log in or register to remove this ad

 

Wonder Woman Out Dec 16th

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I liked the movie overall, but there were an awful lot of little niggly problems. Enough that I can understand why someone wouldn't like it, if they want to focus on those things. I can see the internet having a field day with

Steve stealing some poor guy's body and sleeping with Diana. Isn't that basically against his will? Not that your average guy would probably mind it exactly, but still. A bit problematic, isn't it? In particular because neither of them ever even gave it a second thought.

I can see how someone with aviation experience would have a problem with the jet. My 13-year old scoffed at the idea that a WW1 pilot could fly a jet. I have to agree. Steve's knowledge is only one-step removed from flying a BIPLANE. Literally - he would have learned to fly on a biplane. It would probably be hard enough for a WW2 pilot to fly.

...But I still liked it, well enough.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
I can see how someone with aviation experience would have a problem with the jet. My 13-year old scoffed at the idea that a WW1 pilot could fly a jet. I have to agree. Steve's knowledge is only one-step removed from flying a BIPLANE. Literally - he would have learned to fly on a biplane. It would probably be hard enough for a WW2 pilot to fly.
Has anyone with aviation experience of both WW1 and modern style aircraft weighed in on that? I would think there are a lot of differences between the two, but . . . . when watching, I assumed that the basics of piloting were the same. But I have next to zero knowledge of aviation outside of watching movies!

Of course, outside of that, as has been pointed out . . . there's no way Steve could have flown an F-111 from DC to Cairo non-stop. Is there? This is also something that seems ridiculous, but . . . I don't actually know if that is possible.

The first film felt very grounded to me, and this film did not. Lots of errors that by themselves were small, but add up to detract from the film.

I still enjoyed the film quite a bit, but it does not compare well to the first film. Of course, most sequels in the 80s were pretty disappointing, maybe this was deliberate? (kidding)
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
Has anyone with aviation experience of both WW1 and modern style aircraft weighed in on that? I would think there are a lot of differences between the two, but . . . . when watching, I assumed that the basics of piloting were the same. But I have next to zero knowledge of aviation outside of watching movies!

Of course, outside of that, as has been pointed out . . . there's no way Steve could have flown an F-111 from DC to Cairo non-stop. Is there? This is also something that seems ridiculous, but . . . I don't actually know if that is possible.

The first film felt very grounded to me, and this film did not. Lots of errors that by themselves were small, but add up to detract from the film.

I still enjoyed the film quite a bit, but it does not compare well to the first film. Of course, most sequels in the 80s were pretty disappointing, maybe this was deliberate? (kidding)
Here's an image of a Spad 7 cockpit and a F111 cockpit, for comparison. Sheer mental overload would have stopped him from even getting the jet rolling down the runway. Sensory overload can even effect trained fighter pilots, when things get dicey.
 

Attachments

  • 282e6782b5090809522aa5d6b2a40bc9.jpg
    282e6782b5090809522aa5d6b2a40bc9.jpg
    283.4 KB · Views: 12
  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 15

Sacrosanct

Legend
Here's an image of a Spad 7 cockpit and a F111 cockpit, for comparison. Sheer mental overload would have stopped him from even getting the jet rolling down the runway. Sensory overload can even effect trained fighter pilots, when things get dicey.
Yep. Also, for things like: starting the rotary engine on a wwi plane means manually turning the propeller. Steve wouldn’t even know to look for a switch, let alone start it. 1915 rotary engines are nothing like a jet engine. He would have been lost. Electric starters didn’t exist on planes until 1930. The only similarities are basic aerodynamics, and controls like roll, pitch, and yaw

Now I know these seem like petty things, but I guess my feeling is that the film is LOADED with errors like this, which is lazy and not good for a big budget film.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Plane thing got commented on at the theater. I got asked if a plane could go from east coast to Cairo non stop. Some can I doubt that one could.

Just lots of small absurdities in the movie even by super hero standards.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I liked the movie overall, but there were an awful lot of little niggly problems. Enough that I can understand why someone wouldn't like it, if they want to focus on those things. I can see the internet having a field day with

Steve stealing some poor guy's body and sleeping with Diana. Isn't that basically against his will? Not that your average guy would probably mind it exactly, but still. A bit problematic, isn't it? In particular because neither of them ever even gave it a second thought.

I can see how someone with aviation experience would have a problem with the jet. My 13-year old scoffed at the idea that a WW1 pilot could fly a jet. I have to agree. Steve's knowledge is only one-step removed from flying a BIPLANE. Literally - he would have learned to fly on a biplane. It would probably be hard enough for a WW2 pilot to fly.

