Posts Tagged ‘David S. Goyer’

 

batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice_bb788b6f

Advertisements

 

Batman-V-Superman-600x300

 

 

If you’re a fan of comic books, Deadpool, Ryan Reynolds, or even – gasp – a fan of all three at the same time, then you’re probably aware that the Deadpool movie, long in production limbo and only recently started filming, will receive an R rating. This is good news and as is befitting of the Merc with the Mouth, the team bringing him to the big screen (for realz this time!) announced the rating victory in the only way that made sense.deadpool footage

Some of you might be wondering why it’s so important that Deadpool has an R rating. Even Mario Lopez points out in the video why having a PG-13 rating would benefit the movie; franchise, sequels, toys, etc. But what it really boils down to is authenticity. Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, isn’t a PG-13 character, he’s an R character. His world is full of graphic violence, ambiguous ethics, and some pretty choice language. Yes, he’s funny, irreverent, and breaks the fourth wall, but a lot of that is used as a stark contrast to the awful things he says and does. Emphasizing one aspect over the other kind of misses the point.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, a little background, yes? Yes.

Deadpool has been kicking around Hollywood since about 2004 when New Line Cinemas tried to produce a film with writer/director David S. Goyer, who you may remember from such films as The Dark Knight Trilogy, Man of Steel, and Blade, helming the project and Ryan Reynolds starring as the titular character. This was around the same time as Blade: Trinity (2004), which Goyer wrote, produced, and directed and Reynolds starred in alongside Wesley Snipes and Jessica Biel. Goyer apparently lost interest, but 20th Century Fox picked up the film rights and put a spinoff into production as a potential followup to X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) where Reynolds was cast as Wade Wilson/Deadpool.

Sort of.

that-deadpool-movie-we-were-all-excited-about-will-be-pg-13While X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a box office success, it was a critical failure and didn’t sit right with many fans of the X-Men universe, the comics or the film series. Regardless of its prequel status and the inflated cast of mutant cameos, one of the more egregious errors was the treatment of Deadpool to the point where most fans don’t even consider the character on screen to be the same as the one they found in the pages of Marvel comics. To be fair, none of the X-Men movies have stuck to the comic book canon completely, but Origins seemed to be checking off a list of names to use without any thought put into motivations, personality, or anything else that would make a character compelling. Reynolds does, however, have one of the best scenes in the film and his sarcastic, snarky attitude resonated with fans of Deadpool. The movie may not have gotten it right, but Reynolds did.

Since then it’s been an ongoing battle to get Deadpool his own movie with Reynolds being the character’s biggest champion and cheerleader. So it was to everyone’s delight when the film was given the official green light in 2014, not long after the test footage for the film was leaked, with a scheduled release date of February 12, 2016. The timing of the film’s production and release within the context of the current landscape of superhero and comic book franchises, however, is what makes Deadpool‘s rating so important.9df2a3cce7aae4167e8461ac7ab22c9d

Deadpool‘s status as a viable property emerged during the first wave of successful Marvel films of the late 90s and early 2000s. Basically, it was post Blade (1998), X-Men (2000), and Spider-Man (2002) but somewhat preceded the concept of a shared cinematic universe propelled by Iron Man (2006) on down to The Avengers (2012). Yes, the X-Men films had an internal continuity (sort of) but aside from being based on Marvel characters, the film rights under 20th Century Fox left any possibility of a crossover with Marvel Studios off the table. In the wake of Marvel’s billion-dollar franchise of films, pretty much every studio has tried or is attempting to copy their model. One of the more consistent elements of the Marvel films, and most superhero films in general, has been a PG-13 rating.

ryan reynoldsThe PG-13 rating is a studio’s dream for franchise films. It allows for the broadest range of audience demographics while still maintaining a level of action, violence, salty language, and sexual innuendo that we’ve collectively accepted as appropriate for children to see with their parents and teens to see on their own. Adults, obviously, are always welcome. From a marketing standpoint, kids and teens are the target audience because, as we all know, studios are looking to make bank on merchandise. One need only look at the plethora of Marvel Cinematic Universe toys and the children gravitating towards them to understand why Marvel Studios hasn’t let any of their films break the PG-13 barrier. Not that it’s handicapped the movies at all, but then again we’re not dealing with characters who occupy an R-rated world.

