Wonder Woman and Jusitce League official movie trailer

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
mecegirl said:
Happyninja42 said:
I've never understood the need to have a character have physical muscles to justify them doing the feats of strength they do. NONE of the superheroes with super strength, can pull off what they do just because they've got guns. You could be as ripped as Arnold at the peak of his physical ability, and you still can't lift up a semi truck and hurl it 30 yards. So NONE of the heroes actually are as "realistically" muscled as they should be, to pull off what they do. They are all tapping into powers beyond the mere physicality of their body. So who cares if they look like a Mr. Universe weight lifter, or Steve Urkle? It's all completely fictional and unrealistic.

Maybe, MAAAYBE heroes like the Hulk could pull off some of the things they do, given they are inhumanely proportioned, and are like 10 feet tall, and have muscles thicker than most human torsos. But even then, I would doubt some of the stuff they pull off.
In the case of Wonder Woman though she's been training since childhood. That's just a part of Amazonian culture. So its not a simple matter of her having muscles because she has super strength. It would be a reflection of her training. She'd have muscles for the same reason that Batman has muscles.(In some versions the Amazons don't have super strength and Wonder Woman only gains super powered abilities once putting on her costume because it's been blessed by the gods.) And it makes more since for her to have muscles than Superman. But an actor playing Superman or Batman wouldn't be considered without having a certain amount of bulk. So why is it so weird for it to be a consideration for the actor for Wonder Woman?

Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.

If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
While I understand and kind of agree with your position, I do think physique is a useful tool in cinema. While its true that acting chops go further, and from a logical perspective super heroes don't have to be buff, it helps when they look the part.

I'll use the original Terminator as an example.


Now, Arnold was actually really good in this movie. One could argue the job was easy, but regardless, he did an excellent job - His acting was perfect for an emotionless, unstoppable murder machine. But would the movie have been the same if he hadn't also been a massive presence, 6' 2" of pure man meat? Do you think the movie would have been the same if, say, this guy was cast?


EDIT: And yes, I know that, except for really early in the process when the movie was being written in an entirely different direction, Lance Henriksen wasn't really considered for the role.

5' 10" and probably 180 pounds soaking wet? The movie would have been entirely different - Perhaps still good, but gone would be the instant sense of dread that Arnold was able to portray. The constant reminder that you are outclassed and screwed that his physique provides. Logically, as a robot from the future, the Terminator doesn't have to be huge, but it really helped.

Of course, Terminator 2 provided a much less imposing foe...


But I think that largely worked because it was able to play off of the original Terminator - The dread factor didn't come from the characters physical characteristics, but because he was throwing around Arnold like he was Worf at a Star Trek Villainous Species Convention. If it was just two regular guys throwing each other around, I think that affect would have failed as well.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
mecegirl said:
Happyninja42 said:
I've never understood the need to have a character have physical muscles to justify them doing the feats of strength they do. NONE of the superheroes with super strength, can pull off what they do just because they've got guns. You could be as ripped as Arnold at the peak of his physical ability, and you still can't lift up a semi truck and hurl it 30 yards. So NONE of the heroes actually are as "realistically" muscled as they should be, to pull off what they do. They are all tapping into powers beyond the mere physicality of their body. So who cares if they look like a Mr. Universe weight lifter, or Steve Urkle? It's all completely fictional and unrealistic.

Maybe, MAAAYBE heroes like the Hulk could pull off some of the things they do, given they are inhumanely proportioned, and are like 10 feet tall, and have muscles thicker than most human torsos. But even then, I would doubt some of the stuff they pull off.
In the case of Wonder Woman though she's been training since childhood. That's just a part of Amazonian culture. So its not a simple matter of her having muscles because she has super strength. It would be a reflection of her training. She'd have muscles for the same reason that Batman has muscles.(In some versions the Amazons don't have super strength and Wonder Woman only gains super powered abilities once putting on her costume because it's been blessed by the gods.) And it makes more since for her to have muscles than Superman. But an actor playing Superman or Batman wouldn't be considered without having a certain amount of bulk. So why is it so weird for it to be a consideration for the actor for Wonder Woman?
Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.

If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
Yeah.. you keep ignoring the part where Wonder Woman doesn't just rely on her super strength. You see all of this?


She was blessed by the gods with her super strength. The gods have nothing to do with the fact that she knows how to use every one of those weapons. She learned that the old fashioned way. Have you ever looked at the body of a woman who has trained to fight for years? Or even of a woman who has been an athlete for a long time? Muscle comes with the territory.

