Gal Gadot on her Wonder Woman movie: 'it's pretty dark'

April 8, 2016

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice set a dark tone for the DC Extended Universe, and it sounds like Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman movie will continue it when it hits theaters in June 2017. "It's very interesting. It has moments of humor, but it's pretty dark," Gadot told Digital Spy.

Gal Gadot went on to explain that the Wonder Woman we see in her new movie will be much different than what fans saw in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

"We go back 100 years to when she's more naïve," Gadot said. "She's this young idealist. She's pure. Very different to the experienced, super-confident, grown-up woman you've seen."

Wonder Woman's release date just got moved up a few weeks, it hits theaters on June 2, 2017.

SOURCE: Digital Spy

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

180 comments

Unique Jenique
April 8, 2016
People are going to spin this the wrong way and claim the DCEU is doomed. LOL
I'm honestly not surprised it is going to be a bit dark. It takes place during one of the darkest times in history.
1. Mark
  April 8, 2016
  I'm glad to see you back here! The hordes of haters who have gathered here lately depress me.
  And yes... if they wanted Diana to experience the inhumanity of man, dropping her into WWI is exactly the way to do it. I remember that this film is supposed to end with Diana giving up on us and her mission.... I wasn't expecting a happy ending.
  1. Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
    April 8, 2016
    WWII would be even better. There has been no greater evil in human history then the Holocaust.
    1. Jackrydeher
      April 8, 2016
      Some would argue the slaughtering of Native Americans or Slavery... but, hey... I'm just a 9000lb gorilla
      1. Seb
        April 8, 2016
        Slavery? No.. That has happened during all of mankind's history to all races (including to the oh-so-mighty privileged white man). So when (I assume) you are talking about slavery in Europe/America hundred years ago, I fear you just might ignore the real history of slavery. I think that would be a terrible idea for Wonder Woman. As for the "slaughtering of Native Americans"? The majority actually died as a result of diseases that whites brought with them.
        As far as actual genocide and murder, barely anything compares to the World Wars. The 2nd was definitely worse in terms of fatalities, but it wouldn't make sense from a story perspective. Why would Wonder Woman get back in the action during WW2? As if the first WW1 wasn't bad enough, you know what I mean? I really like the setting personally.
      2. Jackrydeher
        April 8, 2016
        my comment was addressing your specific statement to "no greater evil in human history", not implying that the Wonder Woman story should encircle the doctrine of Manifest Destiny or the American/European Slavery system (and you assume falsely). Your statement is debatable. Regardless of whether or not YOU believe WW2 was the darkest point in human history.
        I'm not gonna get in to a debate on your downplaying of those two historical events you mention bc this is not the place for such discussions... but like I said, some would argue that (myself included).
      3. Seb
        April 10, 2016
        Oh, I knew that... I just responded to the false notion that slavery is something that equals the WW when slavery is not a specific "event" if you will... The western narrative, perpetuated by leftist progressives and regressives especially (feminists and Black Lies, I mean Lives Matter supporters) is that the white man is evil and that they have never experienced oppression and were the only slave traders throughout history, or at the very least the "worst" one (which is false). I just wanted to make it clear that slavery happened throughout human history, to all races. So when someones says "slavery may be considered worse", what exactly are you talking about? American Slavery? Islamic Slavery? Ancient Egyptian Slavery? Current day slavery?
        As you specified in your reply, you were talking about the European/American slavery system, which is exactly my point. You talk about it as if it's the only slavery system in the history of mankind, or at least, the worst one (which again, is false). I know you didn't literally say that, I'm just specifying, I don't think it's right to mention slavery and "only" talk about Black slaves... So, no it's not debatable. Facts and historical data are objective, there is no debate.. Anyways.
        And as a personal anecdote, I also said why I didn't think it would be appropriate for a WW movie, but that was not really directed at you :)
      4. warlord555
        April 13, 2016
        Obviously you didn't check out my references before you responded, plus how dare YOU tell me what black ppl are going thru in American in so many words aren't that bad when we are the one experiencing it. I know very well about the Muslim slave trade but I didn't address it because it doesn't relate to our experience, this isn't text book, this is our reality, I WILL not have you and your type define it for us!!!!
      5. Seb
        April 13, 2016
        Umm... You provided zero references. What are you talking about?
        So, basically what you are saying is, you not only speak for all black people, but you think black people are a group? Your skin color does nothing to bind you together, that is like saying "how dare you tell me what blue-eyed people are going through". Get the point? It's odd - frankly, it's misguided and wrong - to consider all black people have the same experience. It's not accurate. When judging someone's life and past experience on an individual level, presumably, the criteria should not be the color of their skin, but the character of their experience and their merit. Basically, this man is black and was raised in racist America, this equals = oppressed! Yeah, no... This is an oversimplified - obviously wrong - analysis and just goes to show yet again you DO believe in regressive propaganda. This is yet another instance where you look at reality from one perspective, and you are convinced your narrative is correct, without even looking at opposing evidence. Your view can be summed up as; there really is no proof at all... But it just MUST be there! There MUST be racism because that is what I feel. This is a fool's argument. Sorry.
        Never mind the fact that I never said ANYTHING about what black people are going through. The hell are you talking about?
        Ohh "it doesn't relate to our experience". Lousy excuse. I fail to see how the US Slave trade still matters today. The only reason why it's still "relevant" is because people like you make it so. The slave trade's been over for like 150 years. I still see black people complaining about it everywhere yet Jews today, are completely silent and they were nearly extinct half a decade ago. Why aren't they pushing "JEW OPPRESSION"? Why aren't they speaking out? Because it has no relevance anymore (in today's context). Really, the only reason why people are still so paranoid about it, is because of people like you. Please realize this.
        "For US"? ... us? Who is this supposed group? Blacks? Again, you don't speak for them either. I was just stating a fact. If you truly believe in "systemic and institutionalized racism" then provide me laws and institutions that are racist in intent. Good luck.
      6. Seb
        April 13, 2016
        Also, "I WILL not have you and your type define it for us!"
        "Your type"... Some people would consider an obvious distinction in race - and the implication that other races thus cannot and may not speak for, or about you - as racist. But obviously it's okay, because it's a black guy doing it right? No. Being white myself does not stop me from stating facts that you may not like to hear about the culture in which you live. Sorry, but this is a pathetic response from an otherwise reasonable guy, basing off of previous comments.
