• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Wonder Woman (DCCU) Review Thread (RT 93%)

RDreamer said:
Batman's no kill line has never made much sense especially in movies with huge fight scenes. It just can't be a hard line in those instances. The second you start throwing people around and bashing heads into walls and such there's always a chance of you killing them. Always.
Click to expand...

There's always the chance of Batman getting shot in the lips but, like the punching, there's the conceit that's he's just too good to let that happen.

The no kill rule, in terms of its concept, makes as much as anything in the heightened reality of superheroes - it makes none. Batman is a crazy dude who draws a line in the sand that murder is what seperates himself from villains - his superpower, his discipline, prevents him from crossing that line. He has trained for years knock people out with no chance of killing them, no more ridiculous than a person shooting fire beams out of their eyes.
 
Batman murdering everyone was by far the worst thing about BvS. Gtfo with that utter trash fanfic Snyder.

And they say Batfleck was the best thing? Give me a break. Ben Affleck didn't care, and he seems to be caring even less in Justice League.

No, having a voice modifier and a good body/outfit doesn't make him a good Batman, let alone "the best". Literally any buff dude with that voice filter would've looked as menacing.

I'm still mad they didn't get Karl Urban, he was so absolutely perfect.
 
Sojgat said:
Baleman is the worst of them all.

page8.jpg
Click to expand...

I think leaving an international super terrorist to die is probably a bit more acceptable than strapping a bomb to some lowly goon.
 
Been off the net for a few days and come back to WW getting not just good but great reviews.

This movie's blowing all my expectations out of the water.
 
Alienous said:
There's always the chance of Batman getting shot in the lips but, like the punching, there's the conceit that's he's just too good to let that happen.

The no kill rule, in terms of its concept, makes as much as anything in the heightened reality of superheroes - it makes none. Batman is a crazy dude who draws a line in the sand that murder is what seperates himself from villains - his superpower, his discipline, prevents him from crossing that line. He has trained for years knock people out with no chance of killing them, no more ridiculous than a person shooting fire beams out of their eyes.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Also, personally I like the Batman character because he's human. He doesn't have super powers or mythical shit going on. So yes I can accept some silly shit about Superman being able to use just the right amount of force, but I fucking hate when it's done with Batman. He should be a regular guy struggling with the realities of fighting crimes and the consequences of those actions plus the line between him and his enemies. That blurred line between him and them has also been the most fascinating part of his character for me. I like when he's portrayed as basically just as looney as them, just on the good side of the line. One bad day is what separates them, basically.
 
Obliterator said:
I don't even understand the aversion to Batman killing.
Click to expand...

Well it's a fairly big point of his character.


I don't mind Batman killing when circumstances demand it. It's some of the more casual murdering that Keaton and Affleck did that seems out of step with the character, to me.
 
Bishop89 said:
it bothers me the guy on the turret just disappears lol
Click to expand...

I'm sure he blows up into several gibbly bits in the extended cut!

Well actually I don't know but they did add blood splatter to the warehouse fight to make sure we know Batman is murdering those people LOL, so they might as well have.
 
Suspension of disbelief is needed when viewing Nolan's Batman. He doesn't actively killed and we never see him directly kill someone. You never see someone on screen die as a direct result with Batman.

Sure if we were to really take a look you could say that some of these people are most likely dead. But due to us not seeing the aftermath or Batman directly murdering people you can still say he adhered to his no Kill rule.

That bit of ambiguity is a bit of a stretch but still gives you grounds to say he didnt kill anyone.

However, we see BvS Batman gun people down, throw cars with people in them at other cars that then explode. We see him knife people in the chest. There's no ambiguity, no subtly.
 
RDreamer said:
BvS already explained what happened. Did you not see the movie? He had a complete existential crisis when he realized the power and ramifications of a being like Superman existing. It became his number one goal to get rid of that, because he saw it as the biggest thing he could ever do. Nothing else he'd done in his life mattered compared to what could happen if Superman went bad like everyone else he had saw. Once that happened, once his goal became to kill then the brutality came out. Once Superman literally sacrificed everything to save the world he saw that he was wrong and vowed to be better. His new goal that would be the most important in his life would be to unite the good super beings to combat against the coming storm.
Click to expand...

pretty much this. it pisses me off that people are always saying batman in BvS sucks because he kills people...

people have to understand that the batman ben affleck plays is a VERY different batman from what we saw until this point in batman movies.

batman is broken down in BvS , he used to be good but after robin dies he just sees that there is no other way , not killing is not an option anymore because it got him nowhere.
 
