When It comes to established characters being cast there are certain things that are kind of important for helping viewers to believe that the actor is the character and not just some guy playing dress up. Those boil down to Acting skills, Appearance and (if necessary) physical ability (e.g. athleticism, martial arts training, ability to perform own stunts, ect.). Ga'ls filmography is pretty light and I'm not familiar with any particular skills that she has beyond basic training that all Israeli citizens get during their mandatory tour of service so sadly that leaves her physical appearance.
This isn't the thing that will make or break this movie for me though; I'm much more concerned with how the writers are continuing on from the previous installment in this shared universe where they managed to fundamentally screw up the most iconic superhero of all time and don't appear to have ditched the cinematographer who seems to have a hatred of warm color temperatures.
Yeah you're making some pretty arbitrary distinctions here.
That Silver Surfer is CGI is irrelevant to the fact that he's relatively skinny. Doctor Strange beats people/demons up on the reg. Movie Wolverine is routinely criticized for being too tall. They're all original creations at one point or another so I don't even get how that's a distinction. And that they perform feats of strength with made up telekinetic powers instead of made up strength powers doesn't strike me as particularly relevant either.
Oh, also, Spiderman. Seems super obvious now.
The distinction I made was pretty clear. I was talking about characters who are known to be physically tough and strong, like Superman and Thor.
Doctor Strange hasn't even been cast so I don't know why you brought him up at all. Wolverine being criticized for being tall doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he's really buff. As for Chronicle, the point of the movie was that those were supposed to be bunch of regular kids, not superheroes.
I also made a point earlier about Spider-Man and Black Widow being slender is fine because they're acrobatic heroes who avoid getting hit.
And my point is that pretty much none of the superheroes have to be buff. However, with male superheroes, they tend to cast actors who are big, because that's what we associate with being powerful. So even though the argument of "it doesn't matter if Wonder Woman looks skinny" is fine within the context of the story, it doesn't address the issue of the different standards in how male and female actors are cast, and the lack of diversity and representation in the casting of women.
Heck, as you've pointed out, there's quite a bit of diversity in the different physiques of male superheroes. You have skinny heroes, medium build heroes, buff heroes, monstrous looking heroes (like the Hulk), and everything in between. However, with female superheroes, there's basically just the slender physique and occasionally some with medium builds. Wonder Woman is an opportunity to add some diversity and have a hero who has a physique that breaks away from the norm and moves more towards the bigger and buffer.
Spiderman takes a beating plenty and shows off his strength.
We all want there to be more variety in casting. But your statement that someone should look buff in strong if they're magically strong doesn't stand.
+4
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I remember something James Marsden said about his one bit of fisticuffs in X2, maybe it was in the DVD commentary, where he said Cyclops should have a scene doing martial arts simply because otherwise, wouldn't he just be a fat out of shape guy because his powers are based on distance?
Okay, we're not having 100 pages of discussion of whether Wonder Woman is too skinny, occasionally pocked by discussions of whether Wolverine is too tall or Cyclops is too not-fat-guy-ish.
Surely there is something more interesting that can be said about this apparently awesomely important film.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Okay, we're not having 100 pages of discussion of whether Wonder Woman is too skinny, occasionally pocked by discussions of whether Wolverine is too tall or Cyclops is too not-fat-guy-ish.
Surely there is something more interesting that can be said about this apparently awesomely important film.
I can try and start an argument about MoS if you like.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
If it's good, I hope they connect it to the Arrowverse/DCCWTV-verse
Yeah you're making some pretty arbitrary distinctions here.
That Silver Surfer is CGI is irrelevant to the fact that he's relatively skinny. Doctor Strange beats people/demons up on the reg. Movie Wolverine is routinely criticized for being too tall. They're all original creations at one point or another so I don't even get how that's a distinction. And that they perform feats of strength with made up telekinetic powers instead of made up strength powers doesn't strike me as particularly relevant either.
Oh, also, Spiderman. Seems super obvious now.
The distinction I made was pretty clear. I was talking about characters who are known to be physically tough and strong, like Superman and Thor.
