Posted on 01/18/2016 7:45:03 AM PST by C19fan
She's been charged with bringing the feminist icon Wonder Woman to the big screen for the first time in the character's 75 year history.
And Gal Gadot was pictured hard at work on the set of the eagerly-anticipated superhero flick dressed as the Amazonian pin-up's alter-ego Diana Prince in London on Sunday.
The Israeli beauty, 30, looked to be portraying the character caught between identities. She dressed head to toe in a vintage outfit circa the First World War while clutching Wonder Woman's sword and shield.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Cue this hottie scolding us on global warming and American’s obsession with guns in 3... 2... 1...
Re: The trailer for Dawn of Justice (Batman v. Superman) —
Jodie Foster now has an incredibly annoying voice.
But the tiny Wonder Woman bit is amusing.
She is very pretty, and her outfit is classy.
She ain't no Lynda Carter
Going the way the first Captain America went, which is an excellent choice.
What they need to do: Show Wonder Woman kicking ass.
What they need to avoid: Saying “she’s only a girl” or “not bad for a woman” or anything in that vein.
Let her be awesome. Let her heroism speak for itself. Don’t shove the feminism down our throats.
She plays the same character with the same emotion in every role.
What’s the problem between Batman and Superman?
It's probably over some girl, it always is.
I dated a girl back in college that looked a lot like Lynda Carter. I was envied by many. I miss her, but then I remember she was a bag of crazy.
Hey, I just found out that I was wrong about seeing Jodie Foster in the trailer. Apparently the actress with the annoying voice is Holly Hunter.
But your observation of Jodie Foster as a limited actress is spot on.
Storyline as I understand it from the previews is that Bats thinks superman is too much power with no limit and people are treating him like a God...egged on by the bad guys and destruction of a building from a supes fight.
Supes sees Bats as a vigilante who is a lawbreaker trying to take justice into his own hands without following due process and needs to be restrained.
Heroes fight - WW shows up to calm the situation, bad guy is uncovered and that’s about it from what I can tell of the previews.
It’s a storyline that’s been repeated multiple times in the genre most often between these two due to either 1) the all powerful, alien vs really smart unpowered human aspects or 2) the law-abider vs the vigilante aspect. One of the more recent versions is called Kingdom Come and actually came out as a hardback novel after the comics.
Marvel’s Captain America Civil War has a similar theme though it revolves more around govt registration/regulation of heroes vs independent action of heroes.
The Wonder Woman movie is making a pretty bold change to her origin—but this isn’t just another example of DC Comics screwing needlessly with its characters. I’m here to tell you why this particular alteration is a brilliant idea. Spoilers ahead...
If you haven’t heard the rumors (or seen the set pics), it might have come as a bit of a shock to hear Chris Pine confirm the historical setting of the Wonder Woman movie to be World War I. “WWI?” you asked. “Surely that’s a typo for World War II?” The answer is no, but this is actually a good thing.
Sure, it’s incredibly strange to think that the movie will be debuting Wonder Woman earlier than her actual comics did—she first appeared in All Star Comics in 1941—and if you’re not much of a history buff, substituting one World War for another can sound like a needlessly superficial alteration, a change just to be different. But it actually gives me hope that director Patty Jenkins has a great plan for the Amazonian Princess.
World War II is often referred to unironically as a “good” war. Not that war itself is fun of course, but the Nazis were so unequivocally evil, they had to be stopped. The Allies were fighting actual villains, making them the heroes of the conflict. There was a reason why it was so easy to write about superheroes joining the fight—they fit so naturally into the narrative.
Obviously, whether WW2 really was “good” is highly debatable, but what’s undeniable is that no other war in modern history has managed to seem so transparently heroic—especially not World War I. WW1 was born out of colonial expansion and greed and intolerance. It was about land and revenge and hate. Between the trenches, the mustard gas, and the utter lack of defenses, it was unbelievably brutal, especially for those men who suffered and died purely over a few feet of land, sent by other men who never concerned themselves with their suffering.
And when Wonder Woman leaves Themyscira for the first time, this is the world she will see.
She will see war at its most brutal, and men at their most cruel and callous. Everything her mother, Queen Hippolyta, will have warned her about the dangers of men and the world outside Themyscira will be true, to the most horrific degree possible.
See, if Wonder Woman entered the world during World War II, she would see a villain who needed to be stopped, and instantly join in the battle. It would be a noble fight, one that she would enter willingly and instantly, no emotional conflict necessary.
But now, when WW discovers WWI, there won’t be one person at fault, it will be men in general. And even though Wonder Woman is a warrior, the war she sees won’t be a noble struggle; it will be a nightmare of horrors designed to inflict pain and death on others. By choosing World War I as her new “origin,” if you will, the Wonder Woman movie looks like it’s making a bold claim about who the DC movie universe’s Wonder Woman is going to be—and especially what she fights against.
The best reason to do that is to make the contrast between the story’s main character and its setting. This Wonder Woman won’t be a merciless killer, as she’s (still) sometimes portrayed in the comics; if she was, there’d be no narrative advantage in changing her origin from World War II. It stands to reason that the movie will instead star a Wonder Woman who loves peace—and one who is willing to fight to achieve it.
Furthermore, the movie is giving Wonder Woman a setting where men have screwed everything up. I don’t expect Wonder Woman to save the world singlehandedly, but this also strongly implies that if the problem is caused by men, she’s not going to need a man to help fix things. Oh, she may need assistance, but she won’t need to rely on anyone’s masculinity.
This is a Wonder Woman I want to see on screen. Badly.
I may be a bit optimistic here. I suppose, given that the movie will still be in Zack Snyder’s DC movie-verse, than Wonder Woman will see the trenches of World War I and merely be excited to get in on the butchery. But again, I feel like if that’s what Jenkins was going for, the director would have stayed with World War II. Instead, she’s making sure Wonder Woman sees men and war at their worst. Why do that, unless Wonder Woman can save the day?
In addition, Batman is upset about the name of the world championship game about to be played and believes it should be called "The BatBowl."
Vontaze Burfict shows up to piss them both off, and they join forces.
I don’t think I buy this. The Kaiser was the force behind WW1. He could have limited it to yet another war in the Balkan series if he hadn’t been nuts.
I also think Wilson could have influenced the Kaiser but was too busy transforming America.
Much worse. Sports rivalry:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3385153/posts?page=15#15
lol
Batman and Superman used to get along so well....
Superfriends (Wasssup!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44rjg3H2rqA
She’s a former IDF officer, and quite handy with firearms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.