|
Another thing I liked is that when Diana sees the German army continuing to make war even after she killed Ludendorff, she doesn't immediately then think "So, it's just the Germans who are actually bad people!" but immediately associates this warmongering nature with all of mankind.Guy A. Person posted:Ughhhhhhhh
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:She comes to that realization after the village is gassed. She starts to breakdown and tells Steve that it's not just the Germans who have been corrupted but him too. All of humanity is corrupt. It's interesting to view this moment in the light of, again, conventional Wonder Woman origins, which usually approach her understanding of humanity in the opposite direction. By which I mean, in most WW origins (and boy, there have been a lot of these in recent years  ), Diana is raised all her life to believe that men can be naturally vile and the world of men is innately corrupt. In the film though, the more overprotective Hippolyta imparts a fairy tale version of mankind to Diana, stressing their inherent goodness and de-emphasizing the fact that they...well, enslaved the Amazon race and violated every one of Diana's aunts and sisters. Right off the bat, the comic book origins of Wonder Woman mention that mankind's propensity for war is fueling Ares' rise to power, not the other way around.So when the conventional Diana leaves on her mission to save mankind, it's usually under an auspice of "Well...they might suck, but someone's gotta save them from themselves" right from the outset. And the subsequent events that follow are usually that Diana ends up meeting a kindhearted and well-meaning troupe of supporting characters from the outside world, who show her that there's a lot to love about people and that things weren't as clear as Diana's upbringing about "Man's World" might have suggested, which then gives her the wisdom she needs to truly stop Ares (or his equivalent lieutenant). Again, the film heads to this point from the opposite direction. Instead of kindly female professors and stouthearted servicemen and servicewomen who slowly cultivate her faith in people, film Diana gets attached to a gang of "liars, murderers, and thieves" who slowly chips that faith away, even as they're uplifted by her presence. By the time she faces Ares, she's not filled with wisdom and wonder and prepared to counter his rhetoric, but is shellshocked and aghast at just how depraved mankind actually is. Steve Trevor has to get his own rear end killed in order to prove to her how good people can still be (which certainly doesn't happen in the source), and then Superman has to do the same thing a century later. The conventional Diana didn't need to see someone sacrifice themselves in order to believe in love, but because her crisis of faith was so much more dramatic in this version, it required an equally-dramatic response. It's a very interesting subversion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Something else I liked was that the sniper Charlie was depicted with PTSD and ended up not being able to snipe people in the heat of the moment...and then the film never "fixes" him. There's no magical moment where Diana or anyone else is like "You have to believe in yourself! You can do it!" and then the guy magically regains his leet skillz and saves the day by...doing the exact same thing that enforced his trauma in the first place.  Instead, when Charlie mentions that he's just dead weight and of no use to anyone if he can't snipe people, Diana gently refutes that by saying they wouldn't have anyone to sing songs for them if he's gone, encouraging the mindset that he has more value than simply the ability to kill people for them. It's a very good decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
I mean...I admit, I don't really know what people actually do when they discover priceless historical relics, but I'm like ~40% sure they don't shoot them with bullets and try to chop rocks with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
On a tangent...I did read Whedon's whole Wonder Woman script a few years ago. You, too, can read it here! If there's any doubt about its authenticity, let me diffuse them: it is absolutely a Whedon script and filled with a ton of Whedonisms that you'd be hard-pressed to mimic, even as a parody. My main takeaway at the time was that it was clearly written by someone who'd cracked open his first Wonder Woman book like a day or two before writing the script and had only ever seen her before in the Justice League cartoons. But -- again, at the time -- I didn't really notice anything particularly sexist about it other than one extended sequence where Diana had to lose her powers and suffer human pains and human torments in order to teach her humility because...uh...I don't really remember why. ...okay, with the benefit of hindsight, and especially having now seen a much better version of the story come to fruition...I can see just how problematic some of the scenes are. Honestly, I think there are pieces of great writing littered throughout the script, but it's hard not to be dismissive of it when the overall product just...well, just isn't as good as what we ended up getting. Yeah, it's not fair to compare