Doctor Strange hasn't even been cast so I don't know why you brought him up at all. Wolverine being criticized for being tall doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he's really buff. As for Chronicle, the point of the movie was that those were supposed to be bunch of regular kids, not superheroes.
I also made a point earlier about Spider-Man and Black Widow being slender is fine because they're acrobatic heroes who avoid getting hit.
And my point is that pretty much none of the superheroes have to be buff. However, with male superheroes, they tend to cast actors who are big, because that's what we associate with being powerful. So even though the argument of "it doesn't matter if Wonder Woman looks skinny" is fine within the context of the story, it doesn't address the issue of the different standards in how male and female actors are cast, and the lack of diversity and representation in the casting of women.
Heck, as you've pointed out, there's quite a bit of diversity in the different physiques of male superheroes. You have skinny heroes, medium build heroes, buff heroes, monstrous looking heroes (like the Hulk), and everything in between. However, with female superheroes, there's basically just the slender physique and occasionally some with medium builds. Wonder Woman is an opportunity to add some diversity and have a hero who has a physique that breaks away from the norm and moves more towards the bigger and buffer.
Spiderman takes a beating plenty and shows off his strength.
We all want there to be more variety in casting. But your statement that someone should look buff in strong if they're magically strong doesn't stand.
Except that wasn't my point at all. I'm not saying that all physically tough/strong characters should all look buff.
I'm saying that movies tend to cast actors who are buff to play those types of male superheroes because it conveys that idea visually. They cast a Henry Cavill as Superman because we associate that kind of physique with strength and toughness, same thing with Thor, Captain America, Wolverine, etc. So it's a bit of a double standard when they never do that with female superheroes. And it's worse when they do it with Wonder Woman since she pretty much represents gender equality and breaking those kinds of double standards.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+9
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
I actually think Gadot looks pretty great in the role. She's no Jamie Alexander, but eh, not everyone can be. Marvel kind of beat 'em to the punch there. :P
Seriously though, my biggest problem with the advertising so far is it's all so grim and one color and dark.
It has Kevin Conroy as Batman and someone doing a pretty good Mark Hamil Joker.
Troy Baker.
He did Joel in The Last of Us.
He does a really good take on the Hamill Joker. He also played the Joker in the Arkham Origins game. And he is pretty much going to take over the role form Hamill going forward in the places where they'd use that DCU version.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+1
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
My question is when in the Arkham universe timeline does Assault take place? I mean, you have Harley/Joker plus some of the characters put away by Batman in City. Is it before Asylum/City or after City?
Either way, I look forward to watching it. I kind of love the Arkham games universe, so yea.
March 25th, 2016: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
August 5th, 2016 - Unknown DC Film
June 23rd, 2017 - Unknown DC Film
November 17th, 2017 - Unknown DC Film
March 23rd, 2018 - Unknown DC Film
July 27th, 2018 - Unknown DC Film
November 16th, 2018 - Unknown WB Event Film
April 5th 2019 - Unknown DC Film
June 14th, 2019 - Unknown DC Film
April 3rd, 2020 - Unknown DC Film
June 19th, 2020 - Unknown DC Film
November 20th, 2020 - Unknown WB Event Film
Looks like DC blinked on the Cap 3 v Batman v Superman showdown. Dunno if the "Event films" are DC related. Anyone want to check to see how this lines up with that rumored list from before comic-con?
It will be very interesting to see if DC can get away with doing the Avengers thing in reverse.
Marvel took four years and six movies to pull off The Avengers and even then it was considered an astronomical risk. Whatever DC has planned better be earth-shattering.
It will be very interesting to see if DC can get away with doing the Avengers thing in reverse.
Marvel took four years and six movies to pull off The Avengers and even then it was considered an astronomical risk. Whatever DC has planned better be earth-shattering.
I think DC had the potential to have an easier time with it. After Avengers, DC just had to say, "Okay, we're doing that, but with Superman and Batman!" and people would have been, "Oh, okay, Superman and Batman are cool, let's give this a shot." Marvel already ran the proof of concept.