Comic books published by the big two of Marvel and DC currently maintain an unofficial PG-13 rating, though your mileage may vary on whether or not that’s true depending on the subject matter. Either way, both companies have imprints, MAX and Vertigo respectively, meant to handle mature content for readers and the MAX books regularly featured characters like Wolverine, the Punisher, and Deadpool in stories that went beyond acceptable levels of violence, language, and bloody satisfaction. But these are also the stories many fans of the characters latched on to before Hollywood got a hold of them. Wolverine and the Punisher were products of a lax Comics Code and the ultra-violence of the 80s and early 90s and Deadpool was an inspired copy of DC’s Deathstroke. These are not characters who regularly cuddle bunnies and sing show tunes. Well, Deadpool would, but he’d probably be murdering a guy to death while doing it. The point is when adapting characters like Wolverine and the Punisher to the big screen, there’s a reason why Fox continues to produce the exploits of deadool_vs_deathstroke_by_luizhd-d7546h6PG-13 Logan, in X-Men or solo films, while Frank Castle’s two rated R theatrical releases have become cult classics.

Given everything that’s occurred since the initial interest in Deadpool, one would think Reynolds, director Tim Miller, the writers, and producers would attempt to go the safest and seemingly most profitable route. But I think it goes back to what I mentioned earlier. This is about authenticity, bringing the real Deadpool to the big screen. There might be some thoughts of sequels or a franchise, but I guarantee that what’s really at the forefront of the filmmakers’ minds is making the best damn Deadpool movie they can, which means getting a hard R rating so they can at least say they made their Deadpool.

And really, a rated R movie for a Marvel character isn’t a huge stretch at this moment in time. Marvel Studios is about to release their Daredevil series on Netflix, which has no standardized ratings to speak of, and from all accounts it sounds like the series could be Marvel’s grittiest venture to date. Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, and Iron Fist are slated to follow but no one’s talking “franchise” just yet. This is as much Marvel experimenting with how far they can go deadpool-ryan-reynolds-450x244with their “street level” heroes as it is building their live action universe. Yes, Deadpool is owned by Fox, but he’s also part of a growing trend of studios exploring comic book properties beyond broad spectrum demographics. Dark Horse’s Powers has already premiered on Play Station, Valiant has started the process of developing a shared cinematic universe with their properties, and Image Comics darlings Kelly Sue DeConnick and Matt Fraction will be developing several of their works from the publisher for television. There may be blockbuster superhero films, but niche audiences are also proving to be just as lucrative.

And I’m sure Deadpool would appreciate that.

Okay, so Krypton isn’t going to actually blow up on SyFy (that’s usually saved for the first 20 minutes of a Superman movie), but in an effort to get back to their roots, ya know back when we knew it as the SciFi Channel, it seems the cable network is ready to dive into the worlds of science fiction and superhero prequels with KryptonKryptonLogo-12801-720x405

Developed for television by David S. Goyer (Constantine, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Trilogy) and Ian Goldberg (Once Upon a Time), Krypton, unlike Fox’s Gotham, won’t be following a prepubescent Clark Kent who’s already training to be Superman – they already did that on a show called Smallville…sorta – but will instead go back two generations to Kal-El’s paternal grandfather, Seyg-El.

Here’s the official description:

 

Years before the Superman legend we know, the House of El was shamed and ostracized. This series follows The Man of Steel’s grandfather as he brings hope and equality to Krypton, turning a planet in disarray into one worthy of giving birth to the greatest Super Hero ever known.

 

Okay, I’m gonna try to find some positives. On the one hand, exploring the planet of Krypton has a lot of potential for actually diving into the culture of Supes’ birth planet. We only ever get brief glimpses into Krypton’s past in the comics whether through one-shot stories or expository flashbacks, so actually taking the time to look at the people and the environment that led to Superman is interesting. There’s also the possibility of bringing in other worlds and peoples from the science fiction corner of the DC Universe. The Green Lantern Corp would most certainly be out there as well as the Thanagar, Rann, and gasp! Apokolips, so the potential for expanding the DCU without having to shoehorn Kal-El/Clark into the story could work.

son-of-krypton-3On the other hand, we’re still working with a prequel series in which limitations are already set in place. And I’m not just talking about the whole blowing up thing that Krypton does so well. The pilot is being written by Goldberg from an outline provided by Goyer and if you all remember what happened in the beginning of Man of Steel, which Goyer wrote, then we’re still looking at a culture in which genetic purity and a clear caste system are in place and have been for generations prior to Superman’s grandpappy. I’m not saying those parameters aren’t the stuff of great storytelling, but we’re still dealing with a foregone conclusion. Whatever Seyg-El does to try to make Krypton the happiest planet in the galaxy will ultimately be undone by the time his grandson is born. So unless futility is what SyFy is going for, how far can you go with a message of “hope and equality” for Krypton when we’re dealing with a planet full of people doomed by their own hubris?