a bloody first draft to a finished product, but it is what it is. v vspacetoaster posted:Why female only? They're all that way. I mean...he is, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:lol, yeah right. It's a literal skin tight bodysuit. And every other man in superhero movies have the same thing going on. Have you seen Chris Pratt, or Hugh Jackman, keep their clothes on for an entire movie? Chris Pratt's superhero outfit is a full leather trenchcoat over a functional T-shirt and pants. Hugh Jackman's conventional Wolverine costume has him in full padded body armor. Shall we go further down the list to "every other man in superhero movies"? Tony Stark: full futuristic iron armor that covers every inch of his body. Captain America: fully padded body armor. Batman: fully padded body armor. Flash: full armored suit. Cyborg: literally a computer outfit. Aquaman: actually reveals his body for a change...except that he also ends up with fully-covered armor, according to the trailers. And then, I guess Hawkeye and Thor have bare biceps, sometimes. Pack it up, boys, sexism is loving over!! It's good that you mentioned Hugh Jackman, though, because he's kind of become the go-to example to illustrate the power fantasy vs sexual fantasy dichotomy that you apparently don't think exist.   quote:On the left: a magazine tailored for a male audience, showing him in full beefcake-type mode with headlines about how you, too, can look like this. On the right: a magazine tailored for a female audience, which has a headline about romance and shows him looking more or less like a normal dude. Sure, you're right that male objectification does happen in superhero films. There's hardly any nowadays (including WW) that don't include at least one scene of its male leads with their shirts off, some of them justifiable, some of them bluntly gratuitous. But we were speaking specifically of costumes, which is why I couldn't even tell if you were joking or not when you wheeled out a bloody full-body-covered Superman suit -- which is basically the same suit that the character has worn since 1938 -- as some sort of definitive demonstration that men get objectified just as badly as women or something in these films. It's skintight, you say? Well poo poo, I guess that's that then!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:That's a lot of words just to agree with me, son.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
I would place the freeway -> busy street -> Steve vs Bucky fight in Cap: Winter Solder above the BvS warehouse scene, though it's not truly a fair contest since the Winter Soldier one is more like multiple different scenes chained together really well. The BvS scene has a bit more clarity overall, but suffers a bit from the same issue as all the other Batman films where he, like, clearly isn't able to use his full bodily range of motion. WW is actually great about this in that you can tell her costume allows full range of motion in all extremities. So what I'm saying is that every character should wear a bustier and skirt from now on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Can you be more specific about the range of motion issue? Because I think BvS is the one example of Batman fighting that actually figures out a way around it. It's not exactly about him being bulky, either. If you watch pro wrestling, you see that all these brickhouses come across real flexible and all swinging limbs and light as feathers. One of my favorite..."hits," I guess, in Wonder Woman is soon after she jumps into the upper room with those soldiers in it, and she swings her arm practically 360 degrees to konk a soldier in his helmet, knocking him flat. The arc of the blow really sells the momentum and impact of the hit because, when it comes to visualizing action, exaggeration is almost always better than subtlety. It's why one of the moments that usually come right to mind when people think of that BvS scene is Batman grabbing a dude, leaping over a crate, and then slamming that dude into the crate. Big arcs, big anticipation, big action, big reaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
...Should someone bother pointing out that "scoops" of "production details" for the sequel of a film that came out about a month ago, with Jenkins not even officially-confirmed to return yet, are very unlikely to be real?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
I feel like that's such a narrative stretch that it's functionally negligible even if it really was part of the original script in some way. It's not like Chief actually acts like Napi in any way in the film or does anything remotely demigodlike. Saying "He's actually a powerful folkloric character, it's just not depicted in any way nor does it ever affect anything throughout this story!" is like...  sure, whatever, guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Does the character actually say "I am Napi, the trickster from the myths" (or something to that effect) or does he just say "I am Napi"? 'Cuz like, his name could just be Napi. People are named after gods and demigods and legendary figures all the time. Diana herself included. Just saying...directors or actors can have whatever intent insider subtext they want, but the film's actual content might not suggest anything beyond the fact that this is a guy named Napi.