      7. warlord555
        April 14, 2016
        I did give you reference, author Tim Wise, and "your type' refers to way of thinking, and yes I DO SPEAK for all black ppl, look at reference, do your homework and stop trying to tell me my reality and the reality for all black ppl. I did my homework, do yours!!!
      8. Seb
        April 15, 2016
        You didn't... There is no reference anywhere. Please provide it again if you really want to believe systemic/institutionalized racism exists in a country led by a black president.
        "yes I DO SPEAK for all black ppl" No. Simply retarded beyond words... We're done, this is hopeless.
      9. warlord555
        April 15, 2016
        YES, YOU ARE HOPELESS!!! Thanx for showing me how futile it is to reason with one who obviously knows nothing about history of American and prefers to bathe in white denial(Yes I said it)!
      10. Seb
        April 15, 2016
        Still no evidence... I never thought a lack of words (citation) could ever speak volumes. "White denial". What the fuck, you are delusional!! Hahahaha...
      11. warlord555
        April 8, 2016
        The diseases were deliberate, the white man while pretending to make peace with the natives of this land purposely gave them blankets that they knew were germy in order to kill them, and lets not forget the trail of tears. Also the middle passage over years brought millions of Africans from their homeland to European countries and the islands, and the horrific lynchings that Americans (who happened to be black) were lynched, homes burned which their own government ignored plight of certain citizens, that was and still is a blight and EVIL time of this country!!!
      12. Seb
        April 10, 2016
        So, when the Asians initially brought those same diseases to Europe decades before, killing you know... a small portion of the population... around 2/3, no big deal... was that also "deliberate"? No, you are making conspiracy theories. While I'm not claiming Europeans were interested in civil co-existence, the diseases that wiped out the natives was more of a "fortunate" accident (for the Europeans obviously).
      13. warlord555
        April 11, 2016
        Specially, the americans would give the indians blankets under the "guise" of peace offering knowing the people previously using those blankets have smallpox, no conspiracy fact! Notice you didn't rebut my trail of tears argument, instead of bad mouthing the person making statements, please start studying American history, that is, ADULT American history!!!!!!
      14. Seb
        April 11, 2016
        When the evil patriarchal white man came to America, large numbers of Indians (Natives) died. Around 80% if I'm remember correctly. This is perpetuated to be genocide by not only the left, but by scholars in general. Actually? No. As I've said before, the white man brought with himself diseases (malaria, TBC, etc) to which the Indians had no immunity. If you dig into your holy leftist literature, you will find that yes "Lord Jeffrey Amherst gave smallpox infested blankets to the native Indians". Umm no. That's highly dubious whether that actually happened or not. It is the one case in all of American history of even an allegation of a deliberate contamination, this so called possibility metamorphoses into a probability , then becoming certainty, pretty soon it's the white man purposefully killing Indians for 200 years all in the name of genocide. In short? Pure horsepiss. The white man brought with him diseases unintentionally, which as I've said before, he himself got from someone else. Hundred years prior 1/3 (sorry I mistyped in my previous comment. It is NOT 2/3) of the European population was wiped out by the bobanic and pneumonic plaque which came from Asia. The white man had no immunity and he perished in huge numbers. Nobody, especially not your beloved leftist literature, calls that genocide. On a side note, how would Europeans even know that the Indians would have no immunity against these diseases? Genocide requires an INTENTION to obliterate a people, and while I'm certainly not claiming the Europeans were peaceful hippies, that was not the case with the natives (being the intention to obliterate them).
        Why then would anyone want to teach us a nastier story, than the reality of the situation? My guess is, to further western narrative that whites have always had power. Similar cases, to prove my point, are slavery and the crusades. We always hear how bad and evil the whites were to blacks and Muslims respectively. But why does no one talk about the Islamic slave trade, which was far more brutal and lasted for much longer? Where exactly in western literature does it mention that the Islamic Slave trade murdered over 100 million blacks? More whites were actually enslaved by Muslims, than the number of blacks enslaved by whites. And prevalent in our western world is that whites are primarily... exclusively to blame for imperialism and colonialism, as if they were the only race to invade other countries, all this despite the fact that whites were the first in the world to encourage everyone else to end the slave trade.
        Also, the trail of tears, although undeniably evil, is yet again not genocide. Maybe I wasn't clear, I am mainly referring to points in history involving clear genocide, such as the holocaust. And that is why I think slavery does not apply. It's a completely different kind of evil, and one that has been practiced throughout history, affecting all races. Slavery has never been an isolated event.
        Not to mention, I don't remember the exact numbers, but what was the total death toll? Couple ten thousands? Horrifying yes, but insignificant compared to the Holocaust or other genocides, like those in Africa (The Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda, killing around 800.000).
        Am I saying there weren't concentrated events of Native American genocide? No of course not. But this lie, spread by scholars, based on NOTHING, needs to end.
        Sorry, but it doesn't look like I am the one in dire need of education.
      15. warlord555
        April 12, 2016
        First of all, the word "genocide" never came out my mouth, secondly, I always find it interesting that any criticism of this country is considered "leftist". I agree that American is not the most evil country in the world, my criticism believe or not is not so much the atrocities (there are many) but the hypocrisy. In this day and age there are still denial of the positive roles that certain citizens of this country played. Also if you read some of the social criticism, such as tim wise, Hackett or hacker, you will find a disparity economically between ppl of color and whites. Just because you can't handle the truth of history doesn't make me "uneducated" or "leftist". Those are typical cop outs by individuals who want to deny the ugly side of history. I give England credit, in their museums they don't hide contributions of various African countries and will admit some of their crimes, but not American, oh no, they're such a "christian" country and only wanted to spread "justice". In the future, when you disagree with someone, don't get personal, do your homework. Don't just read one side, look at everything from all facets, Peace.
      16. Seb
        April 12, 2016
        I know.. It came out my mouth. Hence why I clarified it. Umm, I do not live in America, and my experience with Americans personally has been very poor to say the least (although I'd like to say, not reflective. Or so I hope). I would define myself a classical liberal (meaning a leftist. SHOCK). So, believe it or not I'm unashamedly criticizing the left and rightly so (see what I did there?), yet being a leftist (liberal / cultural libertarian) myself. Conservatives often have a narcissistic view of the US, claiming superiority above all (to put it in extreme words). It goes both ways, but you'd be a fool to deny it's the left who continuously perpetuates this idea that white = evil & black = oppressed. Scholars and Universities are extremely left-wing. Not making this up, there are polls that prove this. Is it any surprise the feminist / BLM movements are so prevalent on College campuses? No. And the Academics aren't any better. And they are the ones "teaching" students about (their side of) history.
