Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Thumbs up.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Thumbs up.

I'm not a comic book guy, and I honestly have no skin in the DC vs Marvel internet fight. Have not seen WW yet but will. Have been looking forward to it, and I'm glad that most initial reactions seem to be mostly positive.

That said, wouldn't suggesting that "Marvel can finally start learning from DC" be something that happens once DC surpasses Marvel, instead of just recently barely rising to the level of what Marvel has seemingly been doing since 2008?

2008 also, coincidentally, seems to be when DC movies stopped doing this, as the last film based on one of their properties that I actually liked was TDK.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Thumbs up.

I'm not a comic book guy, and I honestly have no skin in the DC vs Marvel internet fight. Have not seen WW yet but will. Have been looking forward to it, and I'm glad that most initial reactions seem to be mostly positive.

That said, wouldn't suggesting that "Marvel can finally start learning from DC" be something that happens once DC surpasses Marvel, instead of just recently barely rising to the level of what Marvel has seemingly been doing since 2008?

2008 also, coincidentally, seems to be when DC movies stopped doing this, as the last film based on one of their properties that I actually liked was TDK.

Guardians of the Galaxy excepted, in my opinion Marvel has been misfiring for quite some time.

Guardians of the Galaxy excepted, in my opinion Marvel has been misfiring for quite some time.

I quite like the Marvel movies, but I agree. You definitely have to be bought into the whole ordeal, and they're long past the point where the individual movies hold up in isolation from the entire thing.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

> This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

i was with you until there. lol.

Guardians of the Galaxy excepted, in my opinion Marvel has been misfiring for quite some time.

I quite like the Marvel movies, but I agree. You definitely have to be bought into the whole ordeal, and they're long past the point where the individual movies hold up in isolation from the entire thing.

For better or worse, they're fully committed to the "serialized" format of Television, or (go figure) comic books. They are building a continuous universe where each instalment informs what comes next. I totally get how some people won't enjoy that direction, but I think they are nailing that direction exceptionally well. Civil War was phenomenal as far as I'm concerned, in no small part because it leveraged the personalities and relationships between characters that have been built up over 8 years.

Personal preferences aside, Marvel continued to succeed because they embrace the source material, while DC's Snyderverse has seemed embarrassed by its source. That, plus the movies have been sloppily made in terms of all the basics of pacing, storytelling, etc.

I'm thrilled to hear such great things about Wonder Woman, though. Can't wait to see it.

Civil War was phenomenal as far as I'm concerned,

We've had this conversation before, and that movie was to me the epitome of pointless action. It was boring all the way through with flimsy motivations, and no consequences for anything. They even make a joke about how Antman literally has no reason to be there. And we are supposed to be invested in this 'civil war' when superheroes choose a side willy nilly, and nobody gets hurt in the end? And don't tell me Don Cheadle's character, because he is up and walking with artificial legs or whatever. No changes.

The first batch of Marvel movies circa 2008 were great. But ever since it's like they've forgotten how to make movies. They weren't overtly bad like the DC stuff, but they were just lazy - coasting on the goodwill and love of the characters. It has nothing to do with the serialization of it.

Agreed with everything except:

The first batch of Marvel movies circa 2008 were great.

Thor. Captain America. Those got better in their second run, but their first outings were atrocious.

Edit:

My bad, I guess those came out later in 2011 or so. My memory had them coming out earlier.

Edit 2:

So the only good Marvel movie that came out in 2008 was Iron Man. The other ones near that were were the terrible Spider Man 3, Fantastic 4, X-men Last Stand, Incredible Hulk, X-men Origins: Wolverine.

I'm confused as to the use of plural when you say good Marvel movies in that era. Seems like before and after Iron Man, they were pretty hit and miss. What other movies did you have in the "good" category?

So the only good Marvel movie that came out in 2008 was Iron Man. The other ones near that were were the terrible Spider Man 3, Fantastic 4, X-men Last Stand, Incredible Hulk, X-men Origins: Wolverine.

Iron Man and Hulk are the only MCU movies in that list. Why you would even include them in the argument is silly.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

Going back as far as I can remember, I pretty much have only liked and been interested in Batman and Wonder Woman (comics or action figures when little). Geoff Johns gave me a love for the Flash and Green Lantern around 2008 or so. For the past two years, I've just been hoping that they could get this Wonder Woman movie right. Just this one. If all the other ones suck, whatever. This post of yours (not to mention all the reviews) makes me very happy.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Wat. Man of Steel sucked. Batman vs. Superman was three hours of my life I'll never get back (though Wonder Woman was by far the best part of it, and Ben Affleck actually was one of the best things in that movie considering what he had to work with). I frankly have no desire to see any of DC's upcoming movies EXCEPT for Wonder Woman, and I don't feel that Wonder Woman is going to make me magically want to give a damn about Justice League or anything else.

Now, I get what you're saying as far as how some of Marvel's more recent movies have been cookie-cutter and relatively uninspired, but don't pretend like they have anything to learn from DC at this point.

