41 thoughts on “Official Trailer For Wonder Woman”

  1. Hmmm, liked seeing a bit more of Paradise Island this time around.

    Still, like the first trailer, my favorite part was Etta Candy . . .

  2. This looks pretty fantastic. I like how this is WWI themed because WWII is overused. I did see Gal in Keeping up with the Joneses and she doesn’t seem to be a very good actor though. She was clearly chosen for her looks.

    1. I don’t know, based on the reviews I read of Joneses, I wouldn’t judge anyone’s acting based on that film.

      That said, there is something about her performance in Dawn of Justice which didn’t click with me. I don’t think she brings out the presence of the role. However, her part in that movie was pretty small, so I’m keeping my mind open for the solo movie . . .

          1. You know, I forgot Joneses had a name director attached to it. Probably because everything about the movie looks so disposable . . .

      1. Gal was flat out the worst thing about Keeping up with the Joneses although It could be a one off or just bad chemistry with the director. She looked like an amateur next to John Hamm. I just watched a clip of her in Fast and Furious number whatever and she did well but then again she was surrounded by a few not so great actors. I hate those movies (except for the first and Tokyo), just f.y.i. See seemed fine as Wonder Woman to me but then again that movie was terrible so what was one more mediocre thing. It’s more obvious when surrounded by superior talent. I still have high hopes for this movie. I find it sort of suspect when the previews don’t show the main character talking much. I actually hope I’m wrong on this; it would not be the first time.

    2. “She was clearly chosen for her looks”
      Bro, she’s trained in military combat. That in itself not only makes her qualified for the role beyond looks but I’d argue makes her more qualified then say, Henry Cavill who literally brings nothing to the role outside of looking like Superman. I’m not trying to be a dick but, “Clearly chosen for her looks” doesn’t hold up in that almost every role in a major Hollywood film is chosen based on looks first unless there is a big name actor or actress attached to it (which is becoming less and less common over time)

      Also, I know you are not sexist but the statement “She was clearly chosen for her looks” sounds sexist af in and of itself and even more so within the context of “geek culture” (I fucking hate that term but what are you gonna do) at large. Again, not saying you are sexist and you are free to write whatever you want based on your own thoughts and observations but you know, we always have to chose our words carefully in conveying our message if the intention is to communicate ideas.

      Also, sorry if this comes across as a lecture because that’s not what I’m going for but this shit is complicated and as such, deserves the context

      1. Well, when I typed chosen for her looks I meant in the one hand pretty but on the other hand Mediterranean. So this is kind of out of context if we are talking about what was in my mind when I typed it. She is not a good actress and Cavil is. There isn’t a comparison between the two. Cavil is awesome In Showtime’s the Tudors and in the Man from Uncle. Having said all that. Of course he was also chosen for his looks but he brings a little more to the table. I literally have a 2000 movie collection so I make occasional comments about acting ability and most of Hollywood is chosen for their looks. Seen Downton Abbey lately? The English don’t choose for looks like Hollywood does. I get what your saying but let’s be honest. If she AND cavil didn’t look like that they would not get the part. Even more so for her.

          1. I’m not sure what the Downton Abbey citation is supposed to demonstrate. I’ve never watched the show, but nothing about it I’ve seen suggests that they’re unorthodox in their casting.

              1. Well, as I said, I’ve never watched the show but I’ve never noticed your observation in any clips or images I’ve seen from it. It looked like it relied on attractive young people as much as any other program.

                Also, “ugly” is not really the best choice of words. Sounds rather harsh for what I think you’re trying to say . . .

                1. Downtown Abbey most certainly doesn’t rely on attractive young people. Half of the cast is one step from the grave. Let’s try to make observations about things we have seen. Most Brit TV and film employs young and old and “plain” with occasional attractive people. There was a running joke about the show about how English women weren’t pretty, but it’s not that. It’s that the casting chooses primarily on acting ability. There was one very attractive young girl that left the show early on and one attractive guy “I guess?”, but he left the show half way through. It’s a big cast during which episodes focus on individual characters; there are no “main” characters.

            1. Generally British TV and Film descrimates against beautiful people rather than favors them. This is smart because most people can’t identify with Angelina Jolie like they can with Cathy Bates.

      2. Also, I’ve had a hell of a week time wise so this is bad timing for me but I really don’t think muscles or actual fighting ability are even in the top 3 important things to consider when choosing an actor for a character with super powers. Batman needs muscles, Daredevil needs muscles, Batgirl needs muscles, Nightwing needs muscles etc.. but characters that have super strength don’t need actors with muscles. A Batman actor without muscles is just silly. An actress who plays Wonder Woman doesn’t have to be very fit in my opinion. It’s just my hang up on pseudo realism though.

      3. I should choose my words more carefully you are 100% correct. It did sound sexist. I should have just left out “looks”. I honestly was thinking Mediterranean as part of my thought process but full disclosure I was also thinking pretty, so guilty as charged.

        I was just talking about acting though. I could care less if an actress or actor has military experience for this type of character. If she was playing Spoiler or Batgirl or something then the military experience would be a big plus. With Wonder Woman; a small plus? I was just talking about acting. Acting trumps everything else. Again. I could be totally wrong on this and she could make a fool out of me and show range and or emotion in this movie. I hope so.

