# Wonder Woman - Seen it (Open Spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 2, 2017, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918 "2017-06-02T06:26:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/161 "2017-06-12T16:50:18Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Ares killed them all - Only in the movie. In Justice League Unlimited, etc she runs into Hephaestus and Hermes, iirc. Also in the comics she runs into others. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/162 "2017-06-12T16:51:12Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > We know pretty much how the story of Wonder Woman will continue. She appears in thee movie _Justice League_ which opens November 17th. I doubt that the future DC superhero films would go back in time or reboot what we know from that film. If I understand correctly, the rest of the Justice League only learned of the existence of Wonder Woman in _Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice_. So any solo movies about Wonder Woman in the future would have to be about what happens to her after the events of _Justice League_. I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this comment. Yeah, BvS established that nobody in the present day had ever heard of Wonder Woman. Then, in her first solo movie, they set the whole thing a hundred years in the past. Why do you think they wouldn’t do that again? > [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > To be exact, this one was set in the present. To be exact, this movie was set during WWI. The framing device is not the setting. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/163 "2017-06-12T17:17:53Z")
It was decent. I generally like superhero origin films and the early scenes with Diana and Trevor were fun. I liked the idea of a WW1 setting but perhaps they could have done more with it, especially aerial combat. I think they should have postponed the Ares reveal and fight for a sequel with perhaps some hints in this one. 15 minutes is too short for a god to be revealed and destroyed; that deserved its own movie. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/164 "2017-06-12T17:31:05Z")
> [@GreedySmurf](#): > > (And FYI to the makers, you don’t park a delivery truck where you did to deliver something to the Louvre. In fact that area is pedestarian only 🙂 ) Was the true in 1917? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/165 "2017-06-12T17:41:40Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Yeah. Working at the Louarve is “withdrawing”. That was AFTER BvS ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/166 "2017-06-12T17:43:48Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Was the true in 1917? The delivery did not occur in 1917, unless you think Bruce Wayne was alive in 1917 and Diana was dressed like that in 1917. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/167 "2017-06-12T18:27:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this comment. Yeah, BvS established that nobody in the present day had ever heard of Wonder Woman. Then, in her first solo movie, they set the whole thing a hundred years in the past. Why do you think they wouldn’t do that again? > > To be exact, this movie was set during WWI. The framing device is not the setting. Thanks. Now I don’t need to.say all this. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/168 "2017-06-12T18:28:08Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Was the true in 1917? She wasn’t working at the Louvre and receiving packages from Bruce Wayne in 1917. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/169 "2017-06-12T20:01:35Z")
Like others here, I thought it was the best DCEU movie so far (not hard to achieve), loved Gal Godot in the role (and various Amazons in their roles), appreciated the sexy-not-sex object approach, and thought the plot and script were kinda crappy. When I see a movie like that, I come up with better script ideas coming out of the theater (I know some of you do too, you’ve posted them here). My contributions: 1. so much that could have been done with Diana the Godkiller. She’s the Winter Soldier! She’s the Iron Giant! Let her struggle with her inhuman origins and overcome them. 2. Ares as a politician – as a “man of peace,” per Bob Dylan – has such great potential. We haven’t had a recent movie super villain who stays in a business suit through the final battle before (that I can remember). Why would he turn into a Tranformer in a Viking helmet? Let him battle her with slippery words and empty promises, not cliched lightning bolts and shards of metal. 3. Steve Trevor, suave 1910s dude, needed to be educated about feminism in a much more gradual way. Let us see him come to grips with Diana’s power semi-realistically: writing her off at first, then gradually accepting her help more and more. 4. I would’ve loved to see Steve trying to get in her pants a bit more, and getting rebuffed because of her focus on the mission. He should start out as kind of a Sexist Woth a Heart of Gold, and develop through the movie. 5. Drop the clumsy sex jokes after the beach battle (in the healing pool, on the boat). They weren’t funny. 