There was a ton of character development. Especially with Drax (with the help of Mantis), Gamora/Nebula...and Star Lord being forced to make a complete break from his past. And, of course, the Guardians becoming more of a family.

We already discussed this. I disagree. Drax bursting into fits of barfly laughter is not character development. Young Guns explored the family unification theme better. I wager, though the word itself is never explicitly used, the theme was better handled in The Warriors, for cryin' out loud. The death at the end was predictable and lifted from the end of Armageddon. But I know you loooved seeing Pac-Man!! Fist, meet Ham. Ham, this is Fist.

It is statements like this that make you sound so jealous. Marvel knows how to make good movies. They make them over and over again - and people LOVE THEM FOR IT.

They generate the same complacent fodder over and over. People are noticing. Logan and Wonder Woman look to possibly be the best-received CBMs of the year. Don't be surprised if they try to retool Ragnarok (which is still five months away) in some way. That's exactly what they did with Civil War (which even had a fresh scene shot only a month before its release). When people keep saying "I hope the next Star Wars movie isn't a redo of Empire," do you believe they're also thinking "I hope the next Marvel movie rolls out another expendable villain, predictable resolution, and 86 more jokes?"

Yes, Thor 2, IM2, GotG 1&2 are far and away better movies that BvS or SS.

Where have you been? Thor: TDW is generally regarded as Marvel's weakest film. Iron Man 2 was admittedly rushed to capitalize on the success of the first film, and it's very noticeable. BvS' Ultimate cut turned the opinions around of a LOT of critics of the theatrical cut. Suicide Squad is an engaging romp that finally brought Harley Quinn to the screen — not to mention it went on to collect nearly 750 million without the added advantage of opening in China. Word-of-mouth overpowered the critics. That's undeniable.

And, Thor 3...I do think JL is going to have a contender in Thor 3. I'm sure you are not going to like that and will dispute that, too. But, the Thor 3 trailer was a huge surprise when it was released. Everything from Led Zeppelin to Hulk, and the joke that I'm sure you hate. It was awesome. At the very least, JL will be splitting the gross with Thor 3, JL will not kill it.

Speculation. It's fun.

[verslibre]

(Fun fact: Spiderman/Peter Parker had more lines in Civil War than Superman/Kent had in BvS)

Geez, Louie. Tell us something new. This is getting old. Spider-Man had more lines during his time in Civil War than any other character. He's SUPPOSED to quip. He's SUPPOSED to full of snark. It's his character. (And I still don't like the new guy.)

The crap about Kal/Clark having fewer lines than a character in another movie nonsense. If he had NO lines, then maybe you'd have an argument.

If I were you, I'd complain about Stark having as much screen time as Roger, but you're too busy being complacent.

[verslibre]

While I know YoungJrnyFan is a huge DC fan, I also grew up with the DC comics stuff (preferred the art in DC).

I grew up with everything. I read DC, Marvel, Pacific, First, Warren (Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella, etc.), WaRP (Elfquest), and a bunch of other independents. Comics were my drugs of choice. I was there when Daredevil outsold (only temporarily) X-Men, when Frank Miller created Ronin and The Dark Knight Returns (followed by Year One in Batman), when Walt Simonson gave The Mighty Thor a facelift, when John Byrne revamped Superman (Man of Steel, and then the reboot), when George Pérez gave Wonder Woman the makeover she needed, and when Alan Moore concocted a new vision of the Swamp Thing paired with some of the best art to ever appear in comics to this day (the best of the reboots, arguably).

I'm not nearly as 'into it' as YJF is, but TO ME it was not a brilliant movie (at least the normal, un-extended version wasn't-There's no way I was going to pay 25.00 to rent the extended one) but I did watch the unextended version twice to make sure I didn't miss something. It went on and on and on and on. Just like Man of Steel. The fight sequences in both were so long that they got extremely boring. They did the same thing in one of the Avengers flicks (the one that came after MOS I think) and in one of the horrid Transformers movies (such great looking effects in those movies just driven into the ground by the long battle sequences and ridiculously bad writing and acting). I really wanted to like BvS because I'm such a Batgeek.