Though like I said before in this thread,( which I've sure you've overlooked or else we wouldn't be having this conversation) bulk isn't really my sticking point, muscle definition is. And I wouldn't be surprised if Gadot was photoshoped the same way that female stunt doubles often are. She most likely did work out a bit for this role(just to do certain stunts herself) and any definition she has has been softened. I also have no idea why you are lumping Batman into the whole feats of strength thing. He doesn't have super strength. And he isn't known for his super strength. He is however known for how well he can fight and he didn't get there without work.
[/img]http://cdn-mf0.heartyhosting.com/sites/mensfitness.com/files/d6/imgs-batman-training-training-schedule.jpg[/spoiler]

An actor dosn't have to change their body but I see no reason why a casting director cant find someone who has the body already or who is willing to get the body for the role so long as they aren't starving themselves for it.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.

If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
For one, Batman doesn't /have/ super strength, it's one of his defining characteristics. It's not unrealistic for him to be bulky as all hell, given what he does on a nightly basis, there is no reason for him /not/ to be musclebound.

For two, Superman does actually work out, and in fact makes his depiction is actually realistic whether in comics or movies, because working out on machines will actually give you a completely different appearance to say..strongman training, and that appearance is actually correct for Superman. Even if he didn't work out, Superman can't lift an infinite mass, he still exerts himself and fights other super powered beings on a quite regular basis, which would lead to muscle gain. Yeah superman can lift a plane and no human can, but he still exerts himself lifting planes.

For three, a big part of cinema is immersion and painting a picture, it's no good having some skinny dude play Batman or Superman in this day and age because noone would buy it. It's about making people look the part they're supposed to be playing.

I mean lets take...Castaway for example. It made complete sense for Tom Hanks to lose a lot of weight for that role because he'd been trapped on a desert island for years, and the weight loss before and after the "4 years later" caption really hammers that home, it's an important part of drawing the audience in. It would've been no good for him to have been just as chubby as he was prior to that caption because it would've been stupid and broke the fourth wall like no tomorrow.

Lastly, Wonder Woman doesn't just rely on her super strength, she's a highly, highly trained Amazonian Warrior who are trained from basically the moment they can stand to fight in many forms of weapon-play and warfare. And again, she fights demi gods and other superpowered beings on a regular basis. And she isn't as strong as Superman, so lifting planes and busses is a proper workout for her. Nevermind whatever Amazonian workout the Themiscyrans get up to.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
Muscles on a superhero have more to do with our impressions of physical strength than any kind of practical effect. We see a weedy 5'6'' picking up a dumpster truck, it's no less "realistic" than a 6'4'' bodybuilder doing the same thing, but because the bodybuilder fits our mental idea of what "strong" looks like, it's less jarring and, weirdly, maintains our suspension of disbelief. I mean, Mel Brooks could never play Superman.

The other end of the scale is where a character's physical appearance is specifically designed to contrast with their physical strength, like Molly [http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/432931-runaways2_21preview.jpg] from Runaways. In those cases, it's more about subverting our expectations instead of playing into them.

I do prefer a bulky Wonder Woman, but I also understand why someone with Gadot's career would be hesitant to bulk up. It's not a conventially attractive look for women. What I like most about Gal Gadot's casting as Wonder Woman isn't her muscles or lack thereof, it's her height - in the end scene of BvS, she and Batman are literally towering over Lois. It really makes more of an impression than clearly defined biceps would.

I think really good casting directors have access to a whole different set of facts about an actor that we Internet commentators aren't aware of. The instant I heard Affleck was being Batman, I was like "shit, this is gonna be a Heath Ledger scenario all over again," and then it pretty much was. Look at the general public's track record at criticising casting choices - Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger, frickin' Idris Elba in Thor - I mean, we freaking suck at it. Every time a comic fanbase raises a shit-storm about someone's casting, they get thoroughly slapped on the butt by the end product. We're nearly always wrong. That never ceases to surprise me.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
BabySinclair said:
Justice League: Why would the Flash wear armor? As mentioned before, it makes no sense. Armor is for reducing injuries from being hit, unless this Flash has fought speedsters with knives or something warranting armor all it could do is encumber him and/or limit his range of motion. Otherwise ehh, we'll see closer to release.

Wonder Woman: Looked surprisingly good, dialogue wasn't to bad, visuals were nice, the only real issue I took was when asked about her father she said "Zeus brought me to life". It sounds like they're going with her true origins, so why didn't they have Hippolyta as the one that brought her to life?
In the original 1940's comic Wonder Woman was a clay statue created by Hippolyta and brought to life by the gods.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,354
36
53
AccursedTheory said:
Of course, Terminator 2 provided a much less imposing foe...


