Wonder Woman Story/Narrative/Plot Points that I feel don’t work and Why
Wonder Woman Story/Narrative/Plot
Points that I feel don’t work and Why
So here now
are the fundamental Story/Narrative/Plot Points of Wonder Woman that I feel
don’t work and why:
2. Hippolyta dissuades Diana from training as an Amazon: As opposed to tough, no nonsense stern Queen of the Amazons fans know from the comics, Hippolyta in this film is dumbed down to an overly-protective nag. Because of her enslavement to humanity, Hippolyta becomes embittered to humanity and because she doesn’t want Diana to meet Ares, she figures that the only thing to do is to shelter her from humanity, hoping that by some miracle that that day will never come.
As Antiope stated during an earlier training session “Ares is alive, you feel it as I do!” Very clearly, Ares will find her and when that happens he’ll come face to face with defenceless damsel in distress – even though it’s later revealed that Di is the Godkiller which means she is the only thing that can technically kill Ares – but without any training she potentially wouldn’t be able to master it… ?????? The problem is that Hippolyta is leaving too much to chance, when really she should know the only way to really protect her daughter is to spill the beans regardless of how young she is and train her so she’s prepared for the worst.
Eventually, when Hippolyta "forbids" Di from fighting in "Mans World" (as opposed to organising a tournament to see who will escort Stevie back). Di pulls the "Screw the Rules, I'm Doing what's Right" card and steals the sword, shield and lasso (a moment which sooooo feels earned) and heads off to fight with Steve. This moment is allegedly from the Justice League cartoon which featured a similar sequence but then that would mean someone who made this film actually watched the cartoon.
As Antiope stated during an earlier training session “Ares is alive, you feel it as I do!” Very clearly, Ares will find her and when that happens he’ll come face to face with defenceless damsel in distress – even though it’s later revealed that Di is the Godkiller which means she is the only thing that can technically kill Ares – but without any training she potentially wouldn’t be able to master it… ?????? The problem is that Hippolyta is leaving too much to chance, when really she should know the only way to really protect her daughter is to spill the beans regardless of how young she is and train her so she’s prepared for the worst.
Eventually, when Hippolyta "forbids" Di from fighting in "Mans World" (as opposed to organising a tournament to see who will escort Stevie back). Di pulls the "Screw the Rules, I'm Doing what's Right" card and steals the sword, shield and lasso (a moment which sooooo feels earned) and heads off to fight with Steve. This moment is allegedly from the Justice League cartoon which featured a similar sequence but then that would mean someone who made this film actually watched the cartoon.
3. Making Diana a so-called
Godkiller/Child born of a woman who is prophesied to bring peace to world
fail-safe device due to her Demigod heritage: Ultimately this film ends up
being nothing than the typical, clichéd Child born of a woman who is prophesied
to bring peace to world/stale Chosen One Story. The problem with it here is that with the “Chosen One”
storyline there are usually some kind of the high stakes present. With Wonder
Woman I can’t help but feel the stakes needed to be high than “The Return of
the God of War”. Another reason why this plotline choice fails is because the
usually with the “Chosen One” storyline i.e. Harry Potter, Star Wars, The
Matrix. It evolves over several instalments compared with Wonder Woman where
it’s over and done with in 1 instalment. You have to think about these films
and plotlines, was it conceived fastidiously by a filmmaker over many thousands
of years or was built by a spanner with a hammer? And this Child born of a
woman who is prophesied to bring peace to world story becomes so hockey,
clichéd, ludicrous and nonsensical that it’s just not believable.
In addition the film places as lot of emphasis on showcasing her idealism and blind confidence and I'm unsure of wether it comes across as valid or preachy though I'm strongly inclined to go with the latter
4. Making Ares the main antagonist: I don’t care what anyone says, making Ares the main antagonist in the Wonder Woman solo film, both from a narrative and long term standpoint.