Bry, if you're a Batgeek like me, how did you not love the warehouse takedown? That action choreography was eyeball-popping! We'd never seen a Batman kick that kind of ass before. That's hands-down the best Bat-action scene in film history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pay $25 to rent," but you can buy the Ultimate Edition for less than that. And I think you should the UE a spin, because nearly everyone and their great granny agrees it's superior to the TC.

Other than the long, drawn out, and ultimately dull battle scenes in BvS, I ABSOLUTELY HATED (H-A-T-E-D) Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor. To my mind NO movie has gotten that character right. Gene Hackman, who I love, didn't get it right. Kevin Spacey, who is also 'the sh*t!' didn't get it right and Jesse Eisenberg was BY FAR the ABSOLUTE WORST. It was like he'd never read a Superman comic in his life. Luthor wasn't some babbling psycho ala The Joker or when Jim Carrey plays The Riddler. He was this evil genius and evil geniuses don't act as ridiculous as this guy. They come off pretty uber-normal. He was WAY too over the top trying to be some kind of cartoon character.

At this stage, I don't even think Superman Returns should be referenced. That movie is just a riff on '78-'80, with a big hunk o' green rock in lieu of an earthquake. Spacey was a poor man's Hackman-Luthor, and that's how he was directed. Kind of sad they spent all that money on what is essentially a tribute film.

WHY IN THE HELL didn't they use the Smallville guy (Michael Rosenbaum) for this role?? HE is the ONLY one (to my mind) that has nailed that part. Never over the top. Never a caricature. Never unbelievable in the role. The guy NAILED Lex Luthor. Eisenberg was so absolutely distracting, grating, and just terrible that it just made the entire movie suck. Had they replaced him with Rosenbaum, it could've at least been something that you could come back to and watch a few times. I liken his portrayal to the ridiculousness of Superman III with Richard Pryor. Just didn't fit.

The same reason they didn't use Bryan Cranston, amid much fan speculation: they never intended to. The DCEU stands apart. I still don't get the hate for Eisenberg. I thought the guy was meant to be a sinister, wretched, unhinged psycho. The guy demoralized an innocent woman, and then blew up an entire courtroom full of people to set up another hero (that's handled better in the Ultimate Edition, too). The guy's sick and twisted, but he's supposed to be.

One other comment - These DC movies always try and cram SO MUCH into them. Take the Batman flicks (prior to the Bale ones): You'd have movies with two, three, or more different story lines or villains going on. Batman Returns with Penguin, Walken, and Catwoman and Christopher Walken... how many villains do you need? Totally took away from all of them (other than the Nicholson/Keaton one, which was brilliant). They ended up doing that a bit with the last Bale movie too. The more villains (and now with JL the more heroes) you have in a film, it just distracts.

A CBM without multiple story arcs isn't too common nowadays. The Dark Knight Rises balanced its villains very well, IMO. Recent movies with too many characters: X-Men: Days of Future Past; X-Men: Apocalypse; and yes, Captain America: Civil War. They shoehorned Spider-Man into a film he didn't need to be a part of (which, in turn, makes Tony Stark look like even more of a dick, as Parker's presence spits in the face of an earlier point addressed in the film.) Black Panther stole every scene he was in, anyway. Widow and Hawkeye were nigh-useless (ScarJo phoned in her performance, too).

Justice League has its core team, and unlike the Avengers, each hero brings something, i.e. isn't useless. (Arrow isn't a part of the DCEU, either.)

I'll keep watching the DC flicks, but between all the Marvel and DC movies, it's getting just ridiculously dull. Haven't watched the last batch of Marvel movies, though I did sort of like Antman and Deadpool.

Logan > Deadpool (Ant-Man = poor man's Iron Man.)

