I would agree with the anti-war being risky if it were being set in WWII, which is when WW actually did first appear. To me, the shift to WWI was a way of removing that risk because I doubt there are many today who would say it should have been fought. It was a safe war to oppose. Imagine instead Diana suggesting that it was Ares who was behind Hitler and she could solve humanity's problem in one stroke by defeating Ares and then everyone could simply stop fighting.
And I well understand why everyone wanted to play it safe, I was just pointing out that it's what gave us the script (or at least, final story, since who knows what the script actually said) we got. Which is apparently not what Joss was writing, but rather a story that might have worked better in the comics medium with its much lower stakes.
I agree with you about the dialogue, I also found it really disappointing and, even more so, odd given that Whedon's always been praised for it. What bothered me about some of the criticism of the script though was that it seems cherry picked. For example, I saw a complaint about Diana being in chains and her captor being genderswitched to male. Yet this disassociated that scene from the storyline and also ignored how the very same things were done in other superhero films. I think there was a good reason why Joss wanted her opponent to be male, because he wanted a clear representation of patriarchy and its concerns at the center of the story.
Her capture and the removal of her powers was a way of making a god understand the helplessness and despair of the people around her (which is why Steve also calls her a tourist earlier in the script). So this was no different than Odin making Thor mortal and casting him to earth where he learns both humility and to value the lives of "the ants" (as Loki put it) who were supposed to be under his protection. Also, as much as people are enjoying citing the Superman origins of the movie's scene with Steve and Diana in the alley, apparently no one's remembering that in the Whedon script Diana allows herself to be de-powered in order to save Steve's life and those of his friends. This is not unlike how Kal-el allows his powers to be removed so that he can live a human life with Lois in Superman II. In that film Kal soon regrets his decision because it's suggested that Lois loves him for his powers rather than himself. In Whedon's script Diana ends that story arc with a moment that seemed drawn completely from the finale of Buffy S2 where she catches the sword and replies "Me."
I think Whedon's biggest failure in the script (and there were a bunch of problems with it) is that his Steve is nothing like the film's. Whedon's was cynical and stonewalling whereas the movie's was idealistic and desperate. Whedon's path for Diana was a Jesus allegory with her metaphorically dying for the sins of man and being reborn into her own identity, whereas in the film it is Steve who is the sacrificial figure.
I personally think that the movie's biggest fantasy was not a superpowered Amazon but a man like Steve who was nothing like an American man of his time would have been (and isn't even much like a man of our time would be). The very fact that religion, for example, is never brought up in that conversation in the boat seemed yet another clear effort to avoid controversy (especially given this would be a global film) even though the entire movie is about the fight among antiquated gods.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2017-06-18 06:21 pm (UTC)And I well understand why everyone wanted to play it safe, I was just pointing out that it's what gave us the script (or at least, final story, since who knows what the script actually said) we got. Which is apparently not what Joss was writing, but rather a story that might have worked better in the comics medium with its much lower stakes.
I agree with you about the dialogue, I also found it really disappointing and, even more so, odd given that Whedon's always been praised for it. What bothered me about some of the criticism of the script though was that it seems cherry picked. For example, I saw a complaint about Diana being in chains and her captor being genderswitched to male. Yet this disassociated that scene from the storyline and also ignored how the very same things were done in other superhero films. I think there was a good reason why Joss wanted her opponent to be male, because he wanted a clear representation of patriarchy and its concerns at the center of the story.
Her capture and the removal of her powers was a way of making a god understand the helplessness and despair of the people around her (which is why Steve also calls her a tourist earlier in the script). So this was no different than Odin making Thor mortal and casting him to earth where he learns both humility and to value the lives of "the ants" (as Loki put it) who were supposed to be under his protection. Also, as much as people are enjoying citing the Superman origins of the movie's scene with Steve and Diana in the alley, apparently no one's remembering that in the Whedon script Diana allows herself to be de-powered in order to save Steve's life and those of his friends. This is not unlike how Kal-el allows his powers to be removed so that he can live a human life with Lois in Superman II. In that film Kal soon regrets his decision because it's suggested that Lois loves him for his powers rather than himself. In Whedon's script Diana ends that story arc with a moment that seemed drawn completely from the finale of Buffy S2 where she catches the sword and replies "Me."
I think Whedon's biggest failure in the script (and there were a bunch of problems with it) is that his Steve is nothing like the film's. Whedon's was cynical and stonewalling whereas the movie's was idealistic and desperate. Whedon's path for Diana was a Jesus allegory with her metaphorically dying for the sins of man and being reborn into her own identity, whereas in the film it is Steve who is the sacrificial figure.
I personally think that the movie's biggest fantasy was not a superpowered Amazon but a man like Steve who was nothing like an American man of his time would have been (and isn't even much like a man of our time would be). The very fact that religion, for example, is never brought up in that conversation in the boat seemed yet another clear effort to avoid controversy (especially given this would be a global film) even though the entire movie is about the fight among antiquated gods.