        I'm with you on hypocrisy... Which is why I'm calling people out on this thread. My point is that the left won't stop talking about the US slave trade and how blacks were all oppressed. But they are silent on the Muslim slave trade. They call the extinction of Natives genocide (with NO proof to back it up) yet go over the fact that whites experienced similar events throughout history. But those things don't matter, because it doesn't suit their narrative. In other words, hypocrisy.
        Economic disparity between races is down to culture, not racism. How else do you explain the fact that Asians out-perform whites in all categories in the US, supposedly a white supremacist country founded on racism and bigotry? Makes zero logical sense. Again, these facts don't matter to scholars, because it contradicts their beliefs.
        The truth of history is what we know for certain, not what we assume to be true. Sorry, you're wrong. There is no evidence to back up your claim. And talk about denying the ugly side of history though... Like I don't know... Muslim slave trade? African genocides? I can't help but feel a glaring hypocrisy in your comments.
        I agree though, America is a very superficial country. Many of them are deniers of their past sins, which is definitely a problem.
        I never got personal, you're projecting your own feelings onto me I believe. And again, you weren't able to deny my points, so no I'm definitely not reading into only "one side" when evidently, that's is exactly what YOU have done. Anyways, take care.
      17. The Dark Knight
        April 10, 2016
        And the japan nuke bombings? Nah, it was for the greater goodzz rightzz?
    2. Mark
      April 8, 2016
      I agree with your comment about the Holocaust, but at least in WWII you had the Allies standing against the pure naked aggression of the Axis. WWI had well-protected and insulated leadership on both sides throwing their young men into the worst battlefield situations imaginable: trench warfare with some poorly-understood chemical weapons which were the equivalent of a 3-year-old with a loaded revolver, and the whole thing was just fought over politics because that's what Europe expected to do periodically.
    3. Spurple
      April 8, 2016
      The Marveltards would immidiately label it a rip off of that godawful Captain 'Murica movie.
    4. Ryan Keith Allen
      April 8, 2016
      It would make the movie too similar to captain America.
2. Kriss_Kringle
  April 8, 2016
  Exactly! Now I don't want people to take this the wrong way,but there's a comparison to be made between Cap: The first avenger and this presumably dark WW origin movie.
  They pretty much glossed over the war part in Cap's film,which didn't sit well with me.Not when Winter Soldier is a more violent and threatening film than one that's taking place in WW2.
  Here's hoping they actually show more in this film in terms of battle and the effect war has one people.
  Again,this is not a stab at Marvel,as I enjoyed The First Avenger and Winter Soldier is my favorite from their studio.It's just something to take into consideration as a no-no when it comes to the setting of the story.
3. Matches Malone
  April 8, 2016
  I'd argue that WWII was darker, but considering the immensity of WWI and how unprecedented it was, and the insane imperialism/militarism/foreign relations were, this should make for a great film.
4. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  April 9, 2016
  "The Wonder Woman movie feels like going back in time and actually experiencing WW1 with a superhero, too realistic and not fun." - critic review, rotten.
C.
April 8, 2016
Best News of the day! and probably of the weekend!!!!!
Eobard Thawne
April 8, 2016
...which makes perfect bloody sense. Patty Jenkins has shown in her interviews thus far she gets Wonder Woman, as has Gal. Compassion, love, equality are what she stands for, but she goes from naive to war hardened and skeptical of man's goodness- as MANY Wonder Woman takes do- here in arguably one of the most brutal, horrible periods of human history, World War One.
I'd be deeply concerned if it WASN'T dark.
1. Mark
  April 8, 2016
  Give them that and you'll have people saying Snyder's laughing at his excessive violence (even though it's not his movie... he made Patty do it!)
2. Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
  April 8, 2016
  lol like there are actual decapitations in a PG-13 movie like this. This ain´t Deadpool or Kick-Ass.
3. RedHood
  April 8, 2016
  i want her to defeat Ares with a dance off.
Andrew
April 8, 2016
Good. I hope it is. I have no problem with it being dark. I just want the quality to be there. Justice League is supposed to have a "lighter" tone and James Wan is already talking about Aquaman and making it little lighter as well. Let each director make their movie.
Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
April 8, 2016
well the WWI stuff is definitely something that qualifies for a darker tone. But Diana herself and the whole amazon/Themyscira stuff should not be dark but more fantasy/adventure.
Also Wonder Woman herself is a fierce warrior but she is not supposed to be a dark character. After all the character is supposed to stand for love, equality and a beacon of light much like Superman.
comic book fans have already been complaining for years that the New 52 made WW way too violent, dark and grim. I don´t think portraying her like that on film is gonna win the hearts of most WW fans either.
She was perfectly portrayed in BvS, where she actually was represented as a light and joyful character while at the same time being a fierce badass. Of course things were a bit more grim and dark in that movie, given the circumstances but Diana herself was not a dark character in the movie because traditionally thats really not what Wonder Woman is about.
So while I totally understand giving the WWI stuff a darker feel, Diana and the amazons themselves need to be characters who are hopeful, light, strong and are about the opposite of darkness, which is love and equality.
1. Bernard BammyWam
  April 8, 2016
  Her character doesn't necessarily mean she is dark. I mean If the overall tone and story of the movie is dark, then its fine. I am sure having a darker aspect of the character is good though.
2. UltraNo
  April 9, 2016
  New 52, or more specifically, Azzerello's Wonder Woman is one of the best versions to date.
  And the comics are hardly dark or grim.
  Your superpower seems to be writing full of shit paragraphs.
Kevin Cassidy
April 8, 2016
Cue marvel fanboys wishing for a "fun" film where wonder woman spends a huge fight scene talking in a monotonous voice that lacks all emotion about what she and Steve Trevor can do on a date. And then complain when it's done that it was not showing her as the comics you know as the maid of the jsa and what not.
Critics will say some crap about female leads needing to sex it up and what not. Or maybe we need a wonder woman who shouts in joy on I'm paling people threw her so rd and then a random sex joke for the laugh. And how it's a disservice to the first female superhero.
God the fact I know this will happen is sad. But I am glad it will truly epic film.
1. Kevin Cassidy
  April 8, 2016
  Impaling people
Commander Shepard
April 8, 2016
A movie focusing around World War I should be dark; it was probably one of the most horrific periods in modern history.