He’s just way to powerful for Wonder Woman’s live action debut. And just to add fuel to the fire, his motivations are pretty much none existent. He wants to destroy humanity, er, why? I mean he does say this one line about him being jealous of humanity and them not deserving our help but I wouldn’t expect that one line to lead to that. That’s not a motivation that’s an afterthought.
Added to that, revealing that his alter ego, Sir Patrick Morgan actually being Ares is a Big problem with the movie for several reasons: Firstly, up until the great reveal, he hasn't had much screen time and as a result, it just feels like something of a last minute addition to the script. And whenever he has been onscreen he's been nothing more than a stereotypical, English Speaking, Moustache-twidling "Oh Hello, I'm the villain" who's practically spelling out that he's the villain - and not a very good one at that.
His inclusion also completely contridicts the film's "Love & Justice" message. Diana kills Gen. Ludendorff in the hopes of ending WWI and bringing world peace. When it doesn't work, she gets really upset to which Steve (James T. Kirk) Trevor tells her that some people are just naturally that way, but then it changes its mind 20 odd mins later with the revelation that Ares is in fact the puppet master behind it all.
6. Setting the film in WWI: I have no idea what DC’s long term plans were but to give Wonder Woman a glorified cameo in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and then her own origin story set in WWI seems to me rather baffling. Again it shows how held down by constraints the DCCU is and there seems to be no ryme nor reason as to why it’s set during that time other than it’s a DCCU film and it has to be set before Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – and to rip-off Captain America: The First Avenger (2011). And there’s the primary problem with the setting – it can’t decide what tone it’s going for, because the first half is set on Themyscira where it’s really immersed in Greek Mythology as well as the same over-serious, tough, testosterone, balls tone that previous DCCU films notorious for, then we travel to WWI where it’s bleak and downbeat as though we’ve transferred to another film, they’re like two pieces of a puzzle that just don’t fit together.
In Thor (2011), sending Thor from the grand and prestigious world of Asgard to the lesser world of Earth made sense because Thor was banished there. He’s stripped of his godhood and becomes like everyone else. He goes from the upper class world to the middle class world. Both world provide an excellent contrast between what he’s used to and what he’s not.
On a side note, I can understand the intentions behind the setting... sort of. As well as why many critics have compared the film to Richard Donner's Superman (1978)... again, sort of.
Wonder Woman, Gal Gadot's portrayal of her and her naive personality and her ambition to help mankind just for the sake of it is meant to embody that optimistic, hopeful ideal. The sort of superhero film that nerd bears seem to be wishing Man of Steel (2013) was - because they want the same thing over and over with no changes - and that it's supposed to contrast the dark and gritty tone that Man of Steel (2013) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) but what Patty Jenkin's fails to realise is that Richard Donner's Superman (1978) is a product of its time, a one of a kind Superhero film, a lightning in a bottle sort of film. Then we come back to subject of the WWII setting, I strongly feel that the film fails to explore the horrors and hardships of this event and is instead used as a backdrop for Gal optimistic values. Which, again, may have been director Jenkin's intention, but to me it just makes the film tonally confused and inconsistent and dare I say "cheesy". Going with a cliched, predictable "Chosen One" storyline didn't help.
In addition, I was never convinced by Gal Gadot's portrayal of a younger, naive, kind, loving, Wonder Woman, she didn't come across as natural or as though she had the necessary talent to pull off this type of character. She sounded like she was trying too hard to be hopeful and optimistic. She seemed wrapped in the same, grim, cynical, ultra-serious persona & characterisation that (at least in idiots regards to the former) plagued Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).
In addition the film places as lot of emphasis on showcasing her idealism and blind confidence and I'm unsure of wether it comes across as valid or preachy though I'm strongly inclined to go with the latter
4. Making Ares the main antagonist: I don’t care what anyone says, making Ares the main antagonist in the Wonder Woman solo film, both from a narrative and long term standpoint.