But I think that largely worked because it was able to play off of the original Terminator - The dread factor didn't come from the characters physical characteristics, but because he was throwing around Arnold like he was Worf at a Star Trek Villainous Species Convention. If it was just two regular guys throwing each other around, I think that affect would have failed as well.
The T-1000 worked on a different kind of dread than the original Terminator. The original 'Arnie' Terminator worked on the implacable, relentless and tireless foe form of dread, kind of like being stalked by Jason Vorhees with heavy weaponry.
The T-1000, however, worked on a more 'Invasion of the Body-Snatchers' paranoia-fueled dread. He/It could eliminate and replace anyone, anywhere or at any time. That cute blonde waitress that took your order could be the T-1000 when she brings you your steak, that nice bellhop that you asked for extra towels could be the T-1000 the next time you see him. That supermarket worker that went into the back to check for Trix cereal could be the T-1000 when he comes back with a box.

That's not even getting into the fact that he is harder to kill than the 'Arnie' version of the Terminator.
 

irish286

New member
Mar 17, 2012
114
0
0
WTF no Green Lantern? I know the last movie sucked but don't hide him away just because you idiots are ashamed of that crappy costume...
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
irish286 said:
WTF no Green Lantern? I know the last movie sucked but don't hide him away just because you idiots are ashamed of that crappy costume...
They're already introducing three new characters, plus three old heroes they have to maintain screen time for, plus the mandatory waste of space that is Lous Lane, plus Alfred and Luthor, plus the new villain...

The Justice League is already shaping up to be congested as hell (Like most super hero movies). Don't need to throw another one in, especially since I demand Hawk Girl/Woman accompany John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie.

EDIT: Also, since this was pointed out to me recently, Green Lantern can wait another movie or two for an introduction. We have more important characters to introduce.

 

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
P-89 Scorpion said:
BabySinclair said:
Wonder Woman: Looked surprisingly good, dialogue wasn't to bad, visuals were nice, the only real issue I took was when asked about her father she said "Zeus brought me to life". It sounds like they're going with her true origins, so why didn't they have Hippolyta as the one that brought her to life?
In the original 1940's comic Wonder Woman was a clay statue created by Hippolyta and brought to life by the gods.
Yes, and none of them were Zeus. Of the six gods that gave her her powers and brought her to life, Hermes was the only male and if memory serves he was involved after she came to life. That was the point though, her creator intentionally kept her from having a male progenitor.

For reference, the god and blessings are; Demeter, great strength; Athena, wisdom and courage; Artemis, a hunter's heart and a communion with animals; Aphrodite, beauty and a loving heart; Hestia, sisterhood with fire; Hermes, speed and the power of flight.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
irish286 said:
AccursedTheory said:
John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie
And what exactly are you basing that off of?
The same bizarre, silly, completely non-serious logic that led me to say that Booster freaking Gold should make it into the Justice League before any other new heroes.

Which isn't to say Booster Gold wouldn't be completely awesome live action. Though that ship sailed when they decided to just focus on big names instead of going all Unlimited on us.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
irish286 said:
AccursedTheory said:
John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie
And what exactly are you basing that off of?
The same bizarre, silly, completely non-serious logic that led me to say that Booster freaking Gold should make it into the Justice League before any other new heroes.

Which isn't to say Booster Gold wouldn't be completely awesome live action. Though that ship sailed when they decided to just focus on big names instead of going all Unlimited on us.
The Justice League had two or three seasons and two other animated series under its belt before it went Unlimited. The DCAU is actually lot like a proto-MCU in terms of how it evolved over time. Really, the only way the DCCU could replicate that is if they either a) started way back with Nolan's batman or b) spent another five years and three movies setting stuff up.

And geez AT, I know you're a Marvel guy and all but it's John Stewart, fer christsakes.

Edit: (personal confession; I have a totally rad GL screenplay with John Stewart, Arkillo and Major Force sitting on my hard drive somewhere, between my DnD world bible and my high school 40k fan fiction)
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,236
174
68
Country
Nigeria
AccursedTheory said:
irish286 said:
WTF no Green Lantern? I know the last movie sucked but don't hide him away just because you idiots are ashamed of that crappy costume...
They're already introducing three new characters, plus three old heroes they have to maintain screen time for, plus the mandatory waste of space that is Lous Lane, plus Alfred and Luthor, plus the new villain...

The Justice League is already shaping up to be congested as hell (Like most super hero movies). Don't need to throw another one in, especially since I demand Hawk Girl/Woman accompany John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie.

EDIT: Also, since this was pointed out to me recently, Green Lantern can wait another movie or two for an introduction. We have more important characters to introduce.

Didn't he play Aquaman in Smallville?