And frankly, from a story perspective, I love the dark tone DC has taken. Escapism can be nice, but these stories mean much more to me when they're rooted in the real world. Let's face it: we live in a dark world.
1. ArtimusGG
  April 8, 2016
  What if I told you BvS was dark AND fun
Foomankru
April 8, 2016
“We go back 100 years to when she’s more naïve,” Gadot said. “She’s this young idealist. She’s pure. Very different to the experienced, super-confident, grown-up woman you’ve seen.”
Wait, what? You mean we're going to have to think while watching this and understand that this takes place BEFORE BvS? Not straight forward enough. Too thought provoking. I don't like it already.
1. Orlando Furioso
  April 8, 2016
  If she's an immortal, surely she's just naive about man's world and how horrible "modern" people can be to each other. And if she retires for 100 years after this dark episode, how does she emerge experienced and confident?
  1. Kriss_Kringle
    April 8, 2016
    Retiring for 100 years doesn't mean she's a hermit and can't live her life.She just backs away from intervening when there are conflicts.
    As far as experience,she already has that since she's an amazon warrior.Also,war gives one plenty of that too.
    1. Jackrydeher
      April 8, 2016
      Not to mention the olympus gods...
      1. Kriss_Kringle
        April 8, 2016
        Good addition.
paul
April 8, 2016
If it's set WW1 which let's be honest it wasn't sunshine and roses during that time then a dark tone for WW movie is perfectly suited. Nothing against Marvel but they've literally convinced the masses a superhero movie should be 'fun'. It's a shame really.
1. iAbeLincoln
  April 8, 2016
  It's a shame because that's not what their intentions are at all. As an audience, people start thinking that that's how every comicbook movie should be now because they're so well received among all age groups and it gives them all something to have in common. These DC movies have very real themes and ideas. Sometimes they're political, religious, or morally themed which can seperate people and leave them with their own opinion. Marvel does not do this and up until now it hasn't been their formula. This Captain V Iron Man movie is the first time that these movies have taken on a strong political idea, which was well done in BvS. Who is responsible and held accountable for their actions when people are dying and suffering?
  1. Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
    April 8, 2016
    Civil War is the first time Marvel has taken on political themes?
    Obviously you never saw Winter Soldier.
    1. iAbeLincoln
      April 8, 2016
      In a way you're right. I just don't think it was politically THEMED though. They used politics as a vehicle to tell their story about a sinister group of people.
  2. paul
    April 8, 2016
    You're right, it wasn't their intentions. Marvel have a done good job establishing their universe! I think BvS was received poorly because people expected it to be another Marvel movie where you can just close your mind for 2 hours and expect action and humour. BvS for all the issues it had, it made you think a few times during the movie and people got blindsided by it. Civil war from what we've seen in the trailers will tackle political elements and so far it looks good.
2. Presidente Camacho
  April 8, 2016
  kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
  1. Your_Mama1
    April 8, 2016
    LOL! This is actually hilarious! Thanks. I needed that.
3. Matches Malone
  April 8, 2016
  I call it the "Marvel Standard". It has set an unfair precedent for what comic book movies can be and it's hurting DC/WB.
Foomankru
April 8, 2016
Dark? AGAIN?? Time to plan for the humorous WWI-era reshoots!!!
1. Mark
  April 8, 2016
  What if, instead of using mustard gas, they used Joker gas! Then there would be lots of laughs!
Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
April 8, 2016
It´s really strange. Back in 2008 after The Dark Knight came out, everyone was so eager to copy its formula and make everything dark and gritty until people got so annoyed of even hearing the word "gritty".
I think thats why movies like Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool struck such a cord when they came out, because people were so suffocated by all the dark and grim approach to movies, that they yearned for fun and humor in these films.
and then suddently there was this shift and now it´s the complete opposite where everyone is quick to point out that they have humor and almost feel apologetic for making a darker movie. especially WB now seems to be almost ashamed of making dark movies and is so quick to ensure everyone that they will put more fun into the films. Only 6 years ago or so studios were advertising movies with being dark and gritty and now making movies like that seems to have become some sort of stigma and is treated like a disease.
This is what happens if you overdo something. After Batman Returns the studios wanted something lighter and more colorful and years later they suddenly wanted something grim and dark. But then everyone tried to do grim and dark and everyone started to yearn for fun and humor again. Now people tend to complain about superherofilms to have too much jokes and one liners again - but they also don´t want dark and gritty anymore as evidenced by the reviews for BvS.
So what exactly is it that the people want now?
1. man_you_fear_19
  April 8, 2016
  I think most people want both. I like Marvel movies, but if I had to choose, I prefer the tone of DC. It's the critics that don't seem to want CBMs to be more serious.
2. Kriss_Kringle
  April 8, 2016
  Too much of one thing will get tiring fast.It's best to enjoy a lot of things in moderation to not get bored in the long run.That's why I want both studios to keep doing what they're doing and not compromise.Diversity is the key for this genre,which is getting saturated these days with 6-7 movies per year.You're gonna have to show different approaches if you want to keep people interested.
3. Jackrydeher
  April 8, 2016
  what are all these other attempts to be dark that you are speaking of? There was the TDK trilogy... and then, i guess, people could make the argument for MoS. People have been going on this tirade for the last couple of years that "they" are trying to make "everything" dark... but outside Nolan's trilogy (which is what everyone is citing as the impetus for this trend) everyone is attempting a dark spin.
Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
April 8, 2016
First Avenger was a pretty serious movie though. Hopeful and joyful, yes but also pretty dark in places.
1. Yeah... no
  April 9, 2016
  You're kidding right?
Sense
April 8, 2016
WW1 was pretty damn dark so this makes total sense.
Boulder Bash
April 8, 2016
Oh not again.
All articles about DC movies lately have been as depressing as the movie. And now WW movie will be dark too. Errgh. Dark here, dark there. Anw I actually doesn't have any problems with that take. But based on MoS and BvS, they seems to forget that Superhero supposed to bring hope and inspiration and whatnot. You go with dark take, it's fine, but you should not forget the essence of that Superhero's being in the first place. I have so much doubts now on the future of DCEU, I truly am. I'm desperately want it to be good. But.. ergh.. help.. :'(
1. Aheaney15
  April 8, 2016
  This does take place in WWI. Why would it not be dark? It's one of humanity's darkest hours in history. It is possible that most of the dark elements are during the WWI parts.
  Also, I wouldn't call Wonder Woman's character a bringer of hope and inspiration. She originally was, but now she's a 2-dimensional Warrior badass.