YoungJRNYFan- When did Aquaman start looking like a grunge rocker? I missed that whole rebirth I guess.I remember him in those great Mike Grell drawn comics and that are from soooo long ago. Now, the character looks like he should be dressed in plaid holding a Starbucks cup. If he has a manbun in JLA, I will loudly retch. You will probably hear it from wherever you are.

Aquaman got long locks years ago..like 20! The movie's drawing from Peter David's run in the mid-'90s.

[brywool]

Yup! I'm an old guy from WAY back. I followed the Dark Knight stuff and the Superman death thing. But I missed the AM makeover I guess. When you say ARROW is not part of the DCEU- not sure I follow. He was a JLA guy, was he not? I was surprised to not see him in the new JLA stuff. The warehouse thing was okay and I was more referring to the fight at the end with Doomsday and the 3. It just went on sooooo long. The 25.00 comment was because I don't really buy movies anymore but rent them through pay per view. I DID buy the Bale Batmans though.

Anyway...

[verslibre]

[YoungJRNYfan]

Just like Man of Steel. The fight sequences in both were so long that they got extremely boring.

Cool to hear your input, brywool. I respect that! Though Man of Steel's third act was set up in a way that had destruction and action overload, Snyder made it a point to bring a character that originated from Action Comics and go balls to the walls in what Superman's Kryptonian equal would look like when going head to head (General Zod.) A Kryptonian one on one battle on Earth would be that exact outcome. Animation is highly popular and Snyder took a ton of inspiration from the animation battles (some scenes verbatim) and one's where fans screamed on the top of their lungs "THIS IS WHAT WE NEED IN A SUPERMAN MOVIE!11!!1!11". Snyder gave us just that. Remember the whine after Superman Returns about there being no action and Superman never throwing one punch? Those were the complaints in 2006. Snyder brought the goods and the comic canon with him. But just like the dialogue said in the film: "The world was not ready."

I will say though that the Man of Steel Smallville battle is one of my favorite battles to date. Go back and watch it. It's marvelous in every sense of the word and was choreographed beautifully. The third act battle with Zod was more out of control by design but that Smallville battle was all around badass and entertaining as all hell. If you haven't seen it in awhile, Man of Steel ages nicely and grows on most people.

I really wanted to like BvS because I'm such a Batgeek.

Bro, that Batman warehouse beatdown about brought a tear to my eye and I'm a Superman fan first through and through. Affleck's Batman is the brawler fans always wanted to see and that warehouse sequence couldn't have captured that more pitch perfect. I was giddy throughout the entire sequence. If you were bored during that warehouse scene and seeing a true Batman from the comics throw down like nobodies business, I am bummed for you Batman is going to be an interesting character in Justice League givin' his arc and circumstance but Bruce is in good hands with Matt Reeves for his next solo outing.

I ABSOLUTELY HATED (H-A-T-E-D) Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor.

Eisenberg's Luthor was an out of the box casting and one where I'm eager to see grow. His Lex was certainly over-acted in many scenes and I'd like to see Jesse tone it down a bit, but witnessing the mental breakdown and seeing Eisenberg turn it on, especially the scene with Senator Finch in his dad's office was kind of eerie and creepy, so he got the range. We need more of that Lex and I think we're going to see more of the Lex Luthor you want to see from the comics going forward.

To my mind NO movie has gotten that character right. Gene Hackman, who I love, didn't get it right. Kevin Spacey, who is also 'the sh*t!' didn't get it right

Hackman was from the time of the Silver Age quirky comic book era and Superman: The Movie was from an entirely different time period that allowed deviation from certain aspects of what made comic book characters, characters on the big screen, one's that were fresh and played loosely givin' the generation of the material. Kevin Spacey had potential, but anything attached to Superman Returns, which was a FAILED mockery that miserably mimicked a legendary classic, was destined to be dogshit.

He was this evil genius and evil geniuses don't act as ridiculous as this guy. They come off pretty uber-normal. He was WAY too over the top trying to be some kind of cartoon character.

