Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

 -Loki- wrote:
Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

It's cute that you think that.

 AduroT wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

It's cute that you think that.

I mean, no really. When I talk to anyone, whether it's at work, at the FLGS, any sort of social gathering, no one has this attitude anymore. They left it behind with Playstation 2 vs X-box at the latest, or Mario vs Sonic.

The only time it ever comes up for me is when I go online. Or maybe I just found a really uniquely good group of people to spend time with?

So far it continues to get good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

 -Loki- wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

It's cute that you think that.

I mean, no really. When I talk to anyone, whether it's at work, at the FLGS, any sort of social gathering, no one has this attitude anymore. They left it behind with Playstation 2 vs X-box at the latest, or Mario vs Sonic.

The only time it ever comes up for me is when I go online. Or maybe I just found a really uniquely good group of people to spend time with?

Well, sure...at least a certain amount of fanboy behavior can be chalked up to people being donkeycaves online.

The Internet is a cesspoll of that sort of immature behavior. IRL people who rant about such puerile things tend to be rarer. Most audiences couldn't care less if it's Marvel/DC/Disney/FOX/etc. They just want entertainment.

Can't say I have much interest in this one. Probably catch it on DVD. Didn't like the Superman flicks, thought Batman vs. Supes was extremely boring, and they all took themselves way too seriously, so this one isn't looking too interesting to me. Did like SS squad, though, despite Jared Leto, and think a lot of the hate there was misplaced.

Did like SS squad, though, despite Jared Leto, and think a lot of the hate there was misplaced.

Agreed. It was definitely lighter as well.

Critics didn't pan it, they liked it for the most part and really liked Gal Gadot's performance.

Does this mean the DC/MCU alleged "preference" for MCU myth is busted?

 -Loki- wrote:
Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

Careful. US politics discussions like that could get this thread locked.


It occurs to me that some posters may have read my previous post straight, oblivious to the implied eye rolling. Comic book fan boyism is a nonissue compared to the mainstream wisdom of audiences, and they know a Marvel branded movie is always at least entertaining. DC wants to achieve the same brand success, but they Lennied that mouse too hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Critics didn't pan it, they liked it for the most part and really liked Gal Gadot's performance.

Does this mean the DC/MCU alleged "preference" for MCU myth is busted?

No, the preference for good movies is very real.

They seem to be taking from a wider range of sources of DC things now, including humour.



(please don't scale too big, please don't scale too big...)

 Easy E wrote:
Critics didn't pan it, they liked it for the most part and really liked Gal Gadot's performance.

Does this mean the DC/MCU alleged "preference" for MCU myth is busted?

No?

Maybe?

I don't know?

Given the subject of the movie, even the most dyed in the wool reflexive DC bashers (if they exist!) would be given pause here, wouldn't they?

It would have to be a truly bad movie for them to be able to vent their spleen, as per (alleged) usual.

If anyone is wanting an introduction to Wonder Woman, who and what she is and so on, there's a show about her starting pretty much now.

http://www.twitch.tv/geekandsundry

Hopefully it'll act as a primer to her before the film.

I was surprised to hear that the evil general is Erich von Ludendorff. Yeah, that Erich von Ludendorff.

 Easy E wrote:
I was surprised to hear that the evil general is Erich von Ludendorff. Yeah, that Erich von Ludendorff.

seriously?

You're not posting spoilers in here ahead of the USA release on June 2, are you?

 Easy E wrote:
I was surprised to hear that the evil general is Erich von Ludendorff. Yeah, that Erich von Ludendorff.

I dunno... considering some of the things he did post-war it makes a kind of sense. He advocated for total war (even wrote a book about it), backed Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, politically defied and opposed Hindenburg during the 20s and 30s... he's as close to a guilt-free German villain as you're likely to find in World War One ("guilt free" as in: you can make him your villain and get the audience to hate on him without feeling like you might be unfairly maligning a guy who might not deserve it, like Hindenburg). He was also Quartermaster General of the German army, which put him in charge of supply and logistics, which I assume would involve finding new weapons to use in the war. If the scenes in the trailer of a new chemical weapon that can destroy gas masks is important to the plot, it would make sense for Ludendorff to be the guy greenlighting the research and development. I'm actually pleasantly surprised they picked him over the lower-hanging fruit of von Falkenhayn (ran the show after von Moltke's nervous breakdown in '14 until 1916 after Verdun turned out the complete opposite of how he promised it would).

Read a review over on CNet. I can't quite tell if the reviewer liked the movie or not. They spent a lot of the time complaining about the use of WWI as the setting.

 Frazzled wrote:

Did like SS squad, though, despite Jared Leto, and think a lot of the hate there was misplaced.

Agreed. It was definitely lighter as well.

I also really enjoyed the Academy-Award winning film Suicide Squad, for what it's worth.

 -Loki- wrote:
Isn't x vs y type fanboyism something people left on the playground of primary school?

I don't know much about sociology, but it seems tribalism is a defining feature of humanity.

squidhills wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I was surprised to hear that the evil general is Erich von Ludendorff. Yeah, that Erich von Ludendorff.