  I agree with you on BvS though. It was a tad too dark, even for my taste.
  1. Mark
    April 8, 2016
    Did you mean 2-dimensional? Because she was always a warrior, but I find that in recent years (DCAU -> present) they've downplayed if not killed the whole "hope and inspiration" aspect. I believe this movie will correct that; in other interviews both Gal and Patty have talked about the core of the character being how good and kind and loving and compassionate she is.
    1. Aheaney15
      April 8, 2016
      Yes, I did mean 2-dimensional. Stupid typos. I agree with what you said on the recent "killing" of hope and inspiration in Diana Post-DCAU, it's what I've been trying to say. You're probably right the film will correct that, though I haven't been following the director's interviews (or Gal's).
      1. Mark
        April 8, 2016
        If you can find it, watch the Wonder Woman segment from the "Dawn of the Justice League" special. The key interviews are there (and also know that both Lynda Carter, who seems to be as protective of the character as anyone could be, and William Marston's granddaughter, have Tweeted Patty Jenkins praising what she's doing with Diana).
  2. Boulder Bash
    April 8, 2016
    Well, in my own opinion. the very nature of superhero is to bring inspiration. that's what essential for me in this genre. you can go with dark theme, massacre all over places, and depressions for the most part. fine let's take it there. but as long as you make the superhero/heroine become the source/inspiration to swept all those darkness I'll gladly enjoy it. Because that's what important, at least for me. Being a badass is just cool. That's all it is. Being a symbol of inspiration is more than just cool, it's awesome. and that's what superhero supposed to be. That's what differs them from just being a typical hero who kicks asses. Anw, i'm just a single guy. In the random place of earth. and all i can tell you is my own ideal of how superhero supposed to be. don't let me bother you too much yes? at least i'm glad there are people who still like and optimist for DCEU. let's shake hands. and give me a hug, because i'm worried of the future. :'D
2. Jonathan Ng
  April 8, 2016
  Dude darker tone will also shine more on what make all these DC heroes more important and what make their symbolisms very powerful and what they actually mean.
  1. Boulder Bash
    April 8, 2016
    yes that's how it supposed to be, that's how it should have been. but in MoS and BvS, imo Zack has failed in making those symbolism shines. his take on that particular element is lacking. but again, just like i always stated, it's my own view on things. if you able to catch it in those two previous films then it's great. and i'm happy for you. it's just that i didn't quite catch that feel yet. I'm still hopeful for what might come after this. But I can't help but being worried. :')
    1. Jonathan Ng
      April 8, 2016
      I understand your concern. How about you read this 2 articles. Hopefully it can reduce your worrying on what overall DC is doing:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites...
      http://justakansasboy.tumbl...
      1. Boulder Bash
        April 9, 2016
        well thanks! how nice of you. :D
3. GaboPSN
  April 8, 2016
  I don't see the problem tbh. People are so used to the MCU that they forget how the comics actually are. Most of the stuff that happens in the comics are dark, it's the heroes that shine the light, they're what we could hope to be. Basically it's what the BvS ending was all about. I don't see humor in Civil War and the whole story arc (comics), I don't see humor in Age of Ultron (comics), not everything about superheroes and comic books have to be a comedy, that type of thinking is hurting the genre.
  1. Boulder Bash
    April 8, 2016
    but the problem is the level of inspiration and hope that i felt from the dc superheroes in the movie is far too low. seems like they were too busy to make the story dark that they forgot to make their superheroes shines the light. that's how i felt when i watch MoS and BvS, lacking of inspiration/motivation or whatever words suitable to describe it and that's what my problems are with Zack at the helm of DCEU., that's where my doubts lies my friend. :'(
    i'm not asking it to be fun and full of humor like MCU did, i just wanted to be inspired by their heroes. but for now, i'm not. the feelings are not quite there. something is lacking. :'(
4. Tres Swygert
  April 8, 2016
  I like the fact that you mentioned superheroes are meant to bring hope and inspiration.
  With that said, hope and inspiration for a brighter future does come from dark moments. It's shown in many cultures' history of wanting to reach for the light and for a better tomorrow. That is what these films are doing for DC. I understand that dark tones don't always have to be the direction to show hope and inspiration, but I understand DC's take for wanting dark tones. It creates a fight within the same characters we enjoy to combat the oppressing and evil forces, and it inspires their counterparts to want to see them succeed....as well as audiences.
5. GFY
  April 9, 2016
  All you dumb cu**s and this "superheroes need to bring me hope" BS.
  All superheroes need to bring is a good stories, and sometimes the best stories aren't hopeful ones.
  Get a fucking clue or shut the fuck up already.
  1. Boulder Bash
    April 9, 2016
    Well that's just my opinion pal. you have yours. if it makes you feel better in insulting me and the rest of the guys who have different preferences and views then what can I say, right? You have your rights to insult me, I have my rights to state my view too. xD
    1. Ned Ryerson
      April 9, 2016
      Read the Killing Joke. One of the best Batman comics ever - and there's very little that's hopeful about it. It's dark, dour, cynical, beautifully dark, and brilliant. It doesn't uplift or inspire; it's just a gripping tragic story.
IamTheOneWhoKnocks
April 8, 2016
Yess...love to hear actual casting members saying they are staying dark, it means that WB is staying on its course. Come to think about it, the only places that have reported otherwise are websites who have their own agenda against the DCEU or they are just looking for click baits. It's hard to ignore a conspiracy theory against the DCEU when everything you read is opposite to what you actually can confirm, smh.
IamTheOneWhoKnocks
April 8, 2016
The DCEU is what superheroes would be like if they actually existed in our present world. MCU is what superheroes would be like in a colorful and fictional world where your actions have no large consequences. Adult Reality vs. Childhood Fantasy, this exactly describes their differences.
1. qownsqud
  April 8, 2016
  I want to agree but i cant. Its the popular thing to say for sure, but the world that Captain America lives in is actually incredibly well done. A true force of good that stands for something he believes in caught in the grey of politics. Something BvS hasnt even come close to establishing. If he were to die in Civil War, we would feel a sincere moment of loss.
  Superman's character and death on the other hand was so poorly done i cant even get into it again it hurts me too much.
  1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
    April 8, 2016
    I want to understand your point of view and agree, but I can't. When I saw Captain America, I did not feel any emotions at all, for even though it was WW1 they made it seem unemotional, and I'm sorry to say but it felt light and fun to a certain level. When I saw Superman die in BvS, it was very emotional and there were many people around me crying in the movie theater. That's how you make a heart felt superhero movie, never had experienced this before in any superhero movie to date.