Eisenberg's Lex is transformed within' the technological society that we live in, a direction that was ambitious for a younger Lex played by a completely out of the box actor who still has a chance to hone in on what is asked from this version, which is still being played out. There are traces of the classic Lex Luthor in his performance and his schizophrenic mind was unpredictable, cooky, over the top and creepy all wrapped up into one. The dude was off his rocker and was a miserable, ruthless lunatic. He needs to tone it down, but that's the way they wrote this Lex to debut before he went batshit crazy and transforming into something more classic, as the shaved head and orange prison garb foreshadowed at the end of BvS.

WHY IN THE HELL didn't they use the Smallville guy (Michael Rosenbaum) for this role??

Nah, can't do that. Separate canon that are completely irrelevant from one another. Doing such a thing would be a disaster and back creative control into a corner. They are better off creating their own version and build upon it. For me, I'm always open for new interpretation and to see actors and directors have more creative freedom. You either love or hate Jesse's Lex, but he's not done with him yet. Rossenbaum's Luthor had the privilege to journey through a 10 season television show, so he needs to be kept as Smallville's version of Lex and be remembered as such.

One other comment - These DC movies always try and cram SO MUCH into them. Take the Batman flicks (prior to the Bale ones): You'd have movies with two, three, or more different story lines or villains going on. Batman Returns with Penguin, Walken, and Catwoman and Christopher Walken... how many villains do you need?

This is nothing new. It's basically comic book movie 101. You're bound to over-stuff things from sheer source material of creating a live action comic book film and keeping fanbase's happy.

The more villains (and now with JL the more heroes) you have in a film, it just distracts.

I say bring them on. Comic book characters were BUILT for cinema and was something every fan dreamed of and thought would never happen. I say enjoy it. Enjoy it all. As a DC fan, I'm taking all I can get. It doesn't get any better.

I'll keep watching the DC flicks, but between all the Marvel and DC movies, it's getting just ridiculously dull. Haven't watched the last batch of Marvel movies, though I did sort of like Antman and Deadpool.

Over the years, fans have been worrying about superhero fatigue. And how could you not be when Marvel is pumping films out 13 at a time? In the face of worrying about superhero fatigue, it's just going to get bigger and bigger and the numbers ARE getting bigger and bigger especially now that DC characters are in the midst of their cinematic universe (providing more alternatives to the genre) and icons hitting the big screen for the first time. We're in the Golden Age; boom period for CBM's. Got to enjoy it while it lasts because why not?

YoungJRNYFan- When did Aquaman start looking like a grunge rocker? I missed that whole rebirth I guess.I remember him in those great Mike Grell drawn comics and that are from soooo long ago. Now, the character looks like he should be dressed in plaid holding a Starbucks cup. If he has a manbun in JLA, I will loudly retch. You will probably hear it from wherever you are.
+

Bro, I assure you the wheel has NOT been reinvented. In fact, Momoa's Aquaman is education for most and is the depiction of one of the most badass characters in DC Comics in the early 1990's. Sure talking to fish in his green and yellow speedo with his surfer boy gold locks will get Arthur made fun of by most. But..tell that to THIS guy:



Look familiar?

While I know YoungJrnyFan is a huge DC fan, I also grew up with the DC comics stuff (preferred the art in DC).

I have so, so, so, so much to read and catch up on it's not even funny. I'm way behind and might never catch up with what I've missed and what's out there. My knowledge PALES IN COMPARISON to v, who is an Encyclopedia with comic books and other mediums within the same narrative bracket. I got to get a move on and branch out in my readings.

[Monker]

Nobody cares. This is the movies, not the comics.

You've said this many times before when you are challenged and seem to discredit one or the other like somehow they are foreign to each other when they really aren't.

The movies relate to the comic books in the same way the movies relate to a novel. They are two different mediums, two different audeinces, and a smart writer would treat the two as separate entities and not rely on the comic book versions to dictate what can and can't be done in the movie.