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Here's the thing: if Chief's name was actually something else, yet he behaved a lot like a trickster folk hero out of mythology, I would think "Huh, that's pretty cool, I wonder if Chief is actually some reference to a trickster out of mythology, even if he wasn't called that directly?" The fact that Chief acts nothing like any sort of trickster or folk hero or demigod, even though he is specifically and verbally named as Napi in the movie itself, is what makes me go "Meh. Whatever." about this bit of beyond-the-scenes minutiae. In the movie itself, Steve and Sameer both act more like Napi than Chief does.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
I honestly don't see how simply namedropping a little-known culture hero in a way that makes absolutely no impact on the characters or the story in any way, through an easily-missed line of dialogue that 99.99% of the audience is literally unable to understand and thereby unable to appreciate the subtleties of (unless they go searching on Google a week or so after the movie is out and a handful of articles are written about the matter)...really does all that much to honor the Blackfoot or their heritage. Especially if we're talking about honor "equal to" how Western myths are usually treated, it's like...what? This film is the very definition of shining a big fat honking spotlight on Greek mythology, with a light dressing of Christian mythology, while downplaying any other cultural influences. Like, I appreciate the actor and the director throwing a tidbit towards Native American mythology, but let's not over-eulogize what they've done. Lots of other films have treated Native American mythology with a lot more consideration and respect. (And, of course, lots of other films have done a lot worse as well) And if we wanna look at how this sort of outside material or subtle implication changes the film or makes it more interesting to talk about...well, okay, how does it change the film? How does it make the film more interesting? My whole issue with it right from the outset was that whether Chief is literally Napi or not doesn't actually affect the film or the character or the story in any palpable way at all. I guess it's a subtle way to say that more legends are real than just the Greek myths? But we basically already knew that, since this is taking place in the same universe as Suicide Squad. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
I like that the Amazons had a whole book made out of animated gifsets
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
2D is more than fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:So WW takes place during WW1. What does she do from then until now? I ask this as someone who isn't familiar with Wonder Woman's story at all other than I know she's part of the Justice League and has an invisible jet or something, from those old cartoons. The idea that she left the island waaay early back in World War I, much less that she spent 100 years in hiding in Man's World, is a new idea specific to BvS and this film. So, like folks have said, there's no way to say what she did or didn't do during that time until they make it more clear in the sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Throughout most of Wonder Woman canon, she's been allowed to go back to the island, and often did. In very recent storylines -- as in, the DC line-wide reboot that happened just last year -- it's now established that anyone who leaves the island can't go back because its location must remain hidden at all costs. The wording is a bit vague in the film (Hippolyta says "If you go, you may never return"; maybe that means she's not permitted to return, or maybe that she might die out there in the war and therefore not return) so, again, until we learn more it's hard to say for certain whether she can just find the island and go there again if she wants to. In the comics, the Amazons have advanced forging techniques that make magical equipment for themselves, so all their bracelets are pretty indestructible, but Diana's bracelets are extra special even by that standard. Their origin varies, but the broad-strokes "This is true until another writer says otherwise" version is that they're either special-made for her by Hephaestus, or that they're reforged shards of Zeus' Aegis; either way, I don't believe they've ever been shattered before in the comics. That special power during the training scene does appear occasionally in the comics, and is attributed to Diana's bracelets being extra special somehow so that when you cross them, they emit a force field that can block things bigger than bullets. But again, that's just in the comics; I believe the film treats this force field power as a godly power of Diana herself and has nothing to do with the bracelets. I believe the only comic book power that the film doesn't really show is that comics Wonder Woman has superspeed comparable with Superman himself. She wouldn't have needed that shield to cross No Man's Land in the comics, 'cuz she's fast enough to deflect machine gun fire without a sweat. Oh yeah, she can also talk to animals. There's that too. The Amazons are an ageless race created from the reborn souls of murdered women (yes, really). They literally sprouted fully-grown from the Aegean Sea, so none of the Amazons were ever children themselves, and the idea is that they're ageless so long as they have the gods' blessings. They can still be killed, though, so there's definitely less Amazons than there were originally. They're also slightly more superpowered than normal humans, so I guess they're not really normal human women in the strictest sense even without the whole immortality thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