    1. qownsqud
      April 8, 2016
      Ha first captain america sucked but the steve rogers they established was great! A frail sickly boy willing to throw his life away and jump on top of a grenade to save his comrades!
      And then that character carried over to The Winter Soldier which is Marvel's best film to date.
      I just want it to be known, I am a much bigger Batman fan than Marvel, but the Winter Soldier is a far superior film.
      1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
        April 8, 2016
        I'm a huge Captain America fan because his movies are more serious in tone like DC, but the truth is the truth. This is how I felt and that was what I witnessed.
      2. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        That's fair and you're entitled to it. I was just trying to spur up a little bit more of a discussion to see why you think that than just a statement of opinions
      3. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
        April 8, 2016
        Glad to have an honest discussion any time.
      4. Arkham Psyche
        April 8, 2016
        I'm kinda same view as yourself. The CA movies are more akin to the DC world, far more complex and character driven etc than Marvels other stuff. So for me, the barometer as it stands is the CA. Perfect mix of politics, action, meta humans, whatever. The exact format & stylistic take the DCEU should be based around.... Which it is. Just needs finer editing etc
  2. qownsqud
    April 8, 2016
    Why so?
    I saw a great review that pointed out that if they would have been able to resist the temptation to play this card early, it would have made a much greater impact. Imagine Green Lantern, Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, the entire Justice League all there to mourn the loss of their fallen comrade. Now that would have been a fitting end for Superman.
    But they didnt. They made the death after barely establishing anything. It has no impact and it shows a misguided fanboy that was miscasted as a director and just wanted to jampack as many iconic comic book moments rather than tell a serious story.
    Further, what henry cavill fails to do is portray Superman as an unrelenting force of good. Hes just an angsty kid that doesnt know what to do. Its embarassing watching him do that one single mopey look for the entirety of the film. To be frank, I would have preferred Brandon Routh.
    1. man_you_fear_19
      April 8, 2016
      So I guess if people were discussing whether or not you were necessary on T.V. and setting effigies of you on fire, you would be happy about it? There isn't a lot for him to be happy about in BvS but he does smile when he is with Lois and when he saves the girl from the fire.
      Doomsday's only purpose is to kill Superman. If you didn't have him kill Superman people would be complaining. If you didn't use Doomsday and used another villain, there would be more to explain in this movie or else people would say that character was misused.
      1. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        again, i respectfully disagree.
        Doomsday in this movie as a whole I believe was a mistake. And I can't even get into Lois Lane, she's just the worst. When she almost got herself drowned by trying to retrieve the spear from the little pond that she threw it into and Superman had to save her when he was busy fighting Doomsday. You could see him thinking, "What if... i just let her die?" and I answered, "Do it Superman. Clearly you have bigger problems."
      2. man_you_fear_19
        April 8, 2016
        Look how some people freaked out about "Jimmy Olsen" being killed and you want there not to be a Lois Lane in these movies?
      3. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        ...obviously that was a joke. Yeah man, Superman should have just let Lois drown and completely have forgotten about her.
        Lois Lane shouldn't be killed. That's just how I was feeling because her character was so poorly done.
      4. man_you_fear_19
        April 8, 2016
        Yeah the part of her trying to recover the spear was a bit dumb. She didn't really even know what they were fighting, or that they would need the spear. But that's what she does, gets into situations where Superman has to save her.
        I think her other parts weren't terrible, just unnecessary. And I think there was a missed opportunity to have her confront Lex about the bullet in Washington. That would have given him just one more reason to push her off the building.
      5. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        exactly!!!!!!! she could have been so much better and they wasted her character to the single trope of being a damsel in distress. And yeah I can see what you're saying about that being her thing but at least she played an actual role in Man of Steel you know?
        And with the scene in Washington, I don't know about anyone else but I was really looking forward to Superman being part of a public hearing (now THAT would have been insanely interesting) and felt robbed when that never happened. Just thought it was a waste and lazy to do it the way they did.
      6. man_you_fear_19
        April 8, 2016
        Idk, in MOS besides learning how to send the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, she pretty much just needed saving.
        Yes that would have been interesting but I thought what happened was shocking and interesting in its own way. It also served the purpose of pushing Superman over the edge, and having him questioning his purpose on Earth, and demonstrated to the audience just how far Lex will go to further his own plans.
      7. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        Right, which just goes to show what a waste of a character she was in BvS.
        As with your other point, to be honest, I was so disappointed that Superman literally said zero words (absolutely none! just that mopey look!) during that hearing that I didn't think of it like that. But that still doesn't excuse it for building up what looked to be an incredibly creative and unique take on the Superman character only to take the easy way out and blow everyone up.
      8. Jackrydeher
        April 8, 2016
        I see what you're saying about how he takes the news reels... but they COULD have done more to show how people love him, thank him for his service. He was a bit dour and I was hoping they would start to pick up his enthusiasm about who he is.
        They could have easily went with Metallo and skipped Doomsday with Scoot's character. I wasn't opposed to having doomsday in this film, but after seeing their execution, I would have rather seen him saved.
      9. man_you_fear_19
        April 8, 2016
        I agree they could have, and they kind of did when he was saving those people. It's interesting how you see him doing all these good things and people being happy to see him while critics and pundits for the most part are just running him down. It's kind of how this movie was received.
        I thought that too, but would you really need all three, WW, Batman, and Superman to defeat Metallo?
      10. Jackrydeher
        April 8, 2016
        I especially liked the segment with the news pundits going back and forth before ending with the interview with Senator Finch and them posing the question "should he not be saving people on principal rather than him being able to"... and they cut to her asking, must there be a superman? in the senate meeting.
        My biggest gripe with his depiction was we always saw everyone else's view on him but never his own. I thought that was the whole point of MoS. Us viewing this being for the first time (which i enjoyed a lot) and forming that debate (has he done more harm then good?). I'm glad they addressed that in the beginning of BvS, but then they never expanded on that, but rather continued to reinforce what we already knew (people are divided)... without ever exploring his psyche or his devotion to continue to do good.
        As for Metallo, I though Batman was very much so obsolete in the Doomsday fight... and we just saw how effective Kryptonite was at disabling Superman. So I would argue, YEAH, they could have found a way to level the playing field a little bit. Metallo being stronger and faster due to kyptonian tech and kryptonite nerfing Superman.