Also, did you see Guardians 2 yet? The first 30-40 minutes of that movie had me shaking my head and wondering if Marvel had just lost its ability to do the thing well, but then the rest/majority of the movie turns into a very character driven and well done movie. I thought it was fantastic. Marvel's still got it, and Guardians 2 didn't tie into anything else. Also, Ant-Man was a really fun time and pretty well done, too.

I guess taken as a whole, if I go just based on what you wrote about Wonder Woman, I'd throw the following into that list (give or take pacing, because styling can make the pacing different but still make it work quite well for a particular movie):

Iron Man
Avengers
Captain America: Civil War
Guardians of the Galaxy
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

I could technically throw Civil War (or even Ant-Man or Captain America 1) into there, and I love the hell out of that movie, but it has so many problems as far as plot is concerned and lack of depth or consequence. So I obviously won't. Either way, that list alone tells me that DC either is starting to learn, or it's a blessing that Zack Snyder was relatively nowhere near Wonder Woman and that they put someone who gets it in charge. For all we know, DC's remaining movies are gonna be trash.

As an aside, I'm really excited for Spider-Man now that Marvel's in charge. I haven't enjoyed any of it since Spider-Man 2 back in the day.

As an aside, I'm really excited for Spider-Man now that Marvel's in charge. I haven't enjoyed any of it since Spider-Man 2 back in the day.

Here's hoping it's not an one-off.

(I could get into the argument that that first series nailed Peter Parker and the second nailed Spider-man, but I won't, because there were bigger problems.)

- No text -

Iron Man and Hulk are the only MCU movies in that list. Why you would even include them in the argument is silly.

I see what you are saying but I wasn't sure we were just talking about the MCU. I mean, the Batman movies were stand alone DC movies that had no tie-ins with Superman before Snyder and I'm pretty sure they're on the comparison chart. That being said, point taken.

With that point in play, what movies were great in the first run of Marvel MCU circa 2008? I think we're only talking about Iron Man. Otherwise you are bringing up Hulk which is I guess two movies in the pool. If you extend that further to 2011 to the other first-run Marvel MCU movies you get the terrible Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America.

I guess my point is, it's hard to look back at a golden age of Marvel movies and say, this is when they were good. They've been pretty hit and miss their entire run IMHO. Same with DC.

I guess my point is, it's hard to look back at a golden age of Marvel movies and say, this is when they were good. They've been pretty hit and miss their entire run IMHO. Same with DC.

Ahem...excuse me? Blade*! Ghost Rider*! Daredevil and Elektra! Howard the Duck!!!

I believe you stand corrected.

*I actually like these movies...they are fun.

- No text -

You erred when you listed Captain America: The First Avenger as a terrible movie. It's clearly not as good as say Iron Man, but to list it alongside the silliness that was Thor is just wrong.

I really wanted to like it, but... It got silly at the end.

- No text -

One of the first feature films I ever worked on had an actor named Aaron Dean Eisenberg in the lead. We kept in touch through the director, and it turns out he was second choice for Captain America. What could have been.

It got silly because... the Red Skull, the classic and iconic villain, was used to relatively good effect? I'm confused. You know Guardians has a talking raccoon, right?

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

Going back as far as I can remember, I pretty much have only liked and been interested in Batman and Wonder Woman (comics or action figures when little). Geoff Johns gave me a love for the Flash and Green Lantern around 2008 or so. For the past two years, I've just been hoping that they could get this Wonder Woman movie right. Just this one. If all the other ones suck, whatever. This post of yours (not to mention all the reviews) makes me very happy.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Wat. Man of Steel sucked. Batman vs. Superman was three hours of my life I'll never get back (though Wonder Woman was by far the best part of it, and Ben Affleck actually was one of the best things in that movie considering what he had to work with). I frankly have no desire to see any of DC's upcoming movies EXCEPT for Wonder Woman, and I don't feel that Wonder Woman is going to make me magically want to give a damn about Justice League or anything else.

Now, I get what you're saying as far as how some of Marvel's more recent movies have been cookie-cutter and relatively uninspired, but don't pretend like they have anything to learn from DC at this point.

Also, did you see Guardians 2 yet? The first 30-40 minutes of that movie had me shaking my head and wondering if Marvel had just lost its ability to do the thing well, but then the rest/majority of the movie turns into a very character driven and well done movie. I thought it was fantastic. Marvel's still got it, and Guardians 2 didn't tie into anything else. Also, Ant-Man was a really fun time and pretty well done, too.

I guess taken as a whole, if I go just based on what you wrote about Wonder Woman, I'd throw the following into that list (give or take pacing, because styling can make the pacing different but still make it work quite well for a particular movie):

Iron Man
Avengers
Captain America: Civil War
Guardians of the Galaxy
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

I could technically throw Civil War (or even Ant-Man or Captain America 1) into there, and I love the hell out of that movie, but it has so many problems as far as plot is concerned and lack of depth or consequence. So I obviously won't. Either way, that list alone tells me that DC either is starting to learn, or it's a blessing that Zack Snyder was relatively nowhere near Wonder Woman and that they put someone who gets it in charge. For all we know, DC's remaining movies are gonna be trash.