He’s just way to powerful for Wonder Woman’s live action debut. And just to add fuel to the fire, his motivations are pretty much none existent. He wants to destroy humanity, er, why? I mean he does say this one line about him being jealous of humanity and them not deserving our help but I wouldn’t expect that one line to lead to that. That’s not a motivation that’s an afterthought.
Added to that, revealing that his alter ego, Sir Patrick Morgan actually being Ares is a Big problem with the movie for several reasons: Firstly, up until the great reveal, he hasn't had much screen time and as a result, it just feels like something of a last minute addition to the script. And whenever he has been onscreen he's been nothing more than a stereotypical, English Speaking, Moustache-twidling "Oh Hello, I'm the villain" who's practically spelling out that he's the villain - and not a very good one at that.
His inclusion also completely contridicts the film's "Love & Justice" message. Diana kills Gen. Ludendorff in the hopes of ending WWI and bringing world peace. When it doesn't work, she gets really upset to which Steve (James T. Kirk) Trevor tells her that some people are just naturally that way, but then it changes its mind 20 odd mins later with the revelation that Ares is in fact the puppet master behind it all.
5. Steve’s Sacrifice: During the
climax of the film, Steve Trevor sacrifices himself to save humanity from the
villains lethal nerve gas by flying a bomber loaded with it and then blowing it
up in mid-flight. Not only does this scene rip-off a similar sequence from
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), where Steve Roger/Captain America
crashes the Red Skull’s plane, the Valkyrie, to save the world and forsakes the
chance to be with Peggy Carter, the woman he loves.
But it also demonstrates a severe use of prequelitis – where certain things happen because this film is a prequel to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the universe this film takes place in deems it necessary. Given that Wonder Woman takes place in 1918 and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice takes place in 2015, that means many of the human characters in Wonder Woman would likely have died of old age and are no longer alive so Wonder Woman has been alone for the last 97 years moving from place to place. If you listen very closely to her in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice you’ll hear her say that 100 years ago she “walked away from humanity after a century of horrors”. Because of this dialogue that means the events of Wonder Woman have to somehow tie-into the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice for continuities sake.
Steve’s Sacrifice just comes across as contrived and something that happened mainly because of the constraints that the DC Cinematic Universe has put on itself. Anyone who has read a Wonder Woman comic will know that Steve Trevor is Wonder’s primary love interest and as a result will want their relationship to evolve over several instalments as opposed to be thrown out the window in the first instalment/be the catalyst that causes Diana to turn her back on humanity for the next 90+ years.
As someone who has done his homework and looked Wonder Woman up and a film critic and historian and analysist, I want to see Steve Trevor and Wonder Woman’s relationship evolve over many films set in the DCCU, but now thanks to some boneheaded decisions, I can’t!
But it also demonstrates a severe use of prequelitis – where certain things happen because this film is a prequel to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the universe this film takes place in deems it necessary. Given that Wonder Woman takes place in 1918 and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice takes place in 2015, that means many of the human characters in Wonder Woman would likely have died of old age and are no longer alive so Wonder Woman has been alone for the last 97 years moving from place to place. If you listen very closely to her in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice you’ll hear her say that 100 years ago she “walked away from humanity after a century of horrors”. Because of this dialogue that means the events of Wonder Woman have to somehow tie-into the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice for continuities sake.
Steve’s Sacrifice just comes across as contrived and something that happened mainly because of the constraints that the DC Cinematic Universe has put on itself. Anyone who has read a Wonder Woman comic will know that Steve Trevor is Wonder’s primary love interest and as a result will want their relationship to evolve over several instalments as opposed to be thrown out the window in the first instalment/be the catalyst that causes Diana to turn her back on humanity for the next 90+ years.
As someone who has done his homework and looked Wonder Woman up and a film critic and historian and analysist, I want to see Steve Trevor and Wonder Woman’s relationship evolve over many films set in the DCCU, but now thanks to some boneheaded decisions, I can’t!