If you're thinking of the big strong Amazon knocking other Amazons around, that was credited as Artemis, played by boxer Ann Wolfe. Though it's probably way more likely for her to get a bigger role than for them to bring up Nu'bia out of the blue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Needs to be Liam Neeson as a very mundane, non-magical Ra's and then the twist reveal is that he's just a decoy for the actual, full-on comic book robed scimitar wizard Ra's Al Ghul.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Problematic how?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I’m waiting for someone to present the argument that WW is a step forward other than “She’s inspiring because the movie was so successful” or “The movie was so successful because she’s inspiring.” In the most general sense, Wonder Woman places its female superheroic power fantasy on an equal footing with other male superheroic power fantasies. It gives a female superhero the same thematic and narrative power as a male superhero, which is so completely rare that I will go ahead and suggest that it has literally never happened in mainstream cinema before. Sarah Connor is a cool character, but she's honestly barely a power fantasy and not remotely a superhero. Katniss Everdeen is not a superhero. There has been no female equivalent to Superman or Batman or Spider-Man or Iron Man in theaters until Wonder Woman happened. Now, if you have problems with superheroic power fantasies in this general sense then that's your own personal issue to work through, but the reason this movie takes a step forward for the genre, and thereby cinematic representation in general, is that it does this thing that virtually no other film does. The very definition of equality in this context is giving female characters the same opportunities and footing as male characters. The fact is that there has been this boys-only playhouse for a while in the cinema scene and now a girl has broken down the door. Again, I'll say that if you just don't like superheroes in general then you obviously won't like that there's also a powerful female superhero alongside all the other powerful male superheroes, but that's not actually an argument against the fact that this film takes this significant step forward. In the fields of equality and representation, it honestly matters little if you personally don't like the genre it takes place in or even the specific character being represented. The whole point is that everyone is allowed the shot to be just as good or just as lovely as the people who already occupy these spaces. I hate pretentious indie romances and I hate Brokeback Mountain for sinking into an actual litany of pretentious indie romance pratfalls, but I would never refute that putting a same-sex romance into this high-profile Hollywood wheelhouse that usually censors such content was a big step forward in terms of same-sex representation and culture. On top of which, Wonder Woman shares the distinction of having its title hero draw her power and motivation from primarily female sources, female mentors, female upbringing, female relationships. This is also something that Mad Max: Fury road did for its co-lead character which I believe to be a huge part of why the film gained such renown in feminist discourse, because this is also something extremely rare. Women raising other women at all is not a theme you see often in media and literature, much less women teaching other women to fight, to be combatants, to be heroes. The very conception of DC Comics' Amazon race is rife with feminist ideology and concepts, and it was good to see much of that represented in the film as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:It's pretty damning that your wrote six paragraphs about why Wonder Woman was a step forward and never once talked about the contents of the film. It's not simply that the action lead was a woman, but also that this woman action lead is placed on an equal footing with comparable male characters in a narrative space that has almost always been filled by those male characters. That's kind of important when the topic of conversation is literally "how does this film affect female characters." Tenzarin posted:Halle Berry was Cat Woman. Jennifer Garner was Electra. They both had their own movies. Before you said no one saw these movies, I'll say, I did see them both. Halle Berry are you kidding, have you seen Swordfish? I will grant you that the Halle Berry Catwoman is a bona fide superhero character if you'll grant that no human man, woman, or child ended up being able to relate to this character