As an aside, I'm really excited for Spider-Man now that Marvel's in charge. I haven't enjoyed any of it since Spider-Man 2 back in the day.

You make a lot of strong points here, but I'm concerned about ant-man "being fun." I saw this one promotional clip of it and I just wrote the whole thing off:

Look, in my defense, I have a pretty whack sense of humor. That was hilarious, and you should see the rest of the movie!

- No text -

All they do now is make movies. Each film has a formula. Big effects, amusing jokes, internal struggle, same crap. Before they did movies to tell comic book stories.

Now they are just doing movies. The movies are great. Well directed, technically fantastic, surprisingly well acted, great pacing, good music. Fantastic films by the books. But, they're ​soulless.

Thoroughly enjoyed the movie myself. I can't say I was as in love with it as many seem to be (I wouldn't put it anywhere close to The Dark Knight or Logan), but I still think it is great.

Script makes sense.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.

Agreed, although I personally see that stuff (along with the script making sense) as a bit of a low bar. Still, it is a bar many movies miss, so it deserves mention.

Phenomenal pacing.

Yep.

Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.

Agreed, plus they did a good job of using action sequences to communicate character development (not in every case, but most of the time). I always appreciate that sort of storytelling; when the action is a gateway to some sort of internal growth, struggle, or discovery.

Good mix of humor and seriousness.

Agreed, and on a related note I very much appreciated how earnest and heartfelt the movie is. Wonder Woman as a character wears her heart on her sleeve, and the entire movie carries that same philosophy.

Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

Agreed on all points.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Yes, this is a great movie, but I still think Marvel has at least matched it several times over. The first Avengers movie is phenomenal, as are Winter Soldier and Civil War. A lot of people like to dismiss the Marvel movies as "formulaic", and that is somewhat justifiable, but when you consider how effective that formula is, I can't blame Marvel for maintaining a consistent tone and style throughout most of their movie universe. And that still doesn't take into consideration how well made most Marvel movies are. Even the mediocre ones are at least entertaining... not something that can be said about any of DC's recent films, Wonder Woman excluded.

Thumbs up.

+1

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

Some of it was a little too on the nose as well and took me out for a second. "No Man's Land", and the actor complaining he doesn't get cast because he's the wrong color, etc.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

What I took from it was that he was the classic villain. It's not that he couldn't destroy humanity, it was that he wanted more than anything to prove to his dad/family (and thus Diana) that Zeus was stupid for creating humanity. By getting Diana to switch to his side it validated himself. Which is why Ares never killed any humans, he just gave them the weapons to do it themselves, thus he was trying to prove that Humanity was destructive and should be destroyed.

And technically I think Ares was more powerful, but it was Ares' undoing that he tried to use destructive power and Diana used it against him (the lightning).

There were many other plot points that bugged me more than that, like blowing up the plane...

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

What I took from it was that he was the classic villain. It's not that he couldn't destroy humanity, it was that he wanted more than anything to prove to his dad/family (and thus Diana) that Zeus was stupid for creating humanity. By getting Diana to switch to his side it validated himself. Which is why Ares never killed any humans, he just gave them the weapons to do it themselves, thus he was trying to prove that Humanity was destructive and should be destroyed.

And technically I think Ares was more powerful, but it was Ares' undoing that he tried to use destructive power and Diana used it against him (the lightning).

There were many other plot points that bugged me more than that, like blowing up the plane...

I could be mistaken, but what threw me off about Ares was that he specifically said "I couldn't do it myself" or "I couldn't do it without you" or something to that effect. It's totally possible that he was not telling the truth in that moment, but it jumped out at me because to say to someone "I need you to do what I can't do" and then follow that by saying "I'm going to crush you" just doesn't make sense. If he was lying, it wasn't a convincing lie. And if we was telling the truth... well as I said, that just wouldn't make sense.

But it is totally possible that I misheard, or misunderstood one of the lines. I want to go see the movie again, so I'll pay close attention and see if I just missed something.

Saw it yesterday as a "teambuilding experience" at work. I really enjoyed it. Regarding the typical corn & tropes near the end, they weren't terrible, not more than minor-eye-roll worthy. My wife hasn't seen WW or Guardians 2 yet. I think I'm more excited to see WW with her than G2.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.

I agree w/ you on all points.

Music isn't memorable but it works ok.

There was music? :) Okay, I did notice it once, but that's because it was distracting/too much, but only for a moment. The musical score worked well.

There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

There was that small tie-back to Batman vs Superman (maybe you forgot it -- it was pretty forgettable, especially when viewed in perspective to the rest of the movie). It was completely acceptable IMHO. It could be seen as a Justice League setup/hint/tease, but that's stretching it a bit; BM vs SM had way more of that than WW did.

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

Some of it was a little too on the nose as well and took me out for a second. "No Man's Land", and the actor complaining he doesn't get cast because he's the wrong color, etc.

If it's the actor I'm thinking of, he had a small but amazing part in Three Kings, which is one of all-time favorite movies.

Finally saw WW. Pretty much agree with you. Unless the reviews indicate that it's something special, I don't care about these movies any more. I've given up on keeping up with Marvel.