But, of course, I’m still going to watch it. I’m still watching Gotham, though I wouldn’t say it’s out of enjoyment all of the time. With Krypton, however, there’s at least the chance of a reprieve from unsubtle hints about who so-and-so will end up being once the Wayne boy dons the cape and cowl. Although the trade-off will probably be grandiose speeches about HOPE delivered by Seyg-El to really hammer the point home. Le sigh.

In other news, the Teen Titans based show Titans will be filming their pilot for TNT next year. As reported by Screen Rant:04-teen-titans

 

Titans will revolve around onetime Batman sidekick-turned superhero Dick Grayson, alias Nightwing, as he puts together a band of new superheroes whose ranks will also include classic Titans like Starfire and Raven

 

They go on to say that the inclusion of Cyborg is possible, but may not happen since he’ll be portrayed by Ray Fisher in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Justice League 1 & 2, and the character’s solo movie. Of course, we’ll already have two different Flashes on the big and small screens, so what does it matter if there’s more than one guy playing Cyborg?

I’m definitely intrigued by the idea of a Titans show, but TNT only has one effects heavy program under their belt, Falling Skies, and The Librarians didn’t have the most stellar effects in the pilot. That just means we’ll have to wait and see what they bring to Titans since they’ll at the very least have an alien princess who can fly and shoot energy as well as a magically inclined young woman whose father is the ruler of a hell dimension on the roster. No mention has been made of whether Beast Boy, Kid Flash, Aqualad, or Wonder Girl will be featured either and all of them require a fair amount of special effects to pull off their abilities.

So that’s two more shows added to the ever-growing empire of DC Comics live action tv shows. And just so you don’t get lost regarding which show is playing on which network:DC TV

Gotham – Mondays on Fox

The Flash – Tuesdays on the CW

Arrow – Wednesdays on the CW

Constantine – Fridays on NBC

In Development – iZombie for the CW, Supergirl for CBS, Krypton for SyFy, and Titans for TNT

 

But what do you think? Are we getting oversaturated with tv shows from WB and DC? Do you want to watch a prequel series about Krypton? And if this trend continues, will we get Themyscira soon?

Batman-On-Film.com-bannerI’m going to start this with an apology to Bill “Jett” Ramey from Batman on Film. Mr. Ramey, Jett, I apologize for jumping the gun. I’ll admit it, I fucked up in my own personal reaction to your speculation on how Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer would try to incorporate Wonder Woman and the Amazons into the DC Cinematic Universe (DCCU). I can’t speak for the rest of the internet, but I can speak for myself: I’m sorry.

For those of you wondering why I’m apologizing to a person I’ve never even met or spoken to, the last two days have been a bit weird, yet strangely familiar, if you’re part of the fanboy/fangirl community. In his Batman on Film Mailbag article from January 4th, Ramey answered a series of questions from the website’s fans regarding any number of things, but what’s on many a Bat-fan’s mind is the still unnamed Man of Steel sequel that will feature not just Batman, but also Wonder Woman, The Flash, Lex Luthor, and possibly any number of other characters from DC Comics. In answering a question about how big Wonder Woman’s role would be in Batman vs Superman, Ramey responded:

Personally, I’d say it’ll be about on par with Scarlett Johansson’s first appearance as Black Widow in IRON MAN 2. I believe that it’s a cameo-plus type of role that will (hopefully) serve as a springboard to a solo Wonder Woman movie.

With all that said, I’d bet a year’s pay – in MONOPOLY money, of course – that the “Amazons” of this cinematic DCU will be descendants of those “ancient Kryptonians” who attempted to set up Kryptonian outposts throughout spacedom thousands and thousands of years ago. Furthermore, I say that Wonder Woman will be powered-down, if you will, relative to Superman because these Amazons have evolved and adapted to living on Earth for hundreds of centuries. And since Kryptonians are produced without any “He’n and She’n” – Jor El and Lara excluded – couldn’t this original Kryptonian on Earth have used this reproductive science to create an all-female race? I say yes!

And then the internet blew up.

justice-league-superman-batman-wonder-womanThe problem is, a lot of us, me included, missed the key element of the response. Ramey was speculating on the “Kryptonian ancestry of the Amazons” based on how he perceived the projection of the DC Cinematic Universe as depicted by Snyder and Goyer. None of it was based on actual information acquired from any inside sources. Unfortunately, a lot of websites started to report his answer as though it was fact, prompting another round of internet flame wars over the supposed rewriting of Wonder Woman’s origin.

What this ultimately comes down to is Ramey struck a chord in the nerd/geek community, one that will continue to be sensitive to any piece of information, rumor or otherwise, simply because what he said isn’t that far off from what could happen in Superman vs. Batman, or Batman vs. Superman. Reactions to his speculation are representative of the community at large, specifically those who’re invested in Wonder Woman and her place in the burgeoning DC Cinematic Universe or the DCCU as a whole. And like Ramey’s speculation, all roads lead to Superman and Man of Steel, because, more than likely, responses to this “news” were based on whether someone loved, hated, or meh-ed the film, which also indicates their level of trust in the filmmakers and probably Warner Bros. To be fair, expectations have been high not just from fans, but from the studio as well since Warner Bros. has made The Avengers their personal Moby Dick, driving the DCCU, at break-neck speed, towards a Justice League movie. On the other hand, Goyer and Snyder, under Christopher Nolan’s aesthetic umbrella, are still responsible for the final product, which has left the foundation of the DCCU uneven at best.WonderWoman

Then there’s Wonder Woman, a character who has continually been put on the backburner, finally making her big screen debut. Given what we know about Snyder and Goyer and their need to justify/rationalize/ground DC’s comic book characters in “reality”, the stakes are very high as to how she’ll be portrayed and how DC’s cinematic equivalent of Thor will fit into this universe. And when I say she’s the equivalent of Thor, I’m not endorsing the whole “magic and science are one and the same” angle that Thor did and applying it to Wonder Woman. That’s what worked for Thor because that was the actual comic book origin of the character. Wonder Woman is different in that her origin is intrinsically tied to Greek Mythology, which, for some, could be perceived as too “out there” for the reality of the DCCU. So, based on what people seem to think are Goyer’s brilliant strokes of “tweaking” the mythos, Ramey’s speculation appears to be a plausible alternative to Wonder Woman’s comic book origin.

And while Ramey was only speculating, the acceptance by a lot of people of this adjustment to Wonder Woman’s origin, feeds into the same ideas shared by DC Comics’ president, Diane Nelson, and executives at Warner Bros. who continue to claim Wonder Woman is “tricky”. We can suspend our disbelief over alien colonizers from Krypton but entertaining the idea that Greek gods, goddesses, and monsters are real or that a heroine can be molded from clay is a step too far? Maybe it would clash with Space Jesus, a.k.a. Superman, and his message of hope? I’ve also talked to or seen people point to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and their science-based approach, using Thor as the example of how the fantastical was grounded. There was also the alteration of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3, which was itself a divisive adaptation amongst Iron Man fans. What we’re looking at, though, is a comparison of apples and oranges. Most of Marvel’s characters started in the Silver Age, an era where science-fiction stories were dcue_promo_magic_show_by_tombancroft-d30700zthe bread and butter of the industry. Not only is Wonder Woman an enduring character from the Golden Age, which also spawned Superman and Batman, but she’s a surefire in for the magical community of the DC Universe who will also be making their big screen debuts either through Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Neil Gaiman, and Goyer’s Sandman or Guillermo Del Toro’s Justice League Dark movie. If Goyer and Snyder squelched Wonder Woman’s fantastical origins in favor of whittling the square peg into the round hole, how would they explain The Endless, Zatanna, Etrigan, Deadman, or John Constantine? The Kryptonians can’t be responsible for everyone’s origin and if you can’t embrace the fantastical elements that make Wonder Woman special, then clearly your approach is in jeopardy.

So, yeah, I think this started off as an apology and then spiraled into my reasons why that speculation is both plausible and problematic at the same time. Yep, sounds about right. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to sit in the corner and rock myself back and forth for comfort while I debate how Ramey could be right, why I want it to not be true, and how I secretly think he’s on to something.

warrior princess

Now that we know Wonder Woman will actually be appearing in Superman vs Batman and that she’ll be played by Gal Gadot, it’s time to start musing over how David S. Goyer and Zack Snyder will characterize the iconic superheroine. Obviously we don’t have any plot details on the movie, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make some educated guesses as to how Goyer and Snyder might depict the original comic book warrior princess.

Warrior princess…

This is actually the most fitting and succinct description of Wonder Woman you’ll ever find because it encompasses the dual nature and complexity of the character. Diana is the Princess of Themyscira, an island exclusively populated by the female warriors of Greek mythology, the Amazons. With all the talk of Gal Gadot’s casting and the plethora of aggravating judgements of her body continuing, the common thread has been comments about how fans envisioned the look of Diana as an Amazon. We’ve been talking a lot about the warrior, but there hasn’t been a lot of talk about what motivates her: the compassion and love she feels for others. Gail Simone described the essential Wonder Woman movie as a “Disney princess who fights monsters”. Simone should know since she’s written the character, but she makes a salient point. When we think of Disney princesses, certain traits come to mind: kindness, determination, cleverness, love, and compassion. Nix the songs and apply the job of the typical Disney male lead to Diana and you have Wonder Woman. It’s not that far off from what Wonder Woman’s creator, William Moulton Marston, had in mind. He envisioned his superheroine as the embodiment of what be believed were superior, feminine traits, and reinforced them with the physical power and strength rivaled only by Superman.

Simone, along with George Pérez, Greg Rucka, Phil Jimenez, and, to some extent, current writer Brian Azzarello, have all locked into this characterization, striking the right balance between the emotional and the physical. In Diana’s case, they’re not mutually exclusive. She fights because she sees the injustices that humanity inflicts upon itself and her capacity to feel for the suffering of others drives her to help those in need. Conversely, her compassion prevents her from stepping over the line and killing her enemies. Like Superman and Batman, Wonder Woman’s first priority is to prevent harm from coming to others, even the people she’s fighting. Killing does not equal justice, but what distinctly separates Wonder Woman from Batman and Superman is her understanding that sometimes killing is a possible solution when all others have failed.

Death of Maxwell LordThere’s a reason the death of Maxwell Lord is so significant to Wonder Woman’s character development in Infinite Crisis. Snapping his neck (sound familiar?) is the last resort, but it’s a final act done in order to stop Clark from killing others but also to save Clark from the emotional trauma should he kill a friend, loved one, or any random person while under mind control, something she knows would haunt him the rest of his life. The consequences, however, are tremendous in terms of how the world views her and how Superman and Batman treat her. They don’t trust her like they used to because she crossed a line neither of them have dared to no matter what the circumstances. The reasons why can be found in the very core of each character. Clark’s power set makes him practically unstoppable, yet he constantly holds back from putting his enemies six feet under because of the responsibility he feels to uphold the virtues of humanity. Bruce’s “no kill” policy is so central to who he is that he can’t even bring himself to kill the Joker, a mass-murdering sociopath, because he’s afraid of what will happen once he crosses that sacred, yet blurred line.

Clark and Bruce have clearly marked where the point of no return is for them and refuse to deviate from their chosen paths. They’re more motivated by the fear of crossing that line and the repercussions it has on a psychological level. Diana, however, knows where that line is but she also understands that sometimes it has to be crossed because the aftermath may be far worse if she doesn’t act. What separates Diana from Clark and Bruce are the emotional stakes she invests in being a hero and how far she’s willing to go because of them. What would you do to save someone you cared for? How far would you go? Diana will kill if she has to not just because she’s an Amazon but because, sometimes, it’s the lesser evil. Wonder Woman’s heroism comes from trying to spare others from pain even if it means diminishing her own reputation. It’s a sacrifice she’s willing to make and it paints her as a hero who can believably live in the moral grey area. She can still be inspirational and an ideal to strive towards, but when push comes to shove, and there are no other options left, pray that it isn’t Wonder Woman standing in front of you.zzTrinity-Wonder-Woman-Superman-Batman

And that’s just scratching the surface of who Diana is considering the nearly 75 years worth of stories that have expanded on her character and that of the Amazon culture from which she hails. This isn’t a character you can just sum up in a scene and pat yourself on the back.  But how much characterization will end up in the Wonder Woman we see on the big screen in Superman vs Batman? If I were a bettin’ woman, I’d say the odds aren’t exactly in her favor. Diana will be showing up in a movie that is still being referred to via her male peers. Until a title is officially released, hopefully not one of the God-awful domain names purchased by Warner Bros. in the last couple months, we’re still looking at this movie as if it’s going to solely focus on Superman and Batman. Unless the title miraculously has the word “Trinity” or “World’s Finest”, we can expect Wonder Woman’s role to be smaller, leaving less room for significant character development. Not that it can’t happen, but it would have to be some amazingly well written dialogue. Possibly a one-on-one between Diana and Lois. Just no love triangle, please. Listen to Amy Adams.

Keeping in mind, however, the filmmaking team we have, what’s the quickest way to set up a female superhero so that we might know how badass she is in the most visceral way possible? If you said, “Have her smash through a building while lassoing a harpy,” then you’re probably thinking along the same lines as Goyer and Snyder. Not that it wouldn’t be cool to see that, I’m just saying that Diana’s warrior background is going to get way more attention than her pesky emotional side. There’s also the classic bait and switch maneuver of introducing us to Diana Prince first only to have Wonder Woman unexpectedly show up during a fight between Superman, Batman, and whoever the secondary villain happens to be who isn’t Lex Luthor.

Frozen and Catching FirePushing the warrior angle is the easiest route to bring Wonder Woman into the fold. It requires minimal explanation because all you need is something big enough to attract more heroes and BOOM! there’s Wonder Woman stabbing something with a sword while The Flash runs around doing whatever he’s doing. Is it the best way to introduce her? Yes and no. While it gives the audience something they can immediately grasp, it relegates Diana to simply “Action Girl”, which diminishes her complexity as a character. The irony being that the “Action Girl” trope is the one thing working in favor of Warner Bros. greenlighting a Wonder Woman movie. The two top-grossing films of the last month were The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Frozen, both of which had female leads. The advertising for both movies, however, put more emphasis on the action. Katniss shoots her arrows, some political intrigue ensues, she gets attacked by birds while Peeta shouts at her, and then explosions. Anna proactively goes after her sister, Elsa, and then she’s chased by a snow monster, or Elsa is wielding her ice powers. Neither of these movies had  a lot of advertising that delved into the emotional stakes at the heart of both movies.

In justifying female action leads we’re inadvertently sidestepping emotional arcs in favor of attracting the same audiences just so we can say, “See, Hollywood, girls can bring in the box office numbers too!” The fact of the matter is that Wonder Woman isn’t “tricky”. The Hollywood system of producers and executives in charge of her cinematic future are the “tricky” ones, requiring a constant incentive to push movies through that they believe will attract the male demographic who are still considered the target audience for action and superhero movies despite the numbers showing viewership as relatively even across gender lines.justice-league-22-superman-wonderwoman-1

The comic books, the recent ones at least, at DC Comics aren’t exactly helping with Wonder Woman’s image as the few books she’s featured in emphasize the more militarized version. Azzarello’s Wonder Woman is at least motivated to protect others, but her protection only seems to stay within the realm of her Godly family. It gives her a personal connection and personal stakes in the fate of those she’s defending, but at the same time it makes Wonder Woman a hero focused on self-interest. This isn’t the same Wonder Woman of Greg Rucka’s Hiketeia who would protect and defend anyone who asked for her help even if they committed the crime. Geoff Johns doesn’t do much better with Diana. The beginning of Trinity War has her outright implying that the reason she doesn’t have a rogue’s gallery like Clark or Bruce is because she’ll straight up kill her enemies. The Wonder Woman of the New 52 actually strikes me as the most likely version of the character to end up in Superman vs Batman purely because her motivations have been streamlined, emphasizing the warrior above all else. It begs the question of whether Snyder and Goyer are planning to distill the character for the sake of simplicity or take a chance and strive for more. 

The silver lining in all of this is that we know this won’t be the last appearance of Wonder Woman and that, at the very least, her appearance in Superman vs Batman will provide the opportunity to further explore the character either in Justice League or, hopefully, her own movie. Even if they just emphasize the warrior, they could easily expand on the complexity of Diana in future projects. Whatever doesn’t work this time around can be fixed. Joss Whedon gave Black Widow a purpose in The Avengers, making her far more interesting than her initial introduction in Iron Man 2. So maybe, just maybe, Goyer and Snyder will get Wonder Woman right off the bat, but in case they don’t she’ll at least have a chance at making a second first impression. Her fans love her too much to let her go down without a fight.

Trinity