Wonder Woman Out Dec 16th

[FitzTheRuke]

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

Spoiler: Spoiler

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.

 

[Dire Bare]

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]

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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]

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]

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

Spoiler: Spoiler

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]

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.

 

[Morrus]

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]

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]

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.