6. Fix all the plot holes people are pointing out. I realize not all of these points could work in a new, revised WW2017 movie, but … it could’ve been _so much better_. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/170 "2017-06-12T20:28:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > What are you talking about? Man, the Dope has let me down. **Deep Breath**. One of the Amazons; Lysippe; had a son.Said son venerated only Ares. As a punishment, Aphrodite made him fall in love with his own mother. Rather than do the dirty, he jumped into the river Amazonius, which wa ranamed for him; River Tanasis. Said river is now called the Don; its in Russia, because of course, a Russian story has to be fucking depressive. [QUOTE=snoe] 3) Steve Trevor, suave 1910s dude, needed to be educated about feminism in a much more gradual way. Let us see him come to grips with Diana’s power semi-realistically: writing her off at first, then gradually accepting her help more and more. [/QUOTE] Steve deals directly with a grand total of two non- Diana women in the film; the Amazonian Queen and his Secretary. As for the Amazons, he learns very quickly that they aren’t your average human. 1910’s Gender roles and expectations don’t really enter the picture at all. He could have been an absolute bastard to women usually and we won’t know from the film. > [@](#): > > would’ve loved to see Steve trying to get in her pants a bit more, and getting rebuffed because of her focus on the mission. He should start out as kind of a Sexist Woth a Heart of Gold, and develop through the movie. This might surprise you, but just because a man is a man or from 1910 does not mean that he wants to screw every woman he sees. Steve Trevor spends most of the film worrying about his mission and sees Diana as a burden for most of the time, and she often is. Way more realistic for a WW1 military officer to behave than wanting to bend her over a convenient table and give her a good seeing to. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/171 "2017-06-12T20:48:27Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > 1. Ares as a politician – as a “man of peace,” per Bob Dylan – has such great potential. We haven’t had a recent movie super villain who stays in a business suit through the final battle before (that I can remember). Robert Redford in _Winter Soldier_? I disagree with making Steve Trevor more sexist. There’s already plenty of sexists in the movie as is; let Diana have at least one actual friend in the world who doesn’t look down on her because she has boobs. I also would be worried about it turning the movie from being about Wonder Woman, to being about how Wonder Woman makes Steve a better person. And politically, I think it was also smart to make sure the “first feminist superhero movie” doesn’t portray all men as scumbags, thus avoiding the “feminism means man hating” fallacy that’s still a major part of our social discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/172 "2017-06-12T21:03:12Z")
Ah, sorry, man. I never studied classics formally so my knowledge is spotty. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/173 "2017-06-13T01:50:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Robert Redford in _Winter Soldier_? Kind of, but he wasn’t the ultimate antagonist in that movie, either – Captain America still has to beat TWS. I dunno – I thought it was dumb to have David Thewlis and his goofy mustache clad in armor and talking through a voice filter. If he’s a god and doesn’t really engage Diana hand-to-hand that much, how cool would it be if he kept his human persona and ditched the goofy armor? > [@](#): > > I disagree with making Steve Trevor more sexist. There’s already plenty of sexists in the movie as is; let Diana have at least one actual friend in the world who doesn’t look down on her because she has boobs. I also would be worried about it turning the movie from being about Wonder Woman, to being about how Wonder Woman makes Steve a better person. I see your point, and it’s a good one – but let me push back on it, because I think there were some missed opportunities to make a better movie without making the movie be “about the menz.” 1. why can’t Diana’s actual friend who “gets it” be a woman? We get a taste of this from the brief interplay with Trevor’s secretary – let’s develop her character, and let the two of them push back on Trevor’s sexism. Or, if we can’t spoil Trevor by making him more realistically piggish, society’s sexism. As written, the secretary is a half-cooked tease at something that could’ve been so much more interesting. 2. the “actual sexists” in the actual movie are poorly-written caricatures – like at least 75% of the characters – so they are merely an annoyance to Diana (and the audience). Make her – and us – deal with these people as more than speed bumps. If 1910s London sexism is an obstacle, make it a real one. Llet the movie deal with it! Don’t just let casting sour looks, talking smack, taking off your civilian clothes, and kicking ass on the battlefield be the answer. 3. As I see it, movie Steve Trevor as executed is a snooze, a placeholder. (No shade on Chris Pine; he was fine with the lines he had.) They held back from making him flawed in any meaningful way, hence from him developing in any meaningful way. (They did the same for Diana. Both characters got to _talk_ about changing, because Screenplay 101, but neither started in a place where there was significant room to grow. Yes, they both got to change their minds a lot when given new information; that is not the same as growth.) You don’t have to make his character start off as a sexist to make him interesting – but you have to do _something_ more than what they did do, because he was … a snooze. And really, that’s my beef with the movie. It has great bones, and missed so many opportunities to do something more interesting. I don’t mind a flawed movie, but a movie that’s flawed because it didn’t try? Makes me a little bitter. ---