I dunno... considering some of the things he did post-war it makes a kind of sense. He advocated for total war (even wrote a book about it), backed Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, politically defied and opposed Hindenburg during the 20s and 30s... he's as close to a guilt-free German villain as you're likely to find in World War One ("guilt free" as in: you can make him your villain and get the audience to hate on him without feeling like you might be unfairly maligning a guy who might not deserve it, like Hindenburg). He was also Quartermaster General of the German army, which put him in charge of supply and logistics, which I assume would involve finding new weapons to use in the war. If the scenes in the trailer of a new chemical weapon that can destroy gas masks is important to the plot, it would make sense for Ludendorff to be the guy greenlighting the research and development. I'm actually pleasantly surprised they picked him over the lower-hanging fruit of von Falkenhayn (ran the show after von Moltke's nervous breakdown in '14 until 1916 after Verdun turned out the complete opposite of how he promised it would).

That was the reasons many people justified it, however I am a bit surprised they didn't just make up a guy. It's not like it is hard to make-up an evil sounding german name and put general in front of it.

 Easy E wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I was surprised to hear that the evil general is Erich von Ludendorff. Yeah, that Erich von Ludendorff.

I dunno... considering some of the things he did post-war it makes a kind of sense. He advocated for total war (even wrote a book about it), backed Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, politically defied and opposed Hindenburg during the 20s and 30s... he's as close to a guilt-free German villain as you're likely to find in World War One ("guilt free" as in: you can make him your villain and get the audience to hate on him without feeling like you might be unfairly maligning a guy who might not deserve it, like Hindenburg). He was also Quartermaster General of the German army, which put him in charge of supply and logistics, which I assume would involve finding new weapons to use in the war. If the scenes in the trailer of a new chemical weapon that can destroy gas masks is important to the plot, it would make sense for Ludendorff to be the guy greenlighting the research and development. I'm actually pleasantly surprised they picked him over the lower-hanging fruit of von Falkenhayn (ran the show after von Moltke's nervous breakdown in '14 until 1916 after Verdun turned out the complete opposite of how he promised it would).

That was the reasons many people justified it, however I am a bit surprised they didn't just make up a guy. It's not like it is hard to make-up an evil sounding german name and put general in front of it.

General Hilter Von Luftballon

I'm off to see the film now, I'll let you all know how it is.

It's taken 75 years for this to happen.

Sure, the could have used Gunter von Evilburg or Hans Totenface, but where would the historical authenticity be?

Wonder Woman is really very good. Major "Saving Private Ryan" vibes to it, something that Cap1 never really pulled off.

One thing worth mentioning is there are no mid or after credits scenes. Once the film is done, it's done.

In saying that, if they did do an end credits scene, this is what I would have wanted to see: (Spoilers for the end of the film, naturally)



The main thing I'm trying to figure out it's where I'd place it. It's certainly closer in feel to Logan than Guardians2, for example. But it never really matches either in genre. It's definitely a "war is a horrible thing" film, so that brings me back to Saving Private Ryan, albeit with no blood and gore.

It's probably not quite as rewatchable as Guardians but, broadly speaking I'd rather put it on than Logan.

So broadly speaking of you're worried it's going to be a bad film, don't be, you'll be fine.

In 3 words.

Going to summaries something I saw earlier:

Person A: This movie creates unrealistic standards

Person B: That war is bad and that women can be strong?

Person A: No, that WB can make a good DC movie.

Saw it tonight. Thought it was terrific, easily the best non-Nolan DCCU movie, although that's kind of a low bar.

Gal Gadot was tremendous in the movie, and I even didn't hate Chris Pine.

FYI, there is no post-credits scene, go ahead and go to the bathroom.

The movie ended and everyone sat thru all the credits. The screen went dark, the lights turned on, and the whole theater groaned. Marvel has trained us too well.

I saw it last night. It's more than good, it's probably the best origin movie since Iron Man. As the critics say, the third act falters and could have been greatly improved with a rewrite and reduced running time for that portion of the film.


Gal Gadot embodies Wonder Woman perfectly. It's almost surreal. Easily on par with how RDJ is the perfect Iron Man.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I saw it last night. It's more than good, it's probably the best origin movie since Iron Man. As the critics say, the third act falters and could have been greatly improved with a rewrite and reduced running time for that portion of the film.

Spoiler:

Surprisingly it's not the feminist film it's made out to be for three major reasons.

1). Wonder Woman is revealed to be a daughter of Zeus...and a god. Which to me really kills the girl power narrative. Gender is completely irrelevant in regards to a God's power.

2). All the Amazons could be replaced with men and only one character would require a rewrite, Diana's mother... the only one of them to do something unique to the female gender. The remaining female characters are not portrayed in a very positive light. Dr. Poison is cruel and easily manipulated by male figures. Steve's secretary is frumpy, but mostly competent at least. The remaining women are portrayed as victims of war.

3). The greatest act of self sacrifice in the film is done by a man and it is this act that motivates Wonder Woman to defeat Area.

However, this film is a success in that shows a female superhero led film can succeed critically and commercially. Which is the most important success.

Gal Gadot embodies Wonder Woman perfectly. It's almost surreal. Easily on par with how RDJ is the perfect Iron Man.

I saw it and it is legitmately a good movie. Solidly standing with this years current hero movies (Logan and GotG2) and significantly better than all of the DCU movies thus far. Like a lot better.

My only knock is the finally villain didn't live up to the rest of the movie and was a bit of a miscast . However, the movie still held up really well everywhere else and it didn't drag the movie down.

I would definitely recomend the movie and I so far have not like any DCU films. Hope this is a good sign for Justice League.

I don't feel it was a miscast but more...