...But I still liked it, well enough.

My brothers a pilot flies Jets. He learnt on a biplane;)..

Quite a few more steps from tiger moth to passenger jet.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Yeah. Especially when, clearly, it wasn't necessary for the plot. The magic could create matter out of thin air - it could manage a body for Steve.
Inanimate matter - sure, we saw that. Life? I think the evidence may be lacking in that regard - we don't know if it could or couldn't.
But from a narrative perspective, if it hadn't created a body for Steve - what's the downside? Where's the corruption in her wish? Her wish needed a downside and, in this case, it was because it wasn't really Steve's life and it undermined her powers that are at least partially based on truth.
 
Last edited:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Inanimate matter - sure, we saw that. Life? I think the evidence may be lacking in that regard - we don't know if it could or couldn't.
If the writers had decided to make it do that, then it would be able to by definition.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
If the writers had decided to make it do that, then it would be able to by definition.
Sure, but right now, we can't reliably infer whether they made that decision or not, so it's kind of a difficult point to argue that, because it created a wall out of nothing, that it could create a fully functioning human body out of nothing.
And either way, it's irrelevant. The writers chose to have Steve inhabit someone else's body as the downside to Diana's wish.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Sure, but right now, we can't reliably infer whether they made that decision or not, so it's kind of a difficult point to argue that, because it created a wall out of nothing, that it could create a fully functioning human body out of nothing.
They made the decision not to give him a new body, so we don't need to know if it could. If they'd made the decision to give him a new body, then we'd know it could. I mean, it's a self-solving non-problem. Claiming the writers couldn't make it give him new body because the object can't do that makes no sense. Of course they could; they just chose not to.
 


billd91

Hobbit on Quest
They made the decision not to give him a new body, so we don't need to know if it could. If they'd made the decision to give him a new body, then we'd know it could. I mean, it's a self-solving non-problem. Claiming the writers couldn't make it give him new body because the object can't do that makes no sense. Of course they could; they just chose not to.
Yeah, fine, whatever. The point of this all is that it didn't create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so. Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Yeah, fine, whatever. The point of this all is that it didn't create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so. Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.
I don’t see the problem. So write something different.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Yeah, fine, whatever. The point of this all is that it didn't create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so.

But, it didn't really serve the story. They pointedly ignored the fact that his body was stolen. A new body and a stolen body, plot-wise, are pretty much the same.

Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.

No. You seem to have missed this.

The wish gave you what you wanted, but took the thing most valuable to you in return. The wish took her powers. Whether Steve was in a new body or a stolen one, she had to renounce her wish to get her powers back.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
But, it didn't really serve the story. They pointedly ignored the fact that his body was stolen. A new body and a stolen body, plot-wise, are pretty much the same.
They aren't the same when you're talking about an incredibly honourable super hero, who should consider that someone innocent person's life has just been stolen.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
They aren't the same when you're talking about an incredibly honourable super hero, who should consider that someone innocent person's life has just been stolen.

Well, that is a major criticism of the movie. She is supposed to be honorable, but they ignored the stolen life and consent issue. It is a potential character point they failed to use. If you aren't going to use it, don't put it in.

Given what is presented in the film, with them ignoring that point, they could just as easily have been a created body, and the movie would play out exactly as presented, without dishonoring her, and that would have been okay.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Well, that is a major criticism of the movie. She is supposed to be honorable, but they ignored the stolen life and consent issue. It is a potential character point they failed to use. If you aren't going to use it, don't put it in.

Given what is presented in the film, with them ignoring that point, they could just as easily have been a created body, and the movie would play out exactly as presented, without dishonoring her, and that would have been okay.

Well they created nukes so yeah new body easy enough.
 
Last edited:

payn

Explorer
They missed a real opportunity here to have a consistent theme in WW84. Jenkins was talking about WB brass wanting to drop the double opening (as is, it probably should have been dropped). We are treated to this valuable life lessen Diana learns about winning without truth being bad. Instead of Diana spending most of the movie fighting the urge to keep Steve (shortcut), she should eventually decide she cannot, because the truth is Steve is living in a borrowed body. This truth lessen could have been paralleled into the Barbra and Max stories for a consistent message. A pretty heroic one too. Instead, WW84 is a meandering story about stuff.
 

Mercurius

Legend
That was just a bad film in so many ways. IMO, of course. Of the DCEU films, my favorites were Man of Steel and Batman v Superman (despite popular opinion); the first WW was pretty good, Aquaman OK. This one, I'd say, ranks there with Justice League and Suicide Squad in the stinker category. Didn't see Shazam or Birds of Prey.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top