Their relationship is also not a “Greek Tragedy” if you know that the love interest in going to
bite the dust.
Finally, Gal Gadot and Chris Pine make for an "indifferent" couple. They're not the worst, they're just standard and dull. Diana is the nieve idealist and Steve is essentially "Cap. Kirk". I don't get to know these characters as people. I'm given no reason to care about their relationship and don't find them interesting characters. And when you can't find them interesting, you can't find the romance interesting.
Finally, Gal Gadot and Chris Pine make for an "indifferent" couple. They're not the worst, they're just standard and dull. Diana is the nieve idealist and Steve is essentially "Cap. Kirk". I don't get to know these characters as people. I'm given no reason to care about their relationship and don't find them interesting characters. And when you can't find them interesting, you can't find the romance interesting.
6. Setting the film in WWI: I have no idea what DC’s long term plans were but to give Wonder Woman a glorified cameo in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and then her own origin story set in WWI seems to me rather baffling. Again it shows how held down by constraints the DCCU is and there seems to be no ryme nor reason as to why it’s set during that time other than it’s a DCCU film and it has to be set before Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – and to rip-off Captain America: The First Avenger (2011). And there’s the primary problem with the setting – it can’t decide what tone it’s going for, because the first half is set on Themyscira where it’s really immersed in Greek Mythology as well as the same over-serious, tough, testosterone, balls tone that previous DCCU films notorious for, then we travel to WWI where it’s bleak and downbeat as though we’ve transferred to another film, they’re like two pieces of a puzzle that just don’t fit together.
In Thor (2011), sending Thor from the grand and prestigious world of Asgard to the lesser world of Earth made sense because Thor was banished there. He’s stripped of his godhood and becomes like everyone else. He goes from the upper class world to the middle class world. Both world provide an excellent contrast between what he’s used to and what he’s not.
On a side note, I can understand the intentions behind the setting... sort of. As well as why many critics have compared the film to Richard Donner's Superman (1978)... again, sort of.
Wonder Woman, Gal Gadot's portrayal of her and her naive personality and her ambition to help mankind just for the sake of it is meant to embody that optimistic, hopeful ideal. The sort of superhero film that nerd bears seem to be wishing Man of Steel (2013) was - because they want the same thing over and over with no changes - and that it's supposed to contrast the dark and gritty tone that Man of Steel (2013) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) but what Patty Jenkin's fails to realise is that Richard Donner's Superman (1978) is a product of its time, a one of a kind Superhero film, a lightning in a bottle sort of film. Then we come back to subject of the WWII setting, I strongly feel that the film fails to explore the horrors and hardships of this event and is instead used as a backdrop for Gal optimistic values. Which, again, may have been director Jenkin's intention, but to me it just makes the film tonally confused and inconsistent and dare I say "cheesy". Going with a cliched, predictable "Chosen One" storyline didn't help.
In addition, I was never convinced by Gal Gadot's portrayal of a younger, naive, kind, loving, Wonder Woman, she didn't come across as natural or as though she had the necessary talent to pull off this type of character. She sounded like she was trying too hard to be hopeful and optimistic. She seemed wrapped in the same, grim, cynical, ultra-serious persona & characterisation that (at least in idiots regards to the former) plagued Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).
Even the film's score by Rupert Gregson-Williams doesn't sound grand enough to scream hope ad optimism and the theme is more ear-splittingly annoying than inspiring, epic or rousing.
It also
has (and I know you could say this for just about any film) NO twists or surprises or at
least none that you can’t see coming from two miles away e.g.
· Oh gee, Diana is the so-called
“Godkiller” what a shock! (sarcasm)
· Oh gee, Sir Patrick Morgan is
Ares, what a surprise! (sarcasm)
Or as
Iago from Aladdin (1992) would say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlhyX-4qKI
Comments
Post a Comment