**Author:** ![TYphoonSignal8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@TYphoonSignal8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TYphoonSignal8)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/174 "2017-06-13T02:08:45Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > 1. Ares as a politician – as a “man of peace,” per Bob Dylan – has such great potential. We haven’t had a recent movie super villain who stays in a business suit through the final battle before (that I can remember). Why would he turn into a Tranformer in a Viking helmet? Let him battle her with slippery words and empty promises, not cliched lightning bolts and shards of metal. Aside from the ending whereby Ares was defeated by love concussion, or a love bolt, or whatever that was, this was indeed my biggest beef about the movie. Ares didn’t need to be Magneto. Ares could have done a much better job of a post-humanity vision. He could have mounted, to a warrior princess trained as a warrior from a young age, a compelling argument around conflict as a catalyst for change for the better. Or something like that. Conjuring big pointy bits of metal was very video gamey. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/175 "2017-06-13T03:00:48Z")
Did anyone else notice that the movie explicitly rejected the dualism that forms the basis of (perhaps) the majority of American Christians? There is no single evil force that tempts people away from good. We don’t need a(n anti-)god to make us evil. I couldn’t believe it when I realized what Steve Trevor was saying in a mainstream blockbuster. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/176 "2017-06-13T03:10:45Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > Kind of, but he wasn’t the ultimate antagonist in that movie, either – Captain America still has to beat TWS. I dunno – I thought it was dumb to have David Thewlis and his goofy mustache clad in armor and talking through a voice filter. If he’s a god and doesn’t really engage Diana hand-to-hand that much, how cool would it be if he kept his human persona and ditched the goofy armor? I’d say that Redford was the ultimate antagonist in CW: Bucky was just there for the requisite punching. Redford’s the villain who needs to be stopped. But I agree, it would have been cool to have David Thewlis in a nice, hand tailored suit throwing Diana through walls with a flick of his hand. > [@](#): > > I see your point, and it’s a good one – but let me push back on it, because I think there were some missed opportunities to make a better movie without making the movie be “about the menz.” > > 1. why can’t Diana’s actual friend who “gets it” be a woman? We get a taste of this from the brief interplay with Trevor’s secretary – let’s develop her character, and let the two of them push back on Trevor’s sexism. Or, if we can’t spoil Trevor by making him more realistically piggish, society’s sexism. As written, the secretary is a half-cooked tease at something that could’ve been so much more interesting. I’d love to have more Etta in the movie, but it’s hard to justify having her around after Diana crosses No Man’s Land, and introducing another woman who’s also a society-confounding martial bad-ass undercuts Diana’s whole deal. Beyond that, making Steve overtly sexist just strikes me as a terrible, terrible idea. For one thing, I just can’t see Diana falling in love with someone who, when they first meet, views her as less than a whole person. Even if he learns better by the end of the movie, that’s something that should permanently relegate the person to “friend” status _at best_. And beyond that, superheros are fantasies about empowerment, and Wonder Woman should be specifically about female empowerment. Having her love interest be someone she needs to “fix” runs directly counter to that. Women in the real world have to settle for guys who are only “a little” sexist all the time. Wonder Woman shouldn’t have to make that compromise. > [@](#): > > 1. the “actual sexists” in the actual movie are poorly-written caricatures – like at least 75% of the characters – so they are merely an annoyance to Diana (and the audience). Make her – and us – deal with these people as more than speed bumps. If 1910s London sexism is an obstacle, make it a real one. Llet the movie deal with it! Don’t just let casting sour looks, talking smack, taking off your civilian clothes, and kicking ass on the battlefield be the answer. Unlike your previous suggestion, I don’t fundamentally