Superman is meant to be a boy scout, a goodie two shoes who fights for truth and justice and who will sacrifice himself to save others. Cavill's Superman is a brooding, whinging teenager who wears an almost black uniform who will happily trash Metropolis fighting some other Kryptons, but gets his knickers in a twist when Zod might kill some people with pew-pew eyes. Also, DC... Superman doesn't kill!
Batman: Batflect is the best Bats we've had, but again, DC: BATMAN DOESN'T KILL. Like, number one rule to the character, guys.
Yes. My main reason for my dislike of the recent DC films is because they were getting the characters so wrong. Before I went into Wonder Woman my one hope was that it would present her character faithfully. As much as I love watching her kick all ass, what I really wanted to see was the hero who seeks peace and love first and foremost.
Yes, Batman does not kill! How can you get that so wrong?! A.) he is shaped by death, it's the whole reason why he became Batman! B.) not killing is what keeps him separate from the bad guys. If you're ignoring this you're just outright ignoring the very character of Batman.
Yes, Superman should be overly good! No brooding, no grittiness. It's like filmmakers think that in order to have drama and conflict everything has to be dark and edgy, but you can still have Superman beaten down and struggling against the odds without just sabotaging his entire character.
Batman can be gritty. He fights for the individual, to stop tragedy marring their lives like it did for him, in a city that is basically grit-central. If you need to solve a crime, call Batman. He doesn't kill. Superman isn't gritty. He takes on all the suffering and sacrifice so the world at large doesn't. Because he has the abilities and he doesn't even question that he should use them to do good. You have an asteroid heading for earth, you call him (actually you don't need to call him, he'll do it anyway). He'll only kill if there's absolutely no other choice. You need to stop a war, you call Wonder Woman. She will find a way for peace to win through. She will kill if she deems it necessary.
Anyway, so as to the film, yes it was great. I don't think it was flawless like some say -- while I expected the old switcheroo with the villain (but didn't expect who it would be instead) it did mean that the Dr Poison and co stuff just kind of got shoved to one side. And it would've been nice to have fleshed out the Amazons just a little more so they didn't seem all-we-do-is-fight-and-flip. And ultimately I still can't help but wish for a Wonder Woman who's a little taller, a little more meaty. But that's my only complaint with Gal Gadot, because she's done a stunning job otherwise.
It sounds like director Patty Jenkins has been the main force in ensuring Diana's proper character came to the fore and not only does it mean she's produced an excellent film in that regard, it also looks like it's going to lead to Much Bigger Things in her career, especially in DC (hopefully) so that's so great for her. And proves that ooh, what a shocker, women can make excellent blockbuster films!
I am so glad that we had the No Man's Land scene. It was so good and so right. It's spot-on with the notion of the superhero, too. What nobody else can do, they will do it. What I loved especially was how she was drawing the fire onto her, letting everyone else move in safely. The hero puts themselves at risk so others don't have to.
Hells, I've gone done a rant myself. I like superhero comics, k?