Wonder Woman 2017

[SIP]

Agree on Pine, i can't think of anything he's been in where he wasn't good.

Difficult to call on her powers towards the end, though she appeared to be harnessing the lightning that Ares shot at her. She is revealed as the daughter of zeus though so if they are making that character change, it stands to reason that if Zeus's son can harness lightning, then perhaps she could too.

She was becoming more powerful throughout the film, with the emergence of her powers during the training battle on themyscira. The end of the film may have been her hitting her full stride. Would need to see Justice League or Wonder Woman 2 to find out. Either way I don't think that the development of her powers caused any great plot hiccups. She is never portrayed as being invulnerable, only showing that she could heal quickly. She didn't get hit by any projectiles after that wound during the beach battle though.

[JamesC]

I really enjoyed the film, as did my girlfriend. Great casting, with Gal Gadot really standing out as a charismatic, sympathetic hero. Chris Pine was also really good.

I didn't find the fight at the end confusing. When Ares fires the lighting bolts (or evil energy or whatever it is) Diana's bracelets hold the energy until she re-directs it back at Ares.
I'm not sure about the flying - I thought she just did one of her big leaps and then the film went to slow motion when she was at the crest of her leap, shooting out the energy?

[TordelBack]

So are the vambraces/bracelets themselves special? I may have missed that bit early on, my daughter lost her Pringles during the growing-up montage...

[JOE SOAP]

While I knew [spoiler]Thewlis[/spoiler] was the big baddie from the moment I saw him, I was actually pretty happy with the moment [spoiler]when Diana kills 'Ares' and nothing changes: the idea of Ares as a corrupting influence rather than a muscled bruiser was fine by me[/spoiler]. 

The point of 'the evil in all men' would've hit harder and more truthfully had she realised it after [spoiler]defeating actual Ares[/spoiler] – or, yes, even just left with the [spoiler]death of the General[/spoiler]. It's a backward decision that undercuts the point purely in the service of some lesser plot twist of [spoiler]Thewlis as Ares[/spoiler] and an escalation in action.

[spoiler]When the speechifyin' Ares is finally brought in after Diana's recognition of false victory he's reduced to being an obligatory and superfluous monster to fight – his introduction is anticlimactic when it should've been Diana's belief in her singular quest that is left feeling anticlimactic: that simply defeating the big baddie would end the war. Diana's disillusionment and restoration of faith would be more powerful as a post battle realisation that Steve's sacrifice (strong shades of Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter's goodbye date) helped save the fate of the Armistice.[/spoiler]

It's a strange, unnecessary blunder that leaves the point of the end blurred, and possibly because of some over cautious decision to prevent the idea that the audience might be left with the feeling WW is not be the ultimate hero in her own film.

[TordelBack]

I was at one point hoping that the [spoiler]scrawny Thewlis-Ares would be defeated simply by Diana convincing both sides that the gas and perpetuation of the war was a step too far, and that peace was achievable - perhaps even involving Spud giving us a tune, with Dr Poison and Steve (the redeemed sidekicks, essentially) working together and both sacrificing themselves to destroy the bombs.   There are maybe traces of this direction in the reconciliation of krauts and commandos on the airstrip.   There really was no need for Ares to hulk-out to escalate the action, Ludendorf's capsules could have given us some superpowered goons to fight while he remained a manipulative force[/spoiler].

BUT, the fact that we are discussing 'better' directions for the end rather than despairing of another misguided DC endeavour shows that this is the superior effort of this franchise.  It certainly puts Gadot's Wonder Woman up there with Lynda Carter's in a way that Cavill's Superman is never going to compare to Reeves' (no fault of Cavill's).

[dweezil2]

When the climax descended into the protagonist and antagonist just lobbing things at each other, I rather switched off.

Generic comicbook movie third act 101 sadly.

[JamesC]

So are the vambraces/bracelets themselves special? I may have missed that bit early on, my daughter lost her Pringles during the growing-up montage...

I think the bracelets are magical - a gift from the gods similar to the golden lasso. They didn't really go into that but they showed how they have special defective power - particularly when held up together - which caused the concussive blast which injured her aunt and made all the Amazons stand in awe.

[TordelBack]

See I thought that bit where she floors Antiobe was the first sign of her divine abilities, but then thought maybe I'd missed the vambraces being mentioned in the 'treasures of the gods' bit.  It occurs to me that in a preNu52 Wonder Woman collection I read the bracelets were gifts from Zeus, maybe that's what's going on there?

[SIP]

That is the first time she realises that she has powers. The end sequence does play out like she has caught ares lightning and holds it with the bracelets, then fires it back at ares. Can't recall if she pulls more lightning out of the sky......didn't think she did.......but I look forward to viewing 3.

As for the generic big cgi battle, the whole thing takes no more than 2 minutes and is interspersed with the Steve Trevor bits. This is not the drawn out massive fight of BvS or man of steel. It's short and to the point. It worked much better as a result.

[JamesC]

To be honest I was just relieved that there wasn't a giant doomsday device shooting a beam of light into the sky.

[sheridan]

I think the bracelets are magical - a gift from the gods similar to the golden lasso. They didn't really go into that but they showed how they have special defective power - particularly when held up together - which caused the concussive blast which injured her aunt and made all the Amazons stand in awe.

I'm guessing that's deflective power - though if it injures her aunt then maybe it's defective anyway?

[Rogue Earthlet]

I haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts.
How come Germans are the villains? Not from the Nazi era, just ordinary soldiers doing their duty. WW could have been fighting for a good cause, like, say, against the slave owners of the Confederacy in the civil war. Actually, that would be to sensitive for Hollywood, 'safe' villains were needed, so German's got the role. For a film whose makers claim it's progressive, that's a bad start!
And why are all the bad guys WW batters guys? That is, male. It'd be interesting to see the reviews, especially of feminists, if female characters were the victims of the violence of WW, or any heroine. I've written a story of just that, which I'm in the process of illustrating. The text version is already online, and reactions show it is making some who've read it think about the gender bias in how violence is presented in entertainment. That is, if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?

[I, Cosh]

I haven't seen WW

If you'd stopped there, your post might have seemed sensible.

[SIP]

I haven't seen WW, but I've seen the trailer and heard plenty, so here's my thoughts.
How come Germans are the villains? Not from the Nazi era, just ordinary soldiers doing their duty. WW could have been fighting for a good cause, like, say, against the slave owners of the Confederacy in the civil war. Actually, that would be to sensitive for Hollywood, 'safe' villains were needed, so German's got the role. For a film whose makers claim it's progressive, that's a bad start!
And why are all the bad guys WW batters guys? That is, male. It'd be interesting to see the reviews, especially of feminists, if female characters were the victims of the violence of WW, or any heroine. I've written a story of just that, which I'm in the process of illustrating. The text version is already online, and reactions show it is making some who've read it think about the gender bias in how violence is presented in entertainment. That is, if violence against men is acceptable entertainment, shouldn't the same be true if the recipients of violence are female?

Aren't you trying to pass meaningful comment on something that, by your own admission, you have no knowledge of?  That's a very hard sell in the credibility stakes!

[Tiplodocus]

I mean, I'd go with Gal. But I'd be thinking about Chris.