        Snyder has said they went with Doomsday because they needed a device to get Superman out of the picture so Batman could form the JL. But I think that's flawed logic. With Kryptonite seemingly out of the picture (Batman saying he'll get rid of it), Superman could have simply said, we don't need a JL. He can take care of the world problems on his own... thus excluding himself from the JL roundup. Or he leaves to go build the fortress of solitude and take some time to ponder on whether the world needs him. Giving credence to the world wanting him back when everything goes to shit again.
        My point being, there were other ways to do this without over-complicating things and bunching too many story points in to this one movie. (forgive my rambling long post)
      11. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        exactly! everything was so poorly mishandled. The best character in this movie is Perry White. Where's Zach Snyder's creativity?!? The best thing he could think of for Batman's role in the Doomsday fight was to run away? Are you kidding?!?
        The best parts of the movie were parts taken from comic books. Even then, he managed to screw those up, just giving us enough of the moment for us to recognize. Superman taking on the nuke, the ENTIRE batman versus superman conflict, batman's one liner to KGBeast, all of it! He had THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS to draw influence from and he took a lot from it down to using the news broadcasts as ways to push the story forward, the political debates about a controversial superhero, batman's brutality, etc, etc. When you truly step back and realize just how much he pulled from the dark knight returns and what a true masterpiece he was given to work with, the extent of his failure is daunting. He was given diamonds and he shit out coals.
      12. man_you_fear_19
        April 8, 2016
        If they had stayed with just Batman and Superman I would agree with the idea of Metallo, but with the inclusion of WW it just seems like he wouldn't be that big of a threat. Also if it was Metallo instead of Doomsday Superman would probably have been obsolete in the fight rather than Batman.
        I think Superman dying will allow him to come back as the more hopeful, "traditional" Superman lots of people have wanted to see. If he just said there doesn't need to be a JL because he can handle things, or just leaves to ponder his place in the world, people would be complaining again about that not being their Superman.
    2. Jonathan Ng
      April 8, 2016
      Dude DC is doing something very different than a typical hero journey we all have seen. BvS basically descontructng both batman and superman to their core and then used that to build their character up. That's something really different and refreshing.
      1. Jonathan Ng
        April 8, 2016
        Also both superman and batman in BvS is pretty much like a Hamlet figure in their own way.
      2. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        I was on the same boat as you friend, I thought this movie may be something the world had never seen. Disappointingly, for me, it's not.
        I can see I'm taking some heavy fire for my comments. But here is my overall opinion on the matter: This movie strived to be something greater, I won't deny that. But Zach Snyder falls far too short as a filmmaker for this film to ever be what some people are making it. No matter your feelings on the movie, this movie has glaring flaws. Flaws that don't really warrant the level of profundity that people are heralding this movie to be. Look in your heart, you know it to be true.
      3. Jonathan Ng
        April 8, 2016
        Dude unlike you, i don like to debate or discuss about what movie should have been, how the character should have been. how movie can be improve and so on. This is because we are not a fillmmaker. We are not the responsible to shaping up this DC movies. Therefore, i prefer to judge and enjoy the movie what it is as a viewers. I'm not interested to criticizes or find the whatever the flaws you are saying. Movie is basically like a art and art is subjective. Everyone can have different opinion about it and see it for what it is. But at least judge it legitimately for what it is instead of criticizing for never do this and that.
        For the record zack snyder take on DC is something very different and refreshing. It attempt to eschew or at least trying to be something really different from most of the today current blockbuster movie. It is exactly what make DC finally different from marvel and stand by its own. I prefer and applaud them for not trying to copy or do like what marvel did when they could have choose to do so. If you have time, you can read this article : http://pulpklatura.tumblr.c...
        That article basically provide a insightful analysis on how BvS is inspired heavily by the classical Shakespeare revenge tragedy like hamlet for example. BvS also contain a references and allusions to Ex-calibur and Hamlet. From that, we can see already that zack is actually approach DC as a modern day myth story in the same vein as old time classic myth story like the Greek gods and King Arthur
        There are so many deep and meaningful themes found in BvS. But i can tell the primary themes in BvS is that there are no absolute in good or evil.
      4. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        My man, do you know about the number 21?
      5. Jonathan Ng
        April 8, 2016
        No.
      6. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        i'm sorry but i have to be honest. there's a line between far-fetched and complete fantasy and that article started a league of its own. The reason for the nuke scene in BvS wasn't because they did exactly that in TDKR but because he wanted to show us that "the power of the divine isn't entirely corruptive"? Lois Lane is Mary Magdallan? is this a joke to you? only messing around, of course it is lets not take this too seriously! But the leaps and bounds that this article takes are over impossibly vast chasms. To say that it makes some reaches is like saying that the flash would run a decent 40 yard dash.
      7. Jonathan Ng
        April 8, 2016
        Like I already said. Movie is subjective art. So if you see it differently then that's fine. I have done What I need to say. But nevertheless we all aware that at least superman journey in both MoS and BvS is almost parallel to that of jesus christ. Plus there is quite a heavy handed christ imagery in the movie. So no surprising if Lois has a parallel to Mary
      8. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        Of course but Zach Snyder didn't invent the jesus imagery so im not sure why thats so important to you. Superman Returns had plenty of it as well, dare i say more and definitely better executed.
    3. Jonathan Ng
      April 8, 2016
      Dude why you need to build character up first and then only killed him off to make it more impactful. Why you can't do the opposite way by kill off the character as a way to further progress and evolve the character. I don understand why you must insist only one approach to do this when there is more ways that can be done.
      1. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        It's Superman. Of course you have to make his death meaningful. That's definitely what they tried to do so that that's how we should critique it. They didn't kill him off with the intention of building his character later, they meant to do it now.
      2. Jonathan Ng
        April 8, 2016
        Dude superman death is meaningful in BvS. it basically make the whole world and also us audiences to stop take superman heroism for granted. It also start to inspired or spur bruce to form a justice league to honor superman legacy
    4. Manque
      April 8, 2016
      I see what you're trying to say here, but I think it makes a lot of sense for the Justice League to unite because Superman's not around to protect everyone.
      1. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        It does and I agree with you. But my gripe with that is Zach Snyder because I always hear the "oh they're just setting it up for the next movie" argument. Will he be able to deliver a Justice League movie that lives up to the death of Superman?
      2. Manque
        April 8, 2016
        I guess all I can say to that is be patient and have faith! He will deliver!