I think they shot themselves in the foot a little bit by making MoS so underwhelming, because now instead of thinking, "Avengers with Batman" which sounds rad, they're thinking "Man of Steel with Batman," which is... less rad. If BvS is great, or at least very good, the DCU will probably still go well. If BvS is underwhelming, then it taints every subsequent DCU film.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't think that's much of a hurdle. We've played the "oh no, XXXX is playing YYYY, it's going to suck!" game a million times before, and when it works it works and people get over it.
Affleck is a fine actor and I think he can sell it. If the movie is a turd, I doubt it'll be because of him. Or Gadot. Or Cavill. If it fails, it'll be the screenplay and the tone.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There were haters when it was announced Jack Nicholson was going to be The Joker and they were wrong in the end. On the other hand, Mr. Fleck has tried being a superhero before with Daredevil, a movie I never saw because everyone said it was meh.
It's funny how when Snyder was promoting MoS, he said that Superman needed another film before they could do crossovers with other heroes or a Justice League movie.
Not to mention how people who liked/loved MoS defend the movie by saying that its problems would be addressed in a sequel.
Except Jack Nicholson was a shitty Joker because the Joker is not a slightly more maniacal Jack Nicholson in white face paint.
As far as Affleck goes I'm not too worried. Daredevil sucked but I don't think it sucked because of Affleck.
Nicolson was the reigning champion for the Joker in live action when that movie hit and in the decades afterward. Nolan made the impossible happen with Ledger.
It's funny how when Snyder was promoting MoS, he said that Superman needed another film before they could do crossovers with other heroes or a Justice League movie.
Not to mention how people who liked/loved MoS defend the movie by saying that its problems would be addressed in a sequel.
Should have saved Batman for the third movie, WB must have grown impatient with Marvel making them look like amateurs.
I don't think WB really cares about the creative aspects of the DC properties at all. They just want a big money making franchise. They simply see the DC properties as having the potential of becoming the next Matrix or Harry Potter. If they can't get it to work, they'll probably shelve it like they did with the Sherlock films.
Marvel on the other hand, is willing to take some financial risks for the sake of getting the creative/storytelling aspects right. They still want to make money but it doesn't completely override every other priority.
I think they *do* care, but there are just so many cooks spoiling the broth. Marvel Studios had the luxury of being a relatively small fully-financed studio within Marvel Comics, focused solely on Iron Man when they launched, and their success essentially gave them the power to dictate their own path after being acquired by Disney. DC works the other way around - the overarching company is DC Entertainment, of which DC Comics is the publishing arm, and so it has the comics, animation, tv, and film divisions all pulling in different directions.
It gets even worse when you move up a level, since you not only have WB as the production studio but (previously) Legendary as the production partner, with all the myriad executives wanting to put in their 2cents. More recently, Warners has undergone a regime change with Kevin Tsujihara taking over as studio head, both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit are coming to a close leaving Warners looking for another franchise to anchor their slate, and Legendary have since joined Universal when their co-production deal wasn't renewed. It all means that there is a LOT of pressure to push Warners in a new direction, but specifically for DC properties there is no clear leadership/development channel.
Nolan seems to have defaulted to the creative head position, but I get the impression he wants to move on and isn't interested in taking on the role full-time. Feige gets a lot of flack for the manner in which he consolidated both the political power and film rights for Marvel Studios, but for all his faults it has resulted in a very clear path (Phases 1-2-3) and a coordinated rollout. DC need someone similar to quieten down all the hundreds of people trying to pull the ship in different directions.
I don't think WB really cares about the creative aspects of the DC properties at all. They just want a big money making franchise. They simply see the DC properties as having the potential of becoming the next Matrix or Harry Potter. If they can't get it to work, they'll probably shelve it like they did with the Sherlock films.
Marvel on the other hand, is willing to take some financial risks for the sake of getting the creative/storytelling aspects right. They still want to make money but it doesn't completely override every other priority.
There was an article discussing this: DC is part of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers has a spread of stuff like DC, Harry Potter, the Matrix and so on. So the people in charge of greenlighting projects have a variety of different things to try and if their Superhero stuff doesn't stick they can shelve it and rely on a different franchise to bring in the bacon, so they basically have a safety net.