No see Wonder Woman's sword is a reverse blade sword so it's dull on the end because we want all the cool sword shit without any of the actual death because Rurouni Kenshin is for losers
 
SamuelSupreme said:
Suspension of disbelief is needed when viewing Nolan's Batman. He doesn't actively killed and we never see him directly kill someone. You never see someone on screen die as a direct result with Batman.

Sure if we were to really take a look you could say that some of these people are most likely dead. But due to us not seeing the aftermath or Batman directly murdering people you can still say he adhered to his no Kill rule.

That bit of ambiguity is a bit of a stretch but still gives you grounds to say he didnt kill anyone.

However, we see BvS Batman gun people down, throw cars with people in them at other cars that then explode. We see him knife people in the chest. There's no ambiguity, no subtly.
Click to expand...

It's weird to me that it's cool when we can just ignore it because of reasons, but when him being brutal is both explained and one of the central themes to the character in the movie then it's bad?
 
Theorry said:
Sure. But that doesnt only count for BvS. In many movies he has killed. And imo the one in BvS makes even more sense to me of we compare. Because in there is even old Bruce where has seen some shit over the years.
Click to expand...

RDreamer said:
Batman's no kill line has never made much sense especially in movies with huge fight scenes. It just can't be a hard line in those instances. The second you start throwing people around and bashing heads into walls and such there's always a chance of you killing them. Always.

Plus BvS has a heavy thematic reason for his current brutality that makes him question and then reaffirm some of the points that poster brought up by the end of the movie.
Click to expand...
I was talking about Batman in general.
I don't mind if he kills and there is a reason for it.
BvS gave you a reason. I just don't think the execution was all that great.

Batman decided to become Batman because he lost his parents... the most devastating moment in his entire life.

Killing someone else, who could be someones parent, doesn't seem the right way to honor that memory.
Maybe if he realized how he became the same monster he swore to fight against during BvS (instead of finding out his Mother shared the same name with an alien) might have made the whole Batman character arc have more substance.
 
SamuelSupreme said:
Suspension of disbelief is needed when viewing Nolan's Batman. He doesn't actively killed and we never see him directly kill someone. You never see someone on screen die as a direct result with Batman.

Sure if we were to really take a look you could say that some of these people are most likely dead. But due to us not seeing the aftermath or Batman directly murdering people you can still say he adhered to his no Kill rule.

That bit of ambiguity is a bit of a stretch but still gives you grounds to say he didnt kill anyone.

However, we see BvS Batman gun people down, throw cars with people in them at other cars that then explode. We see him knife people in the chest. There's no ambiguity, no subtly.
Click to expand...

He's not presented as a hero in the film though.

On topic: Fantastic that WW is getting these reviews, not so fantastic that I still have to wait 2 weeks..
 
SamuelSupreme said:
Suspension of disbelief is needed when viewing Nolan's Batman. He doesn't actively killed and we never see him directly kill someone. You never see someone on screen die as a direct result with Batman.

Sure if we were to really take a look you could say that some of these people are most likely dead. But due to us not seeing the aftermath or Batman directly murdering people you can still say he adhered to his no Kill rule.

That bit of ambiguity is a bit of a stretch but still gives you grounds to say he didnt kill anyone.

However, we see BvS Batman gun people down, throw cars with people in them at other cars that then explode. We see him knife people in the chest. There's no ambiguity, no subtly.
Click to expand...

He burns down an entire house full of people. But ok, let's pretend everyone lives?

You see that in BvS but you see no bodies. Maybe they lived! Also he stabs someone in the shoulder not chest
 
Inferno313 said:
Let's get this back to the Wonder Woman reviews. What's your guys's favorite piece so far? Alison Willmore, Buzzfeed's (fantastic) critic has my favorite write-up so far. It got me really excited.



LINK
Click to expand...


"Warts and all, Wonder Woman gives DC Films an ideal to strive towards. They have stumbled and they have fallen. But now it is time for them to accomplish wonders."
Click to expand...

Oh boy.
 