or her narrative on any conceivable level, all but blunting the film's ability to affect representative progress. Also one of the first things she does with her powers is to steal jewelry and literally ends the film by saying "I'll do whatever I want, good or bad," sooo let's call her an antihero at best. Phoenix was a bloody supervillain in The Last Stand who ends up being crazy and fridged, and the movie was actually about Wolverine. No offense, but this is the worst example you could have possibly come up with. (Please do not take that as a challenge to come up with an even worse example)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:And little girls are going to be able to relate to a god created by Zeus raised on an island of Amazons? The fact that they're able to do so and yet not relate to a mousey girl-next-door graphic artist who gets cat powers probably says a lot about the quality and delivery of both films. Actually, let me rephrase that bit: it's really not surprising that little girls are able to relate more to an Amazon princess who wants to go punch bad dudes and save the world than some average office-worker who frets over deadlines and loud neighbors. Kinda goes to show you where little girls' priorities are at, no?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:So Wonder Woman is good because shes a female action lead? But not the first. What about the new Star Wars character Rey? That came out almost a year before. Or is it only because she's a female action super hero lead of a movie that didn't flop? Also, let's be super clear here that saying Wonder Woman "didn't flop" is a big understatement. It's the biggest movie of this summer. It domestically outperformed every single DC film before it and plenty of Marvel films and the contests aren't close. It did better than Frozen for pete's sake. The only other film that will probably do better than it this year is the next Star Wars. Speaking of which: Rey is a wonderful character, and I can tell that because I know CineD just so coincidentally hates her as well. The new Star Wars franchises are doing great things for female and other underrepresented demographic leads in the industry. But I wouldn't quite equate Rey's position in her film with Diana's, wherein the movie is literally only about her and her journey and absolutely every single other person on the screen is just there to support her development. There's a reason that it's not called a Rey solo film in the same way that we call this a Wonder Woman solo film. That doesn't mean that TFA isn't also an important achievement, but it occupies a different piece of the strata.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
I believe the whole demigod thing comes from the fact that Hippolyta is a (magical, ageless) mortal. Children of gods and mortals are usually considered demigods (and sometimes not even that) until they attain some kind of further apotheosis (which Diana arguably does, by the end of this film).wyoming posted:The real question is why is a movie expected to lead a revolution? In other words, https://twitter.com/megsauce/status/871179290238308354 wyoming posted:And how is Wonder Woman more important than say, Pitch Perfect 2, The Edge of Seventeen, or The Babadook? But there have been comedic girl power films before Pitch Perfect 2 and coming-of-age teen dramas before The Edge of Seventeen. One could argue that the latter genre, at least, is one that specifically welcomes and is filled with female stories and creators. Wonder Woman, on the other hand, is a case where female stories and creators have entered a space usually reserved for and dominated by male stories and creators. And now we cycle back to our usual suspects bringing up the worst, most derided, most ignoble female comic book movies of the past in order to prove how WW isn't actually important or special
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Not quite, because there are different social stigmas and expectations facing men and women. One could argue that men in general could stand to exhibit a little less unwarranted machismo -- see, even the word itself is male-oriented -- while women in general could stand to exhibit a bit more. In other words, we are not equal until we are all afforded the same opportunities to be equally mediocre.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Wonder Woman was more successful due to the, essentially, full force and backing of two multibillion dollar marketing campaigns than it being a particularly challenging story or having things to say. it's almost a tautological success - being successful because it was successful - perfectly fitting a mold that had been cast and nigh-perfected years prior. WW has all the lasting social impact of a modern disney princess. On the other hand, the minute that WW debuted at 96% fresh (which would decrease a bit over time), success was all but guaranteed. If there's tautological recipe for success at work here, I'd argue it's comprised more from the bits and pieces that made this film as review-friendly and quote-unquote "fun to watch" as it is and less from the studios throwing money into ads or commercials and stuff. Lots of movies have that. Lots of movies are left in the lurch