    5. qownsqud
      April 8, 2016
      this was a good discussion and you had great points thanks for sharing
      1. qownsqud
        April 8, 2016
        i'm definitely not changing my mind, but i'm always interested to see what other people think. I truly wanted to like this movie but I find it hard to see its merits after seeing it 4 times. that's what these websites are for arent they? not every internet discussion has to become an argument where we pointlessly butt heads, we're not savages. if its a stupid point, ill let you know but i mean no offense by it
  3. Jonathan Ng
    April 8, 2016
    I actually empathize more on superman and actually felt his weight and his burden
  4. Tres Swygert
    April 8, 2016
    When that scene hit, I was pissed. Not pissed because it shouldn't have happened in the film...but I was getting so used to the Henry Cavill Superman, and enjoying his delivery as Superman (MoS, BvS)...to have him die, I was like, "NOT MY SUPERMAN!!!" So yea, I felt they did a fine job with that moment in the movie.
  5. Nashe
    April 8, 2016
    You're overplaying Captain America. These movies are generally untenable to interpret into real world situations. There is basically zero consequence. In fact, it's only in Civil War that they are even trying to make the first attempt at making these movies less cartoonish. After ten movies they are only now starting to ground the MCU. And even then you can expect not take anything serious given the jokes that dominate the background. I'm sorry but the MCU is excellent at many things, but depth of story and character is very far from it. At least the more ponderous X-Men movies with all their flaws make things slightly more believable
2. Atilla The Hun
  April 8, 2016
  You little **ck*r , you're awesome!
  1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
    April 8, 2016
    Lol!...thanks I guess.
3. ArtimusGG
  April 8, 2016
  Couldn't agree more with this statement, 100% correct.
IamTheOneWhoKnocks
April 8, 2016
This makes me proud to be a WB/DC fan. They care about their core fans, for they know we want dark and gritty not light and fluffy superhero movies. Glad to hear they are not changing anything.
That1Guy
April 8, 2016
Dark? Oh well now we know it's gonna "flop"
Rob_wesb
April 8, 2016
Good. A movie that takes place during WW1 shouldn't be all sunshine and rainbows. I actually wonder what WW sees during the war that causes her to leave man's world for a hundred years
1. Jackrydeher
  April 8, 2016
  the death of Steve Trevor
  1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
    April 8, 2016
    Good catch, this will most likely be it.
Atilla The Hun
April 8, 2016
Fucking LOVE her comments!
Jesse
April 8, 2016
i wouldn't want it any other way, DC has that realistic point of view that what i love about them.
Seb
April 8, 2016
I am not claiming BvS is the best film ever, or that it is a light-hearted fun little superhero movie... But the fact that people are calling BvS "super dark gloomy overly darkest dark" is extremely dishonest. Seriously? I saw the movie a week after its release (busy with other things) so yes I heard about the reviews and the supposed "dark tone". I was expecting a Dark Knight level, even a Watchmen level of dark. After seeing the movie, what the actual fuck are people (critics) talking about? Yes, it's a very serious movie, but dark? Dark Knight, Rises and Watchmen are easily 10 times darker in tone and story. Except for Martha's hostage pictures, there was nothing overly dark about the movie, except that it is literally dark (every action scene in the movie takes place at night). Sure, Batman's intro was "dark" but that's just his character.
My point? This whole "overly dark tone" the DCCU is taking is the least of my worries and anyone calling these movies "too dark" is a scam. So when Gal says "it's dark" I'm pretty sure that only means it is serious and grounded. As if that is somehow a bad thing (according to morons)? Lol, if anything, I'm worried about the script (writer sucks) not the tone.
1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  April 8, 2016
  Yeap, I honestly think there is some kind of conspiracy created by the mouse company. I mean, everything you just said about BvS is how most people feel about the movie.
  1. Seb
    April 8, 2016
    Yea, personally, I didn't love it... Thought it was disappointing, but the more I watch it, the more I like it. I think Batman V Superman would benefit greatly from a fan-edit after the Ultimate Edition comes out.
2. col42
  April 8, 2016
  Totally agree, after seeing the film, one of the first things I said is that it wasn't dark at all. The only scenes I would say were remotely dark are the ones where Batman burns his symbol on criminals, other than that, nah. It's a very serious film but it's silly to confuse that with 'darkness' lmao.
  1. Seb
    April 8, 2016
    Exactly! Batman's branding (which only happened once) and Martha's pictures were the only things "dark" about the movie. Grounded and serious? Yes, and I get that it may be a little too serious for people (not for me though). That is "valid" criticism, but that's no excuse to call this movie "too dark".
    1. col42
      April 8, 2016
      Branding! That's the word, tip of my tongue.
3. Jackrydeher
  April 8, 2016
  I would contend that this is NOT a dark movie for Batman... It is, however, VERY dark for Superman.
Guest
April 8, 2016
"It's not much fun. Comic book movies SHOULD be fun. Warner Bros. can take a page from Disney/Marvel."
"The motivation of the antagonist, the God of War, isn't clear."
- critics
"Captain America: The First Avenger did it better. I don't want to think about the ramifications and consequences of war.. It hurts my brains."
- Disney/Marvel fanboys
Ice Tea with some Ice Cubes.
April 8, 2016
Ohh no. The Critics are coming back again with the no ''Fun'' system. smh.
Pat Bateman
April 8, 2016
I really hope this movie shows why the world needs strong women and femininity vs straight up girl power schlock. And that it is interpreted that way.
I can see the BuzzFeed articles already:
"How Wonder Woman teaches boys that female heroes can be just as badass"
"10 times Wonder Woman didn't need no man"
"Watch out men, battle skirts are the new pants in the relationship"
"19 reasons why living on an island without men is the best idea since professional victimhood"
RedHood
April 8, 2016
good i am glad. i don't want every single cbm to be light hearted. i want variety. i don't want to beat a villain with a dance off.
Tres Swygert
April 8, 2016
As long as the storytelling is solid, I'm all for it! I'm sure it will be, and I am looking forward to seeing more Wonder Woman played by Gal Gadot!
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
April 8, 2016
WW is dark...shes a killer, always a soldier...cant wait to see the mcu brigrade bitching and moaning...
ßαby J
April 8, 2016
Somehow you know this will be spun into yet more "WB don't get these characters/it's all Snyder's fault with his uber darkness" diatribes.
Sigh. I know i should've gotten used to it by now, but whaddyagonnado.
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
April 8, 2016
Omg its too dark!!! Its not the marvel way, wb will never get it..