        1. Yeah I totally get it. Like I said, I KNOW YOU are not sexist but just trying to let you know how it comes off. And yes acting trumps all. In a perfect world Jessica Chastain & Kelly MacDonald would the two biggest actors alive based on ability but that ain’t the one we’re in unfortunately.
          BvsS is a lifeless corpse of a film where Amy Adams taking a bath with a bullet is not even close to the dumbest scene in that movie. By that measure, Gadot was pretty solid but not sure if it says a whole lot. I haven’t seen her in anything else so I’ll take your word for it on the other films. Thought this trailer was pretty dope.
          Speaking of looks tho, I watched it with an OG nerd and she did feel like Gadot didn’t look like the WW she grew up with mostly from stature which I get it. I think of WW as being taller with slightly darker features & slightly more jacked. It’s whatever cause like, Cumberbatch doesn’t look a thing like Doc Strange & I’ve yet to see a Batman on film that looked like the Bruce Wayne of the comics. I mean, this movie looks cool but DC hasn’t made anything approaching a good movie outside of Nolan’s bat films in this century so my expectations are tempered. Wanna see some depressing shit, scroll down to the Brett Easton Ellis quote on Batman. While I think anything he says is pretty suspect and question the taste of someone that sunk a fortune into making The Canyons so maybe it’s all nonsense. Still, any truth in this is pretty alarming https://theringer.com/movie-industry-shifts-peak-tv-arrival-moonlight-f0a5ddd85384#.ycyk8jhq3

          1. Going off on a tangent (from a digression), I am sick to death of this entire “peak” TV vs film debate. Why does this need to be a contest? They’re different forms of storytelling that can exist very well side by side. If you enjoy TV, that’s great. If you like movies, equally great. If both, super.

            1. I kind of agree with that Cosmo. They are different forms of entertainment. I have always preferred serial entertainment though, which is way I love inaccessible complicated comics. TV used to be mostly one off episodes so it wasn’t quite serial but now that has all changed. I used to see more than 50 percent of movies that came out while constantly buying and renting all of the films of the many actors and actresses that I was impressed by. I’ve mostly given that up in recent years; I still see a movie once a week but many of them are terrible. TV and Film have merits in their own right but the change in quality for both has been shocking over the last decade. I was going to type “literally shocking” but then I would have to type this while sticking a fork into an outlet.

              1. Personally, I still think there are great movies being released all the time — you just need to look past the local multiplex to find them.

            2. It’s not binary, it’s that they’ve moved in very different directions where certain types of stories that used to get major studio backing in the film industry don’t any more. That doesn’t mean those movies aren’t getting made at all, but the rate at which they are has declined rapidly and television (which I find to be an antiquated descriptive word for what we are seeing now) has picked up on those types of stories and expanded pretty exponentially in that regard. It’s not a value judgement of one versus the other but rather it’s a reality of the industries as a whole, their distributions models and how audience consumption has shaped the two in different directions.

              Now, to completely undermine what I just wrote, the feeling I used to have for great movies pretty traditionally tends to be for television over the last few years.

          2. I think Cumberbatch is a shit actor by the way. I hope Doctor Strange is good but he over acts big time. I suppose Doctor Strange has weird mannerisms that may suit bad/ over acting though. I can’t stand Cumberbatch as Sherlock; every facial expression he does is over the top.

            1. Did you see the Gary Oldman Tinker Tailor Solider Spy? Cumberbatch has a nice supporting role in that one. Haven’t seen him in that much honestly. His Khan wasn’t bad within the parameters of what Into Darkness. Haven’t watched Sherlock so can’t comment on that . . .

              1. I saw one of the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spies, maybe both? Damn, my memory is as shit as Cumberbatch’s acting! I think I saw it but I don’t remember how he was. Everything is subjective of course but over acting can suit certain roles so it’s not always obvious. I’m going to see Doc Strange today and I’m looking forward; I hope I’m mostly wrong about this as well.

                Can we agree that they didn’t pick Cumberbatch for his looks? Ha! Unless, they picked him because he looks sort of “strange”.

                1. The Gary Oldham Tinker Tailor is really excellent — I would highly recommend it. I wish they would bring the cast/director back for the next book in the series, but the film wasn’t enough of a moneymaker. One of Oldham’s best performances, but the whole ensemble is fantastic.

                  1. Gary Oldman is awesome. Great actor. Maybe a britexer … ha.. but great actor. I kid. You had me thinking his name was Gary Oldham you sly dog cosmo you. Trying to trick me…

                  2. I actually think I’ve seen it but I may have been exposed to lead paint or been kicked in the head or something so who knows. I was once piledrived in the back of the head by a guy who eventually became an NFL lineman so maybe that explains it.

                  3. I watch Tinker Tailor at least once a year. All the performances in it are amazing. Oldhman, Cumberbatch & Hardy are especially notable

                    1. Yeah, the whole cast is first rate, but those three you mentioned were especially fantastic. I’d single Colin Firth as well . . .

  3. I’m normally the one to be pessimistic about damn near everything, but this looks pretty cool. I like the period piece aspect, the actress who plays Etta Candy, and, of course, Robin Wright. As for the conversation above re: Gal Gadot, I’m holding out hope. Having only seen her in Dawn of Justice–and I don’t deem that movie as worthy of opinion-basing–I really don’t know what kind of an actress she can be.

    1. Honestly, Lucy Davis playing Etta Candy might be the aspect of this movie I’m most excited about . . .

      Now, of course, I want there to be somehow a movie that reunites Lucy Davis and Martin Freeman for a Etta Candy/Everett Ross team up film which would be awesome on so many levels . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s