|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 13, 2017 0:26:07 GMT
... Loki is what Ares should have been. Thor is a very simple film and underwhelming, nothing really too memorable from it except for Loki. And I enjoyed it for what it was the first time, but I was in no real hurry to see it again. But Wonder Woman is what Thor should have been, as they're both "Gods", just how they embraced the character and everything, from the comics and Greek mythology. I don't think changing Thor to an alien really changed much, but they should have really embraced more of the Norse mythology behind it instead of trying to set it up with SHIELD and the Avengers. That said, Ares should have been what Loki was in Thor. By that, I don't mean a carbon copy. I'm just talking presence, how they're portrayed, just making them memorable. Say what you want about the Thor film, but this scene between Loki and Odin is a powerhouse scene of emotion, and Hiddleson, acting off from a Shakespearean actor like Anthony Hopkins, crushed it as Loki. Loki had depths and layers to him. Is the plot of wanting the throne and everything particularly original?? No, of course not, but it works because of Hiddleson's performance as Loki. And it does create a good hero-villain juxtaposition in the film as Thor and Loki both have contrasting personalities and goals and are able to bounce off from each other well like that. Ares and Diana did as well, except I think they fell short on Ares, so it didn't quite create that juxtapose between them. Ares felt like a very generic cliche villain wanting to end mankind. Not super original. Fair enough, as a lot of villains are like that, but nothing really stood out by him. I remember when it was said Ares was going to be in the film I was curious how they were going to pull off the armor because I know in the comics he's always depicted with the blue Roman-Gladiator-like armor. Then I remember seeing the toy line for Ares.  And I thought this was actually pretty fuckin' cool and he'll definitely be the villain of the year. I was really impressed with the helmet as well. It went a different direction than the comics, but it was something different and somewhat original and it would have been awesome to see on the big screen. I've even looked up fan art of Wonder Woman as well, based on the movie versions, and there were some pretty sweet looking pictures that would have been cool to see onscreen.    The second picture is my favorite, but I just remember thinking it'll be cool to see something similar to these onscreen. I was especially really excited about the red eyes because it reminded me a little from the first Terminator movie in the future flashback scene with Franco Columbu as the Terminator in the shadows and smokes as he's waying waste, and you can see his red eyes glow. But nope. Instead, they chose to hide the villain and make a somewhat generic twist as well with the whole bait-and-switch kinda thing, and went with the God/divine being disguised as an elderly person-trope. I was glad we saw him in armor, but it was just underwhelming, especially considering it was just from scraps of metal around him. It just looked very generic. But even before he put the armor on, he was kinda a wannabe-Emperor using his powers to throw shit at Diana. It was just so cliche and underwhelming that they couldn't create a memorable villain like Loki was. I think Wonder Woman does deserve all the praise its getting, but those saying that it did feel like a Marvel film, they're not too far off. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 13, 2017 0:44:06 GMT
Looking at those pictures does make me kind of wish that they would've gone with the toy design for Ares. It looked much more imposing than simply David Thewlis wearing armor. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 13, 2017 2:40:17 GMT
Thor is pretty much just as good if you ask me. I don't really see anything about WW that's significantly better. There are parts that might be a little better, but overall Thor is well made, the ending is clearly better, I think the beginning sets up Asgard as good or better, it has a better villain, and most importantly I'd watch it again any time whereas I have no real interest in watching WW again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 4:16:48 GMT
I don't know. I like the twist of Ares being the British General. Also being unsure of whether Aeres was even real was a smart angle... In fact I would've liked that to be the final twist: Aeres isn't real, man is the cause of war. But making Aeres a real presence from act one would've completely changed the movie.
I do agree that WW was better than Thor though. Thor is decent and I enjoy it, but it fails to be much more than popcorn fun. To be fair though, he's a harder character to pull off.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 13, 2017 15:08:05 GMT
Loki was still an interesting character but yea, Wonder Woman (2017) beats the shit out of Thor (2011) and The Dark World (2013) for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 13, 2017 15:44:33 GMT
I do agree that WW was better than Thor though. Thor is decent and I enjoy it, but it fails to be much more than popcorn fun. To be fair though, he's a harder character to pull off. I don't really see how Thor fails to be more than popcorn fun but WW is any more than that. A popcorn film is Fast & Furious, just a mindless crazy splosions film. Thor is about selflessness and family. I'm not saying it's the deepest movie ever, but I don't see how WW is any more of one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 16:48:12 GMT
I do agree that WW was better than Thor though. Thor is decent and I enjoy it, but it fails to be much more than popcorn fun. To be fair though, he's a harder character to pull off. I don't really see how Thor fails to be more than popcorn fun but WW is any more than that. A popcorn film is Fast & Furious, just a mindless crazy splosions film. Thor is about selflessness and family. I'm not saying it's the deepest movie ever, but I don't see how WW is any more of one. Popcorn fun was a bit too harsh a term for Thor. It does have deeper themes than most popcorn movies, that is true. I just have a harder time buying into some of his mythology. I can suspend disbelief just fine for Batman, Iron Man, X Men, even Ant Man, ECT, but when Norse Gods or Greek Gods are involved it gets harder unless it's handled just right. WW did a better job IMO of delivering the mythos side of things. I will say this though in Thor's defense: the character development is a bit stronger than in WW. Act 2 of Thor sees him broken and forced to mature while the climax sees his arc complete as he takes on Loki as a wiser man. WW on the other hand gets no real development until the climax and then must very very quickly evolve her views on human kind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 16:59:20 GMT
I don't really see how Thor fails to be more than popcorn fun but WW is any more than that. A popcorn film is Fast & Furious, just a mindless crazy splosions film. Thor is about selflessness and family. I'm not saying it's the deepest movie ever, but I don't see how WW is any more of one. Popcorn fun was a bit too harsh a term for Thor. It does have deeper themes than most popcorn movies, that is true. I just have a harder time buying into some of his mythology. I can suspend disbelief just fine for Batman, Iron Man, X Men, even Ant Man, ECT, but when Norse Gods or Greek Gods are involved it gets harder unless it's handled just right. WW did a better job IMO of delivering the mythos side of things. I will say this though in Thor's defense: the character development is a bit stronger than in WW. Act 2 of Thor sees him broken and forced to mature while the climax sees his arc complete as he takes on Loki as a wiser man. WW on the other hand gets no real development until the climax and then must very very quickly evolve her views on human kind. I look at Wonder Woman in the light I look at Captain America when it comes to their big screen adaptations. They're both supposed to already BE good, virtuous people at the start AND finish of their movies. They themselves aren't overly complicated, but the world around them is and they stand as moral centers amid the chaos. Diana's development is mostly based around overcoming her sheltered naivete and becoming an even better person for it. Steve, having lived through the Great Depression with sick frail body and only a single mother, was already pretty world-weary by contrast. In both cases, I think their characters work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 17:08:52 GMT
Popcorn fun was a bit too harsh a term for Thor. It does have deeper themes than most popcorn movies, that is true. I just have a harder time buying into some of his mythology. I can suspend disbelief just fine for Batman, Iron Man, X Men, even Ant Man, ECT, but when Norse Gods or Greek Gods are involved it gets harder unless it's handled just right. WW did a better job IMO of delivering the mythos side of things. I will say this though in Thor's defense: the character development is a bit stronger than in WW. Act 2 of Thor sees him broken and forced to mature while the climax sees his arc complete as he takes on Loki as a wiser man. WW on the other hand gets no real development until the climax and then must very very quickly evolve her views on human kind. I look at Wonder Woman in the light I look at Captain America when it comes to their big screen adaptations. They're both supposed to already BE good, virtuous people at the start AND finish of their movies. They themselves aren't overly complicated, but the world around them is and they stand as moral centers amid the chaos. Diana's development is mostly based around overcoming her sheltered naivete and becoming an even better person for it. Steve, having lived through the Great Depression with sick frail body and only a single mother, was already pretty world-weary by contrast. In both cases, I think their characters work. Agreed. That's a good comparison of characters. And WW does work just fine as a character with fully formed morals like Cap. I just wonder if the movie would've been a bit stronger if her naivety was realized a bit earlier giving her more time between realizing that man wasn't just a corrupted innocent species and accepting this as half of a redeemable whole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 17:22:07 GMT
I look at Wonder Woman in the light I look at Captain America when it comes to their big screen adaptations. They're both supposed to already BE good, virtuous people at the start AND finish of their movies. They themselves aren't overly complicated, but the world around them is and they stand as moral centers amid the chaos. Diana's development is mostly based around overcoming her sheltered naivete and becoming an even better person for it. Steve, having lived through the Great Depression with sick frail body and only a single mother, was already pretty world-weary by contrast. In both cases, I think their characters work. Agreed. That's a good comparison of characters. And WW does work just fine as a character with fully formed morals like Cap. I just wonder if the movie would've been a bit stronger if her naivety was realized a bit earlier giving her more time between realizing that man wasn't just a corrupted innocent species and accepting this as half of a redeemable whole. Honestly, going that route would probably work best with two films. Okay, let's pretend for a second that WB/DC was doing this the right way from the start and took their time to let audiences get to know the major members of their lineup for their cinematic universe the way Marvel let us get to know Ironman, Hulk, Thor, and Cap before plunging us into The Avengers. Wonder Woman Film 1: pretty much what we got, but Diana ends the film with devastated by the death of Steve Trevor and revelation that Ares was only tangentially connected to The War. Her views are shattered and she doesn't know if its worth the bother to keep protecting humanity. She might even feel she got herself banned from going home for nothing. Wonder Woman Film 2: Diana continues struggles with the same things, but by the end of the film, has come to the same conclusion her ending narration from the actual new film does: yeah, a lot of humans are total dirtbags, but there are still innocents out there that need protecting, and it IS worth it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 17:29:07 GMT
Agreed. That's a good comparison of characters. And WW does work just fine as a character with fully formed morals like Cap. I just wonder if the movie would've been a bit stronger if her naivety was realized a bit earlier giving her more time between realizing that man wasn't just a corrupted innocent species and accepting this as half of a redeemable whole. Honestly, going that route would probably work best with two films. Okay, let's pretend for a second that WB/DC was doing this the right way from the start and took their time to let audiences get to know the major members of their lineup for their cinematic universe the way Marvel let us get to know Ironman, Hulk, Thor, and Cap before plunging us into The Avengers. Wonder Woman Film 1: pretty much what we got, but Diana ends the film with devastated by the death of Steve Trevor and revelation that Ares was only tangentially connected to The War. Her views are shattered and she doesn't know if its worth the bother to keep protecting humanity. She might even feel she got herself banned from going home for nothing. Wonder Woman Film 2: Diana continues struggles with the same things, but by the end of the film, has come to the same conclusion her ending narration from the actual new film does: yeah, a lot of humans are total dirtbags, but there are still innocents out there that need protecting, and it IS worth it. That could've worked. But for this movie what I wish they would've done is had WW kill Ludendorff before the gas attack. Then when she believes the humans are released from Ares' influence they proceed and launch the attack anyway. This would've been a much better way to underscore the harsh realization that man isn't innocent rather then just having her look around and see soldiers moving around. It also would've provided a bit more time between that moment and the true reveal of Aeres. Small change, I know. And it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but I think it would've worked a lot better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 17:34:42 GMT
Honestly, going that route would probably work best with two films. Okay, let's pretend for a second that WB/DC was doing this the right way from the start and took their time to let audiences get to know the major members of their lineup for their cinematic universe the way Marvel let us get to know Ironman, Hulk, Thor, and Cap before plunging us into The Avengers. Wonder Woman Film 1: pretty much what we got, but Diana ends the film with devastated by the death of Steve Trevor and revelation that Ares was only tangentially connected to The War. Her views are shattered and she doesn't know if its worth the bother to keep protecting humanity. She might even feel she got herself banned from going home for nothing. Wonder Woman Film 2: Diana continues struggles with the same things, but by the end of the film, has come to the same conclusion her ending narration from the actual new film does: yeah, a lot of humans are total dirtbags, but there are still innocents out there that need protecting, and it IS worth it. That could've worked. But for this movie what I wish they would've done is had WW kill Ludendorff before the gas attack. Then when she believes the humans are released from Ares' influence they proceed and launch the attack anyway. This would've been a much better way to underscore the harsh realization that man isn't innocent rather then just having her look around and see soldiers moving around. It also would've provided a bit more time between that moment and the true reveal of Aeres. Small change, I know. And it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but I think it would've worked a lot better. Also a great suggestion. Its a little thing, but I think it would have made a big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 13, 2017 19:37:28 GMT
Popcorn fun was a bit too harsh a term for Thor. It does have deeper themes than most popcorn movies, that is true. I just have a harder time buying into some of his mythology. I can suspend disbelief just fine for Batman, Iron Man, X Men, even Ant Man, ECT, but when Norse Gods or Greek Gods are involved it gets harder unless it's handled just right. WW did a better job IMO of delivering the mythos side of things. I will say this though in Thor's defense: the character development is a bit stronger than in WW. Act 2 of Thor sees him broken and forced to mature while the climax sees his arc complete as he takes on Loki as a wiser man. WW on the other hand gets no real development until the climax and then must very very quickly evolve her views on human kind. Wait, how did WW do a better job of delivering the mythos? All it did was say they existed. Thor is the movie that explored their culture and relevance to humanity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 21:47:58 GMT
Popcorn fun was a bit too harsh a term for Thor. It does have deeper themes than most popcorn movies, that is true. I just have a harder time buying into some of his mythology. I can suspend disbelief just fine for Batman, Iron Man, X Men, even Ant Man, ECT, but when Norse Gods or Greek Gods are involved it gets harder unless it's handled just right. WW did a better job IMO of delivering the mythos side of things. I will say this though in Thor's defense: the character development is a bit stronger than in WW. Act 2 of Thor sees him broken and forced to mature while the climax sees his arc complete as he takes on Loki as a wiser man. WW on the other hand gets no real development until the climax and then must very very quickly evolve her views on human kind. Wait, how did WW do a better job of delivering the mythos? All it did was say they existed. Thor is the movie that explored their culture and relevance to humanity. Well I think WW did explore their relevance to humanity as well. But ultimately WW's transition into the real world felt more natural to me and her connection to/viewpoint of humanity was a bit clearer... Humanity was also at the heart of the story, while Thor just sort of happened to take place on Earth randomly. Honestly though both movies make me cringe a bit when they go into the whole exposition of the Gods, whether it be Oden's opening monologue or Hippolyta's bedtime story. Not only is it blatant exposition but, as I said before, I personally find it harder to suspend disbelief when fantastical elements are introduced in such a nonorganic manner. In both cases they feel forced upon us. I guess what it comes down to is that Thor had a bigger, more fantastical mythos what with it being in another realm and all, while WW could be a touch more organic because she was an earthly being. Again, I find both to be somewhat awkward in this area though. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 14, 2017 0:00:53 GMT
Well I think WW did explore their relevance to humanity as well. But ultimately WW's transition into the real world felt more natural to me and her connection to/viewpoint of humanity was a bit clearer... Humanity was also at the heart of the story, while Thor just sort of happened to take place on Earth randomly. Honestly though both movies make me cringe a bit when they go into the whole exposition of the Gods, whether it be Oden's opening monologue or Hippolyta's bedtime story. Not only is it blatant exposition but, as I said before, I personally find it harder to suspend disbelief when fantastical elements are introduced in such a nonorganic manner. In both cases they feel forced upon us. I guess what it comes down to is that Thor had a bigger, more fantastical mythos what with it being in another realm and all, while WW could be a touch more organic because she was an earthly being. Again, I find both to be somewhat awkward in this area though. IDK, I thought Thor's take on gods of that level was far better explained. Does Ares care about what happens on any other planets for instance? Why is Earth so important if they are gods? We know absolutely nothing about their intentions and we do with the people of Asgard, so I find Thor's take on it vastly superior to be honest. They feel real. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 0:19:07 GMT
Well I think WW did explore their relevance to humanity as well. But ultimately WW's transition into the real world felt more natural to me and her connection to/viewpoint of humanity was a bit clearer... Humanity was also at the heart of the story, while Thor just sort of happened to take place on Earth randomly. Honestly though both movies make me cringe a bit when they go into the whole exposition of the Gods, whether it be Oden's opening monologue or Hippolyta's bedtime story. Not only is it blatant exposition but, as I said before, I personally find it harder to suspend disbelief when fantastical elements are introduced in such a nonorganic manner. In both cases they feel forced upon us. I guess what it comes down to is that Thor had a bigger, more fantastical mythos what with it being in another realm and all, while WW could be a touch more organic because she was an earthly being. Again, I find both to be somewhat awkward in this area though. IDK, I thought Thor's take on gods of that level was far better explained. Does Ares care about what happens on any other planets for instance? Why is Earth so important if they are gods? We know absolutely nothing about their intentions and we do with the people of Asgard, so I find Thor's take on it vastly superior to be honest. They feel real. Neither felt particularly real to me. The mythologies are just kind of there in both cases without really coming across as especially fleshed out. I find both the Asgardians in Thor and the Themescurians in WW to be a bit thin. I guess for me WW works better because most of the movie is about WWI and her reactions/actions in it while Thor is almost entirely about the mythos of Asgard and just sort of happens to be set on Earth rather than actually be about humanity's connection to Thor in any meaningful way. To to be clear though, I dont mean to bash Thor. I think the payoffs on Asgard in the climax are very well done and satisfying. It's the set up of the mythos that I find sort of meh. But part of that is my own preference for characters that don't come from such fantastical origins. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 14, 2017 4:03:36 GMT
Neither felt particularly real to me. The mythologies are just kind of there in both cases without really coming across as especially fleshed out. I find both the Asgardians in Thor and the Themescurians in WW to be a bit thin. I guess for me WW works better because most of the movie is about WWI and her reactions/actions in it while Thor is almost entirely about the mythos of Asgard and just sort of happens to be set on Earth rather than actually be about humanity's connection to Thor in any meaningful way. To to be clear though, I dont mean to bash Thor. I think the payoffs on Asgard in the climax are very well done and satisfying. It's the set up of the mythos that I find sort of meh. But part of that is my own preference for characters that don't come from such fantastical origins. The fact that Thor is about the mythos is why the mythos is more fleshed out than in WW, but you think WW is more fleshed out because it's contrasted with WWI? I suppose I can see how making the contrast highlights who she is as a character, but that's what scenes like the coffee cup smash do in Thor. I mean I guess, but if WW has the more fleshed out mythology is so razor thin it's still equal.
That's actually why I've been saying that I don't know why anybody has talked about this film being one of the best comic films ever. I don't see anything about that it that's noticeably better than Thor or First Avenger and those are good films, I love them, but I don't recall anybody saying those were among the handful of truly elite comic films of all time, and I don't think WW deserves that sort of talk either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 5:32:24 GMT
Neither felt particularly real to me. The mythologies are just kind of there in both cases without really coming across as especially fleshed out. I find both the Asgardians in Thor and the Themescurians in WW to be a bit thin. I guess for me WW works better because most of the movie is about WWI and her reactions/actions in it while Thor is almost entirely about the mythos of Asgard and just sort of happens to be set on Earth rather than actually be about humanity's connection to Thor in any meaningful way. To to be clear though, I dont mean to bash Thor. I think the payoffs on Asgard in the climax are very well done and satisfying. It's the set up of the mythos that I find sort of meh. But part of that is my own preference for characters that don't come from such fantastical origins. The fact that Thor is about the mythos is why the mythos is more fleshed out than in WW, but you think WW is more fleshed out because it's contrasted with WWI? I suppose I can see how making the contrast highlights who she is as a character, but that's what scenes like the coffee cup smash do in Thor. I mean I guess, but if WW has the more fleshed out mythology is so razor thin it's still equal.
That's actually why I've been saying that I don't know why anybody has talked about this film being one of the best comic films ever. I don't see anything about that it that's noticeably better than Thor or First Avenger and those are good films, I love them, but I don't recall anybody saying those were among the handful of truly elite comic films of all time, and I don't think WW deserves that sort of talk either.
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that WW's mythos is more fleshed out. I don't think it is actually. I just thought it was presented in a way that seemed less awkward for lack of a better term. And that's partially because it's (the mythos that is) not front and center. Also, I personally wouldn't say that WW is among the elite in the genre. I mean, I really liked it and all but it's a top 15 comic book movie for me, not top ten, certainly not top five. So this argument isn't for me. I did think it was better than Thor as I said. As far as Cap 1 it's close. I probably put WW higher but not by a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 14, 2017 12:12:04 GMT
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that WW's mythos is more fleshed out. I don't think it is actually. I just thought it was presented in a way that seemed less awkward for lack of a better term. And that's partially because it's (the mythos that is) not front and center. Also, I personally wouldn't say that WW is among the elite in the genre. I mean, I really liked it and all but it's a top 15 comic book movie for me, not top ten, certainly not top five. So this argument isn't for me. I did think it was better than Thor as I said. As far as Cap 1 it's close. I probably put WW higher but not by a lot. Well that makes sense. I do think the focus on Asgardian's works and works better but I wouldn't really know where it ranks. I don't really rank to be honest, but I'm wondering if there really aren't 15 better films.
We have to count films like V For Vendetta and Watchmen, and then we have Avengers, Dark Knight, Civil War, Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, and I don't know if Unbreakable counts but it's better, and then First Avenger makes 9 pretty easy. Then we have arguments for Logan, X-Men, X2, Spiderman 2, Doctor Strange, Guardians 2, Ultron, Batman Begins, and Iron Man, which is 18 and I'm sure you could name others that could be considered like Superman 2 or maybe 300, Thor as I mentioned before I would think is actually very close to that level, IDK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 16:26:34 GMT
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that WW's mythos is more fleshed out. I don't think it is actually. I just thought it was presented in a way that seemed less awkward for lack of a better term. And that's partially because it's (the mythos that is) not front and center. Also, I personally wouldn't say that WW is among the elite in the genre. I mean, I really liked it and all but it's a top 15 comic book movie for me, not top ten, certainly not top five. So this argument isn't for me. I did think it was better than Thor as I said. As far as Cap 1 it's close. I probably put WW higher but not by a lot. Well that makes sense. I do think the focus on Asgardian's works and works better but I wouldn't really know where it ranks. I don't really rank to be honest, but I'm wondering if there really aren't 15 better films.
We have to count films like V For Vendetta and Watchmen, and then we have Avengers, Dark Knight, Civil War, Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, and I don't know if Unbreakable counts but it's better, and then First Avenger makes 9 pretty easy. Then we have arguments for Logan, X-Men, X2, Spiderman 2, Doctor Strange, Guardians 2, Ultron, Batman Begins, and Iron Man, which is 18 and I'm sure you could name others that could be considered like Superman 2 or maybe 300, Thor as I mentioned before I would think is actually very close to that level, IDK.
Ranking these movies is difficult. My top 5 is pretty easy to choose: After that it's a lot of close calls. As far as WW is concerned I'm just glad to finally truly enjoy a DC movie for the first time since TDKR so I don't see the need to fight the hype or try to take it down a peg. Just let her have her time in the sun. Celebrate that it's good and don't worry about which movies are or aren't better. |
|
