Talk:Wonder Woman (2017 film)

The film logo (also, in new in this)

I never really created not modified a wiki page, but I'm quite excited for the next wonder woman/DC universe and I thought that it will be cool, now that it has been released, the logo for the film. Niko992 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the logo for the film? It would be great if you uploaded it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think he is referring to this logo which is for BvS, not this film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:World War I films?

What justifies putting this in Category:World War I films? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of the film takes place during WWI. LadyofShalott 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add

This image featuring Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman (in the foreground), Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta, Robin Wright (on the far right) as General Antiope, and Lisa Loven Kongsli (on the far left) as Menalippe. --Atvica (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

United States Air Force?

Hi there. There was no such thing as the independent "United States Air Force" until 1947, well after both World War I and World War II were over. This movie is set during WWI, and during that time, the aviation branch of the U.S. Army was known as the "U.S. Army Air Service." Thanks. 2601:CB:8080:6EF:98CC:1874:596D:7AAA (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman & Ares siblings

In the characters descriptions, shouldn't it be mentioned that Wonder Woman & Ares are half-sister/half-brother to each other? DCTrinity (talk) 1:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter reveal's Wonder Woman's actual budget

Wonder Woman budget revealed to be $150 million: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/complex-gender-politics-wonder-woman-movie-1008259. Hope we can add this into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

CHANGE CHARACTER DESCRIPTION FOR DAVID THEWLIS FROM ARES TO SIR PATRICK MORGAN. The film hasn't yet been released and this has spoiled the movie already! Sunetro (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not avoid spoilers in our articles. --Izno (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman censorship in Lebanon controversy

Would that be possible to include the issue of banning Wonder Woman from showing in Lebanon in the article as it featured an headlines due to the leading actress, Gal Gadot as a Israeli had something to do with political turmoil between Lebanon and Israel? Saiph121 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. That seemed like a dubious reason -- Natalie Portman's films are not banned there.[1] It seems like WP:SPECULATION (sourced or not)) that it was only (or perhaps mostly) a result of the lead actress's nationality. Best wait for more clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wonder-woman-gal-gadot-on-israel-gaza-israeli-actresss-pro-idf-stance-causes-controversy-9643412.html Probably because Natalie Portman wasn't (redacted), but regardless the states banning the film have not explicitly pointed to her extreme political positions as reasons for banning the film, it is indeed speculation at this point. Revrant (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"her extreme political positions" how is anything that she has said "extreme"?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic (or, in this case, a tangential aspect of a fragment of the topic). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have redacted your controversial claim about a living person which goes well beyond the actual statement in the source you have provided. If you feel the statement is somehow necessary for this discussion (hint: it isn't), please discuss the issue at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman breaks records in the Philippines

Wonder Woman has broken the Philippines' 2017 box office record for highest earning non-holiday opening day, according to Francis Soliven, general manager of Warner Bros Philippines. It earned P48.39 million on its first day in cinemas, June 1. It beat the previous record holder, Bill Condon's Beauty and the Beast, which starred Emma Watson and Dan Stevens. Beauty and the Beast earned P47 million on its opening day in the Philippines.

Source [2] jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"with many critics calling it the best DCEU film"

This feels like an understatement; "with many critics calling it the first good DCEU film" would be more accurate. The two cited sources do support the current description more literally, but they point out that this film has received overwhelmingly positive reviews, while the previous two were largely negative. If a source shows up that explicitly states what the Independent and the Hollywood Reporter both heavily imply, that should probably be subbed in in their place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Please change David Thewlis' role from Ares to Sir Patrick.

Maybe something like this: David Thewlis as Sir Patrick: Sir Patrick Morgan, a speaker for peace on the Imperial War Cabinet who allies himself with Diana and Steve. He is later revealed to be the treacherous son of Zeus and half-brother of Diana, based on the Greek mythological god of War.

The wikipedia article stating David Thewlis' role affects what is seen on google. This will spoil the movie for many people who google the Wonder Woman cast: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/06/02/searching_wonder_woman_on_google_spoils_david_thewlis_character_in_the_new.html

Please consider other moviegoers, what if your favorite twist from your favorite film was spoiled before you even watched it for the first time?

I saw the previous request was denied, and I completely understand that you don't avoid spoilers in wiki articles, but this doesn't just affect wiki, it affects anyone who wants to Google the Wonder Woman cast before they see the movie. Plus, by saying he is Ares in the description doesn't remove the spoiler anyway, it just makes it safer for those who want to Google the cast. It's not just affecting the wiki page and my suggestion doesn't even remove the spoiler, it just hides it better, so please consider the change.

DiacetylmorphineHydrochloride (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia does not remove spoilers, regardless of what effects it has on Google. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Please change David Thewlis' role from Ares to Sir Patrick.

Maybe something like this: David Thewlis as Sir Patrick: Sir Patrick Morgan, a speaker for peace on the Imperial War Cabinet who allies himself with Diana and Steve. He is later revealed to be the treacherous son of Zeus and half-brother of Diana, based on the Greek mythological god of War.