So, giving a history of WW and blah, blah, blah, doesn't really matter for her first movie in the DCEU. By the very definition of "DCEU", this is a different universe. It has a different audience and a different medium. So, going for a traditional hero story IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. Just as it was the RIGHT WAY TO DO IT for EVERY phase 1 hero in the MCU, and those that came later like Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, and now Spiderman and later Captain Marvel.

I think it's starting to bother you that DC is about to find their groove while realizing these larger than life characters will survive when it is so obvious you want them to fail.

No, I would like you to recognize the FACT that DC's success with WW will be due to following the same hero patter that Marvel has follow from the beginning. And, it is hypocritical of you to praise DC while you critique Marvel when they are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

Marvel continues to water down the essence of their own superhero library by regurgitating the same thing over and over again and you're taking it out on irrelevant ramblings about Wonder Woman's origin.

Yep! Because WW is using an incredibly "cookie cutter" style - the very approach you critique Marvel for.

You're getting quite defensive (especially over GoTG2)

That is because what V is saying about GotG2 is exaggerated bullshit.

Deep down, you know GoTG2 is one big wasted pun of a movie.

Nope! You are just wrong.

As far as stories go, WW essentially steals much of it from the Greek god demi-god stories, such as Perseus. Combined with a bit of King Arthur. This WW story has been told a million times.

Dis-credit, dis-credit, dis-credit. It's now pathetic.

Oh, please. She's a demi-god herself. In her movie, she receives gifts in the braceletts. She goes on a mini-quest to get her sword and shield, which are also blessed by the Gods. She is ultimately fighting a god herself. This story IS Perseus.

No matter how bad you want it that way, it just isn't. I don't know if you watch these films or not because your hand has been caught in the Wikipedia jar before by maintaining your knowledge of dominance by reading nothing but reviews and masquerading what you read as some kind of superior knowledge

I have no idea what you are talking about.

so if you're going to do the latter with Wonder Woman, pay attention because the critics (Wonder Woman sits at 97% on RT) are saying that Wonder Woman is a fresh super-heroine movie (something Marvel has been scared of) that separates itself from the formulaic ho-hum drum of the brainwashing play-it-safe conveyor belt of the MCU. Wonder Woman's application is different, welcomed and fresh. Something the DCEU can ride the wave of.

No, it's not any different. You want to believe that. Other DC fans and critics of Marvel want to believe that. But, it is a flat out lie to say that Wonder Woman is not following the heroe's Journey in a cookie cutter way, very precise, actually. ALL of the characters in it are typical archetypes, the entire story follows classic hero story telling. It is DC's attempt at telling a hero story in the same way that Marvel has done from IM1.

I'm sure they don't want to make it too easy to compare her origin to Captain America's.

Stop acting like these characters were thought up in 2008. They weren't.

WTF? That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.

If WW was set in WW2, it would make for a direct comparison to CA:TFA. They are not going to want to do that. Besides, going back to WW1 only adds more mystic to the story because it ages her a bit more.

DC will never go overboard and use it like an 1990 MTV Pop-Up Video like the MCU does.

That is EXACTLY the type of 'humor' that all of the WW trailers have shown.

Exactly my point....like ALL other heroes.

These hero's are comic book hero's and these movies are about the same comic book hero's we are speaking of, something you very often belittle as if the two (comic book characters/movies) are separate things (see the first quote; quoted in this reply). You have no point, suckah.[/quote]

First of all, a comic book hero is still a hero. IT'S THE SAME STORY.

Second: The movies relate to the comic books in the same way the movies relate to a novel. They are two different mediums, two different audiences. A smart writer would treat the two as separate entities and not rely on the comic book versions to dictate what can and can't be done in the movie. A smart writer knows you have to write for the audience, and write for the medium. A dumb, very bad writer, (Snyder) tries to make one medium emulate the other.