SpaceWolf said:
Usually, I'd write a 30000 word response to this (people who claim Batman refusing to kill anyone is an out-dated philosophy for the character or worse, that Batman should make me more objectionable than I probably should be!) but I just don't have the energy today. I'll just say that Batman deciding to murder criminals goes against the most defining, fundamental principals of the modern interpretation of the character and goes against everything he stands for as a hero, which is his uncompromising motivation to preserve and to protect human life from those who would threaten it, no matter what the personal cost.

BmKS8v7.jpg


A lot of people seem to think that ever since his parents got shot in that alley, Batman has always just been about punishing the criminal who might fire the gun. I vehemently disagree, I think Batman at his basest core has always been a character who's defined his very existence around saving those in danger, whether saving people from crime, saving people from death, even saving people from themselves, their own demons, even if others might come to feel they might not even deserve it. At his most basic essence, Batman is a character who just wants to save people, even when it's impossible for him to do so. In the interpretations of the character I most gravitate towards as a reader, the formative evening Batman's parents got shot in the alley taught him his most definitive lesson: that human life can be fragile and can be taken away in an instant. For me Batman's not so much about punishing the criminal, he's about protecting the innocent. And personally, that's why a Batman who goes around murdering and mutilating criminals not only doesn't gel for me, it completely misses the fundamental driving force of the character as a whole.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Shaanyboi said:
I think leaving an international super terrorist to die is probably a bit more acceptable than strapping a bomb to some lowly goon.
Click to expand...

I don't really see the difference when he could have easily saved him.

Platy said:
Women threads always get derailed to be about men
Click to expand...

Wait, there's a Wonder Woman movie?
 
FlashbladeGAF said:
Maybe if he realized how he became the same monster he swore to fight against during BvS (instead of finding out his Mother shared the same name with an alien) might have made the whole Batman character arc have more substance.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened in that scene though. The execution wasn't great but I thought it was obvious that was the message being portrayed.
 
FlashbladeGAF said:
I was talking about Batman in general.
I don't mind if he kills and there is a reason for it.
BvS gave you a reason. I just don't think the execution was all that great.

Batman decided to become Batman because he lost his parents... the most devastating moment in his entire life.

Killing someone else, who could be someones parent, doesn't seem the right way to honor that memory.
Maybe if he realized how he became the same monster he swore to fight against during BvS (instead of finding out his Mother shared the same name with an alien) might have made the whole Batman character arc have more substance.
Click to expand...

But he did... How about you not distill the entire end to just that? What you lament he didn't do is exactly what he did in the movie. He did realize he'd become the monster he swore to fight against. The name thing simply got him to stop end the immediate frenzy and set him on the path. Someone else's mother in danger right then and needing his help also helped the change. But really it was Superman becoming the beacon of hope by sacrificing everything proved him entirely wrong and was what turned him completely at the end of the movie.
 
Ashhong said:
He burns down an entire house full of people. But ok, let's pretend everyone lives?

You see that in BvS but you see no bodies. Maybe they lived! Also he stabs someone in the shoulder not chest
Click to expand...

He burns down a house full of trained ninjas. Bruce, one of these trained ninjas, is able to escape after duel - which suggests that any of the other trained ninjas, if they chose to escape, would have been able to.

And yeah, it's open to interpretation, just like the knock-out punches in BvS - 'there's a way to intepret this where that guy's brain isn't bleeding'. But there's no way to interpret a car with people in it blowing up, and the occupants not dying, ergo "Man, Batman kills people in this".
 
Any Wonder Woman characters/villains we'd like to see in the sequel?

Personally I'm rooting for Cheetah. Veronica Cale would also be great for a modern story.
 
I'm more confused by the people getting upset that there is some discussion about other DC movies in a DC verse review thread.

Most of the discussion has been pretty good and not much attacking or fighting. Conversation is gonna naturally move to other aspects of the DC verse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marvel Television’s Wonder Man | Official Trailer
22
402
DeepEnigma replied
Jurassic World: Rebirth Review Thread
2 3 4
153
6K
analog_future replied
Superman (2025) | Review Thread
Social News  21 22 23 24 25
1K
15K
VulcanRaven replied
Japanese woman marries her AI boyfriend
2
64
2K
Zacfoldor replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
8K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom