How Does DC Come Back?

One other problem that's becoming more and more apparent is....well, the DC Heroes just aren't as terribly interesting as the Marvel ones are. DC's schtick is that most of their lead heroes are more archetypes than full-on characters, that's why for so long they needed their villains to be the real stars of the show. It was to make up for the hero being more or less this flawless archetype.

Superman and Batman, frequently outshone by their villains. WW, while heralded as some great triumph for women, is also in the same vein. She was never portrayed as being in the wrong so much as her merely being naive and she was never in any real danger the whole movie because the writers were too afraid to put her in real danger.

Marvel on the other hand, has made it their raison d'etre to give us nothing BUT flawed human characters. Even the closest they have to a "flawless" hero in Cap, they still give him conflict and flaws.

DC got away with it in prior movies because there simply was no alternative. But now they're competing with the MCU directly and the inherent flaws in their lead characters is becoming more and more obvious.

She was not, she didn't have a single scratch on her.



Until she pulls out her predictable "Hidden Power" and suddenly Ares is not a threat anymore...at all.

If they wanted to put her in real danger, she'd be fighting someone who her sword couldn't damage at all and someone whose energy attacks couldn't be blocked by her bracelets or someone fast enough she couldn't easily dodge their attacks. Like Steppenwolf, only done better.



So she's naive for a bit, and then is no longer naive. Wow what a flaw.

Compare her persona to Thor, who was more or less happy to cause a bloody war in his first movie before his character developed.



DC got away with giving us flawless archetypal hero characters for a long long time, and I've made it clear why I think TDK got it's untouchable treatment instead of people noticing its flaws. Of which it DOES have.

Nah, she was just getting used to the machine gun shots and they wouldn't get through her shield anyways. They'd have run out of bullets first.



Which, again, isn't a character flaw.



And?



Nostalgia does that. I'm talking about how no one questioned how the Joker was omnipotent in TDK but people complain about Zemo in Civil War, or how no one points out the flaws in the philosophy stuff espoused by Alfred or Dent when there are OBVIOUS holes in their stances, etc.

EDIT: I edited my prior post for more WW problems.

I'm sure she would have, the movie was very clear on never putting her in real danger. If she'd actually been SHOT by the bullets and had to spend time recovering and stuff you might have a point.

And I'm talking about the sword she used on Doomsday, the one that could chop off his hand. Have her fight someone who would be utterly immune to THAT sword, the way Hela easily destroyed Mjolnir.



Naivety isn't a character flaw. Not when you compare it to stuff like Thor being more or less HAPPY that he nearly caused a bloody war that would've killed plenty of his own people in the first Thor movie. THAT is a flaw.



There are flaws in that film that are COMPLETELY ignored by practically every critic I've ever read or spoken to. There has to be a reason no one wants to point out its obvious flaws, like they would with any other movie.



Zemo's character and his plan get criticized, but no one cares that Joker was practically omnipotent and omniscient in Dark Knight.

Until after the movie is over, you go back to rewatch it knowing all her powers and realize she wasn't in real danger.



Doubt it, her "Hidden Power" would've activated since she was "made" to kill a God.



Oh no? She turned out to be right that Ares had SOMETHING to do with the war, even if she wasn't exactly right. And even if she didn't kill Luddendorf at the Gala she still killed him and the story made her out to be right for doing so.



The way it's brought up here, you wouldn't think so.



Because I don't think it's perfection, DOES mean I have the right to point out its flaws and controversial elements that usually get ignored because it's considered "tasteless" to criticize Dark Knight.

Thanks for bringing me up to speed. I've personally become a little fatigued by Batman's overwhelming popularity. I hope the fans get what they're looking for as far as the Bat-Family is concerned. I think the Batgirl film is going to turn out better than Wonder Woman. I've always thought she was a more credible character with an easier to follow history.

She was in danger at several different points in the film. She even had to be saved by her aunt from a gunshot.

Ludnedorff’s death didn’t change anything. That was the point. Diana thought killing him would end the war, but it didn’t. That level of naivety was a flaw on her part.

There were plenty of people on the old IMDB boards who criticized the movie, and there are plenty of YouTube videos and essays that point out supposed plot holes and leaps in logic in the film. 

Yes, you have every right to point out whatever flaws you perceive, but stop claiming that people are only praising a movie because of an actor who died 10 years ago. It’s a ridiculous excuse.