object to the idea of a Wonder Woman movie that’s more directly about sexism, but I also kind of liked the way it was handled here: as something that Diana barely noticed, and which she dismissed as unimportant idiocy when she did notice it. If sexism in the early 20th century was about telling women they have no power, a woman who is so powerful she barely notices that the sexists exist seems appropriately belittling. > [@](#): > > 1. As I see it, movie Steve Trevor as executed is a snooze, a placeholder. (No shade on Chris Pine; he was fine with the lines he had.) They held back from making him flawed in any meaningful way, hence from him developing in any meaningful way. (They did the same for Diana. Both characters got to _talk_ about changing, because Screenplay 101, but neither started in a place where there was significant room to grow. Yes, they both got to change their minds a lot when given new information; that is not the same as growth.) Aesthetic differences, I suppose - I really liked Steve’s character in this movie. Sure, not a lot of character growth there, but that’s not really something I look to superhero movies for. Overall, I thought the movie did really well with its character work. The plot didn’t make much sense, and could have been a lot cooler (seriously: Zeppelins!) but it absolutely nailed its characterization, finding exactly what made these characters work in the comics, and translating that aptly to the big screen. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/177 "2017-06-13T03:23:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Did anyone else notice that the movie explicitly rejected the dualism that forms the basis of (perhaps) the majority of American Christians? > > There is no single evil force that tempts people away from good. We don’t need a(n anti-)god to make us evil. It was a poignant insight. It was germane to the plot point of Diana’s fundamental misunderstanding of basic “normal” human nature. Although it was sort of diminished by the fact that there was an actual, literal Ares, and he was not just mythical abstraction. It was obvious to me as soon as “godkiller” was mentioned that it was her, and as such it was inevitably relevant later, but still, it was a weakness in the overall story; I feel like it would have been more impactful had that been the lesson, but of course it’s a “comic book movie” and there _has_ to be a climactic battle between her and another being equally as powerful. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/178 "2017-06-13T03:38:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Did anyone else notice that the movie explicitly rejected the dualism that forms the basis of (perhaps) the majority of American Christians? > > There is no single evil force that tempts people away from good. We don’t need a(n anti-)god to make us evil. > > I couldn’t believe it when I realized what Steve Trevor was saying in a mainstream blockbuster. I think you have an exceedingly narrow view of Christianity. Then again, if your standard is the cheap stand-in for morality that you can get in a two-hour action flick, sure. But it’s not like questions of morality are new even in Superhero films. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/179 "2017-06-13T06:58:40Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I think you have an exceedingly narrow view of Christianity. No, actually, I don’t. I just don’t know the exact proportion of American Christians who believe in dualism compared to those who don’t. My “(perhaps)” indicated that I suspect it might be a majority but I’m not sure. Dualism is important enough to American Protestantism that you often hear people in public spouting dualism beliefs, such as street preachers. I know the Vatican is anti-dualist, but I suspect dome proportion of American Catholics believe in it. And when a mainstreamovie contradicts such a mainstream belief, generally you hear some objections to it. The the rest of your post is just a cheap-shot insult. ---
**Author:** ![GreedySmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a698b9/32.png) [@GreedySmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreedySmurf)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918/180 "2017-06-13T08:40:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Movies aren’t documentaries about real cities. If you’re waiting for any significant proportion of movie directors to start caring about this stuff, you have a long wait ahead of you. > > Heck, Christopher Nolan made Batman go under an overpass in daylight and come out at night. In fact playing the spot-the-crazy-stuff game makes movies more interesting, not less. I know, and it wasn’t one of my nitpicks that lessened the enjoyment of the movie, it was just hilarious in that we’ve only relatively recently moved to London, and to watch them debark the boat at Tower Bridge and 30 seconds later they’re walking past St Paul’s. As you say, after having lived for 40 years in Brisbane, Australia, now having lived in London and visited Paris, Berlin etc, spot the familiar location/landmark is quite fun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wonder-woman-seen-it-open-spoilers/787918.md?page=10)