despite having that. And, again, it's not just that the movie has succeeded, but that its degree of success really speaks to the audience's hunger for movies like this. And I don't just mean "a female supehero," but also of the novelty factor in seeing previously-unexplored characters instead of the same names and faces that we've had for ages now. Not to, y'know, start claiming that bubbles have burst or whatever, but we've seen Batman so many times now. We've seen Superman. We've seen Spider-Mans, and the X-Men, and RDJ has been playing Iron Man for for ten years across seven films. I think people were just really curious about Wonder Woman because she's a pretty common household namedrop but her story has never really been told until now, regardless of whether it follows any creative mold or not. But really, what I disagree with is the idea that this film was some sort of surefire bet that was guaranteed success by mathematical formulae and stuff 'cuz, like...it could've gone wrong. It could have gone so wrong. The character has traditionally been hard to nail down by writers, the studio spent year after year after one script after another and, poo poo y'all, we could've ended up with a Whedon version if the winds had blown just a little bit off course. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I think Wonder Woman is a good film. Moreover, the idea that a female narrative needs to be somehow...what, more innovative?...more profound?...more pure?...softer?...less problem-ridden?...than the equivalent male narrative or else it's no longer important or feminist is the very definition of inequality. The amount of hoops that this film has to jump through, the amount of tests that it has to pass in order to be considered progressive for its intended demographic is frankly gate-keeping at best and concern-trolling at worst. That's the self-congratulatory mindset from James Cameron where there's only one perfect type of woman allowed on the scene and oh it just so coincidentally happens to be his perfect type of woman. That's the very mindset that's kept female voices and stories cordoned off from male spaces for ages, under the auspice that a male story can be practically anything under the sun and say virtually anything it wants to say, but a female story has to be a certain way and can't be something other than that way because don't you see we're just looking out for you poor beleaguered feminists? Apropos of nothing, I've heard that mindset applied to many other minority demographics as well, where their stories aren't considered progressive -- or in some cases, are outright regressive -- if they don't just shatter any and all problematic issues facing not only their own strata but of all other persecuted classes as well, and it's a standard that no film can hope to achieve. A standard wherein a story about a woman or a minority can't just be a story about a woman or a minority to be something extraordinary but also has to pass all those other gratuitous hoops and tests. Where Wonder Woman the film is progressive is that it says a story about a woman can be exactly this -- nothing more and nothing less -- and that's exactly what it should be because female stories have in fact been denied permission to be exactly this up until now. DeimosRising posted:I'm legit not trying to be a shithead when I ask, what's a superhero?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Bella Swan, mainly It's noteworthy that these two characters mentioned are all but completely different women, going through two completely different stories. If we take the success of these two franchises along with the newfound success of Wonder Woman into consideration, then the answer to "what women appreciate" is "a wide breadth of characters and stories." Essentially, we mustn't fall into Cameron's trap of constraining the female narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Man please don't tell me what I do and don't appreciate I'm sorry, I'm trying to work out where I've offended you by saying something you apparently agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Nah, the idea that she wasn't sculpted from clay is a very, very recent retcon from within the last six years, which is more or less when the movie went into production. Before then, being sculpted from clay was the only origin she ever had and it was never particularly confusing or contradictory
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
I think you mean 1941. Also: the clay origin didn't appear in that issue, but appeared in the first issue of her actual solo series in June 1942, a mere six months after her debut. The 1983 reboot from George Perez simply updated WW's origin after Crisis on Infinite Earths, and while it did change a lot of things about Diana's continuity, her being sculpted from clay -- which had already been around for forty years -- wasn't one of them. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Yeah the film's boat scene is much better than this one. This one almost feels like a first pass/rehearsal, with the one we ended up with having more blocking, more improv, and a less awkward dynamic between them. Interesting to see, regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 22:42
|
|