Marvel, despite being part of Disney, remains autonomous, and this means they have one weapon in their arsenal: Marvel. If and when it comes crashing down for Marvel comicbook stuff, Marvel can't cast around for different material to stay afloat. That means to keep going they're forced to be bold, and to think smart. They can't afford to chase the money of other hits really, because a couple of missteps from reading the metrics wrong and you're in trouble.
Now the main point of the article was discussing the risks Marvel's growing pains introduce, but for our purposes because there is no real DC equivalent of Marvel Studios, all their funding/greenlighting decisions decisions are taken at the WB level rather than the DC level, which has a broader spread of stuff to play with so they don't see the need to be bold. The Nolan Trilogy - and one could argue the Dark Knight more than the others - was a celestial alignment event of critical acclaim and box office success, so the diversified Warner Brothers are trying to recreate that magic.
It has Kevin Conroy as Batman and someone doing a pretty good Mark Hamil Joker.
Troy Baker.
He did Joel in The Last of Us.
He does a really good take on the Hamill Joker. He also played the Joker in the Arkham Origins game. And he is pretty much going to take over the role form Hamill going forward in the places where they'd use that DCU version.
This movie was excellent. The animation, the voice, and the story. Not surprising since DC's animation studio does well most of the time.
This movie.... was a bit more adult though than anything I have ever seen from the Batman universe. A lot of partial nudity and really good violence. It's much darker and has some really hilarious jokes. I loved it, and I hope they keep with this style.
Except Jack Nicholson was a shitty Joker because the Joker is not a slightly more maniacal Jack Nicholson in white face paint.
As far as Affleck goes I'm not too worried. Daredevil sucked but I don't think it sucked because of Affleck.
Nicolson was the reigning champion for the Joker in live action when that movie hit and in the decades afterward. Nolan made the impossible happen with Ledger
That's not a defense of Nicholson's performance, that's a lack of competition.
And to be clear I'm not saying Nicholson did a bad job in the movie, I think he made a pretty good villain actually. He just didn't do a good job at being The Joker.
Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Jones_(actor)
Great actor, but also known for being a skinny tall guy.
This isn't the thing that will make or break this movie for me though; I'm much more concerned with how the writers are continuing on from the previous installment in this shared universe where they managed to fundamentally screw up the most iconic superhero of all time and don't appear to have ditched the cinematographer who seems to have a hatred of warm color temperatures.
Spiderman takes a beating plenty and shows off his strength.
We all want there to be more variety in casting. But your statement that someone should look buff in strong if they're magically strong doesn't stand.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Surely there is something more interesting that can be said about this apparently awesomely important film.
I can try and start an argument about MoS if you like.
If it's bad, then I'll just forget it existed.
No, just one of the better tacticians on Earth.
Except that wasn't my point at all. I'm not saying that all physically tough/strong characters should all look buff.
I'm saying that movies tend to cast actors who are buff to play those types of male superheroes because it conveys that idea visually. They cast a Henry Cavill as Superman because we associate that kind of physique with strength and toughness, same thing with Thor, Captain America, Wolverine, etc. So it's a bit of a double standard when they never do that with female superheroes. And it's worse when they do it with Wonder Woman since she pretty much represents gender equality and breaking those kinds of double standards.
Wait, you can't do that?
Everyone else here can.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Seriously though, my biggest problem with the advertising so far is it's all so grim and one color and dark.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
It has Kevin Conroy as Batman and someone doing a pretty good Mark Hamil Joker.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
How was it? I'd find out for myself today, but I need to wait until my bandwidth cap resets before I can rent it.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Troy Baker.
He did Joel in The Last of Us.
He does a really good take on the Hamill Joker. He also played the Joker in the Arkham Origins game. And he is pretty much going to take over the role form Hamill going forward in the places where they'd use that DCU version.
For those interested
Either way, I look forward to watching it. I kind of love the Arkham games universe, so yea.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Looks like DC blinked on the Cap 3 v Batman v Superman showdown. Dunno if the "Event films" are DC related. Anyone want to check to see how this lines up with that rumored list from before comic-con?
Marvel took four years and six movies to pull off The Avengers and even then it was considered an astronomical risk. Whatever DC has planned better be earth-shattering.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Nah, Supes is all about the American Way, so he's just letting it flow because he's a nice guy.