The wikipedia article stating David Thewlis' role affects what is seen on google. This will spoil the movie for many people who google the Wonder Woman cast: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/06/02/searching_wonder_woman_on_google_spoils_david_thewlis_character_in_the_new.html

Please consider other moviegoers, what if your favorite twist from your favorite film was spoiled before you even watched it for the first time? DiacetylmorphineHydrochloride (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia contains spoilers. Ironically, you spoiled the movie for me with the above. Anyway, people shouldn't be Googling the cast of the film if they don't want to know the cast of the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Under "Cast", Information about David Thewlis' character is in the middle of Connie Nielsen's information, rather than on its own line. Put David Thewlis' information on his own line. 47.55.241.103 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Where does "wealthy entrepreneur" come from? I got the impression she worked/had an office at the Louvre. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence is correct now - it begins:

In present-day Paris, Diana Prince, curator for the Louvre's Department of Antiquities, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by a redlink editor

I have invited User:JetChained to discussion here to discuss his edit-warring to re-insert his WP:SYNTH analysis, written in a magazine-y WP:TONE with WP:POV and WP:PUFFERY. Two editors so far have been reverting this inappropriate edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JetChained has continued to add his contentious SYNTH essaying. He's at five reverts, I believe. reporting to W:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Under the Release section, in the controversies section, The line "Some boys and men were unhappy with the "women-only" screenings held at Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin" seems a bit political/sexist. It should probably be reworded to something like in the CNN article (reference 129) "some male moviegoers aren't happy about some scheduled women-only screenings of the film" 72.201.46.123 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, our version is rather tame compared to the New York Times version, which is from after two of the screenings took place (and more were scheduled), rather than CNN's report from earlier on with one scheduled and the film not out yet. If anything, our "unhappy" is too soft.

The New York Times version reads, "New of the women-only limitation set off a storm of virtual tantrums among some boys and men." The Washington Post article (also early on) has the men "flipped out" and the theater responding to "the wrath of trolls". From where I'm sitting, it seems irrelevant whether those complaining are "moviegoers" or not (which we really don't know) and entirely on-point that those flipping out turned out to be, as sourced, "boys and men". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it's described as "virtual tantrums" and "the wrath of trolls" show that those sources shouldn't be used, including the condescending quote "boys and men". It's best to remove the "boys and men" part and replace it with some: "Some were unhappy with..." because the objection wasn't limited to men obviously. Here's some sources that say is wasn't just boys and men, including one that quoted a female objection - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/27/women-only-screenings-wonder-woman http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/wonder-woman-womenonly-screening-slammed-as-sexist-and-wrong-a3549541.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/women-only-showings-of-wonder-woman-at-alamo-drafthouse-cause-uproar.html 2.102.186.130 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying a few confusing things that don't ring true to me. The sources you are complaining about are The Washington Post and the New York Times. If you have problems with the reliability of either one for the simple fact tha the people complaining were boys and men, I can't really help you. Please take that question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

As for the language you feel means we should exclude those sources, the three sources you just cited use "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar". Those boys and men seem to be a bit more than "unhappy".

I am unsure how it is "condescending" to refer to boys and men as "boys and men".

You seem to be taking this one step further by saying simply "Some were unhappy..." To bolster this, you point to three sources, all of them prior to the film coming out and the spread of the women-only screanings. Two of them are vague and yes, one of them does quote one woman. One of your sources, however, directly states it was men. The three sources currently cited attach the complaints to boys and men. Other than the one quoted woman, all of the complaints specifically quoted are apparently from men. Contrary to your statement that "say is wasn't just boys and men", none of them say anything of the kind, other than one lone source quoting one lone woman. Three sources gathered with no particular agenda say it was men and boys. Of three sources you found to try to remove the distinctly male-heavy source of the grumbling/slamming/uproar/fierce debate, one says it was men, one is completely silent (other than quoting only men) and the third is silent (other than quoting one woman with the men). If, to you, that sounds like the complaints were anywhere near 50-50, you'll need to explain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Objections to these screenings were raised - mostly from men" might work. I have to confess, I'm not sure what the exact objection is to including "men" though...the statement is verifiably true in its present incarnation.

Now it is true that (as reported by comicbooks.com) Patty Jenkins mentioned having mixed feelings about the women-only screenings - and she's a woman - but I think that the article is referring to the Alamo Drafthouse screenings specifically at the time that the screenings happened, near in time to when the movie opened or before it opened on June 1st.

The ComicBooks.Com article says "However, there was also a lot of outrage over the screenings. As you can guess, the criticism came from men -- for the most part -- who believe the screenings discriminated against male customers and male employees of the theater chain."

The BBC said (on May 26)"Now unimpressed men are lambasting the idea on Facebook, claiming they are being discriminated against. "Great, let us know when you have guys-only screenings of Thor, Spider-Man, Star Wars, etc. Let's see you walk the walk now that you set this precedence [sic]," one man wrote.

And as the BBC said Alama Drafthouse's Facebook page has thousands of posts about the screenings.

Also, when I looked over the various sources (and I might have missed this but) I didn't see any references to "boys" just to men. Do any of the cited sources already in the article specifically mention "boys"?

Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Even reliable sources can be too biased on a particular story to quote from. As for my sources, none of them say it was just men, the left-wing Guardian came closes when it said it was "mostly men" while the other two don't state the obviously false statement that it was just men, which is what I'm arguing for and why I used those sources. Changing it to "Some were unhappy/angry/furious" follows reliable sources and it is NPOV. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)