Wonder Woman is an Unwatchable Mess

Not even a good troll

GFY you cis heterocentrist POS

now this is how you troll the fanboys

LINK

quote:

---

Director Patty Jenkins examines her subject less deeply than Snyder has done. Could Jenkins, director of Monster (2004), about psychotic serial killer Aileen Wuornos — one of the most repugnant and perversely “feminist” movies ever — fashion a viable superhero?

---

quote:

---

This “She-ro” status might satisfy comic-book fans who found it difficult to accept the spiritual complexity of Snyder’s male superheroes, but that also makes Wonder Woman a superficial experience. As the origin story proceeds, Jenkins’s period-set action scenes slip into rip-offs of Captain America, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Hellboy, and Jonah Hex.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, fanboys and fangirls, Wonder Woman needs to cohere with the way Snyder used comic-book fantasy to simultaneously elevate and deepen the complicated human drives of DC Comics characters. Unfortunately, Diana’s “god-killer” question lacks resonance and exposes contemporary faithlessness — unlike Snyder’s visionary films, derived from folkloric belief and Christian notions of sacrifice and redemption (which occasionally made Sucker Punch awesome, stirring pop art). Snyder’s mature perspective is traded for women-warrior scenes in Themyscira that replace 300-style sensual intensity with the near-camp of butt-kicking female toughness.

---

quote:

---

Wonder Woman, however, is “feminist” in a petty, trendy way.

---

quote:

---

But Jenkins’s Amazon warriors rappelling down cliffs and shooting arrows against German rifles lacks the daring, visual extravagance of Zhang Yimou’s The Great Wall. In all film history, Leni Riefenstahl and Kathryn Bigelow remain the only women to exhibit proficiency at kinetic filmmaking.

---

quote:

---

too much of Wonder Woman is realistic in a conventional Marvel Comics way, without Snyder’s visual passion. Maybe it takes PC women and whipped men to split that difference, but it’s a real let-down to realize that neither Bruce Wayne nor Clark Kent will appear to spark things up. Or maybe some fans will simply enjoy banality.

---

quote:

---

She’s both a lesser character and a lesser icon than Snyder’s Superman and Batman. Diana, like her introductory movie, has childlike enthusiasm but no passion.

---

2 to 1 baw hadn't seen the movie.

And all of you can frick off if you didn't percieve that mess for the total dreck it was.

Sucker Punch was an unwatchable mess too.

Goddamn- I mean if that's not trolling that's just wow.

quote:

---

Snyder’s visionary films

---

I did very much say that based on BvS and SS I didn't expect much from this movie.

And Wonder Woman if you didn't get the memo was an unwatchable mess.

Huh?

I am guessing that all you stupid mofo's who down checked me have no idea what "On the nose" writing is. This movie was nothing but "on the nose" writing.

Writing on the Nose: what it is and why not to do it.

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Richard •

What is writing on the nose?



Writing on the nose is a screenwriting term that refers to dialogue or action in which the character’s innermost thoughts and feelings are fully expressed by what the character is saying or doing. There is no nuance, mystery, ambiguity or surprise (as there is in real life). The subtext has been written directly into the text.



What is subtext? It is everything that is not on the page. It is the unspoken dialogue and hidden thoughts found in the whitespace between the lines.



Because people often go to great lengths to hide what they are thinking, even subconsciously at times, on the nose writing feels unnatural and is neither compelling nor dramatic. Actors don’t want to act it, directors don’t want to direct it, and film editors will slice it out and let it fall to the floor. Likewise in the literary world. On the nose dialogue (and activity) robs characters of their complexity, bores readers, and signals “amateur” to editors and agents. To wit:



Sam knocked on the door, let himself in, crossed the room to one of two leather chairs and sat down. He looked across the desk to his boss. “Good morning. You wanted to see me?”

vs.

There was a knock on the door. Before Turnbull could answer, Sam walked in and sank into one of two leather chairs facing the desk. He ran his fingers through dark hair that had grown considerably since his ouster from Corporate America, then clasped his hands on top of his head. “The furrow in your brow, it’s as deep as anything on June’s face. What’s up?”



Which of these examples has nuance and mystery? Which has an inner life, something going on between the lines?



Here’s an example paraphrased from Robert McKee’s book Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting:



He sits across from her at the candlelit table, the light glinting off the crystal wine glasses as soft breezes billow the curtains, and a Chopin nocturne plays in the background. He reaches across the table and takes her hand in his. She looks longingly into his eyes. He says, “I love you.” “And I love you,” she replies.



What’s wrong with this scene? It’s full of detail and ambience, and people do this in real life, don’t they? Yes, they do, but even then there are unspoken, and often unwanted, thoughts swirling in their heads. This scene lacks nuance, mystery, ambiguity, or surprise. It lacks an inner life, and if I’m the reader and this is how the bulk of the story is being told, I’ll quickly lose interest. On the other hand, if the scene is rewritten with subtext that offers subtle hints—a telling gesture, facial expression, or shift in posture—that say this guy has an agenda, now the scene is infused with drama, and I’m interested."

LINK

Begging the question of course - why would ya'll take issue with something you can't even identify in a very very bad movie like "Wonder Woman"?