I think DC had the potential to have an easier time with it. After Avengers, DC just had to say, "Okay, we're doing that, but with Superman and Batman!" and people would have been, "Oh, okay, Superman and Batman are cool, let's give this a shot." Marvel already ran the proof of concept.
I think they shot themselves in the foot a little bit by making MoS so underwhelming, because now instead of thinking, "Avengers with Batman" which sounds rad, they're thinking "Man of Steel with Batman," which is... less rad. If BvS is great, or at least very good, the DCU will probably still go well. If BvS is underwhelming, then it taints every subsequent DCU film.
Affleck is a fine actor and I think he can sell it. If the movie is a turd, I doubt it'll be because of him. Or Gadot. Or Cavill. If it fails, it'll be the screenplay and the tone.
As far as Affleck goes I'm not too worried. Daredevil sucked but I don't think it sucked because of Affleck.
*gasp*
Not to mention how people who liked/loved MoS defend the movie by saying that its problems would be addressed in a sequel.
Nicolson was the reigning champion for the Joker in live action when that movie hit and in the decades afterward. Nolan made the impossible happen with Ledger.
Should have saved Batman for the third movie, WB must have grown impatient with Marvel making them look like amateurs.
"Oh fuck, we didn't beat them in the box office.. uh... quick, throw Batman in there! Everyone loved Dark Knight!"
Marvel on the other hand, is willing to take some financial risks for the sake of getting the creative/storytelling aspects right. They still want to make money but it doesn't completely override every other priority.
It gets even worse when you move up a level, since you not only have WB as the production studio but (previously) Legendary as the production partner, with all the myriad executives wanting to put in their 2cents. More recently, Warners has undergone a regime change with Kevin Tsujihara taking over as studio head, both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit are coming to a close leaving Warners looking for another franchise to anchor their slate, and Legendary have since joined Universal when their co-production deal wasn't renewed. It all means that there is a LOT of pressure to push Warners in a new direction, but specifically for DC properties there is no clear leadership/development channel.
Nolan seems to have defaulted to the creative head position, but I get the impression he wants to move on and isn't interested in taking on the role full-time. Feige gets a lot of flack for the manner in which he consolidated both the political power and film rights for Marvel Studios, but for all his faults it has resulted in a very clear path (Phases 1-2-3) and a coordinated rollout. DC need someone similar to quieten down all the hundreds of people trying to pull the ship in different directions.
Couldn't they have found a woman with at least some muscle? Why do they think WW should be closer to Ms. Universe than to Ms. Olympia?
There was an article discussing this: DC is part of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers has a spread of stuff like DC, Harry Potter, the Matrix and so on. So the people in charge of greenlighting projects have a variety of different things to try and if their Superhero stuff doesn't stick they can shelve it and rely on a different franchise to bring in the bacon, so they basically have a safety net.
Marvel, despite being part of Disney, remains autonomous, and this means they have one weapon in their arsenal: Marvel. If and when it comes crashing down for Marvel comicbook stuff, Marvel can't cast around for different material to stay afloat. That means to keep going they're forced to be bold, and to think smart. They can't afford to chase the money of other hits really, because a couple of missteps from reading the metrics wrong and you're in trouble.
Now the main point of the article was discussing the risks Marvel's growing pains introduce, but for our purposes because there is no real DC equivalent of Marvel Studios, all their funding/greenlighting decisions decisions are taken at the WB level rather than the DC level, which has a broader spread of stuff to play with so they don't see the need to be bold. The Nolan Trilogy - and one could argue the Dark Knight more than the others - was a celestial alignment event of critical acclaim and box office success, so the diversified Warner Brothers are trying to recreate that magic.
This movie was excellent. The animation, the voice, and the story. Not surprising since DC's animation studio does well most of the time.
This movie.... was a bit more adult though than anything I have ever seen from the Batman universe. A lot of partial nudity and really good violence. It's much darker and has some really hilarious jokes. I loved it, and I hope they keep with this style.
That's not a defense of Nicholson's performance, that's a lack of competition.
And to be clear I'm not saying Nicholson did a bad job in the movie, I think he made a pretty good villain actually. He just didn't do a good job at being The Joker.