TheTylerDurden
Member
Release means drop the bombs and they detonate on the ground when they hit it. Because, that's what bombs do.
Detonation means igniting one to cause the plane to explode, where the gas harmlessly dissipates in the sky.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wonder Woman |OT| The World is Ready for You, Gal Gad [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
Release means drop the bombs and they detonate on the ground when they hit it. Because, that's what bombs do.
Detonation means igniting one to cause the plane to explode, where the gas harmlessly dissipates in the sky.
TheRedSnifit
Member
By shooting it at the town and not miles above it.
TheTylerDurden
Member
Based on the size of the explosion, and the cloud of gas that would have resulted, I doubt that he would have survived that. Grenades don't take very long before they go off.
But the real answer of course is - it served the movie's narrative to have him die in the plane.
Of course, we didn't actually SEE him die. Just like bats in Dark Knight Rises. He might have escaped. But since we more or less know that he and Diana never saw each other again, it's unlikely.
Um, only difference I'm seeing here is between the gas dissipating in the sky versus on the ground in a populated area. Y'all trying to make some meaningful distinction between 'special shells' and 'igniting explosions' and I can't recall anything in the movie that explains that.
Except he threw the only parachute out that was strapped on the back of the pilot.
Y'all need to pay attention, because Jenkins made this one scene iron clad for these lame logic trap deconstructions.
Plane has a timer and will destory anything within 50 miles. Steve says there's no guarantee they won't be shot down by the enemy or friendly fire, can't land it in friendly territory or (deductively) keep it in the air. Getting shot down runs the risk of not destroying the bombs, and releasing it on the ground. He kicked the pilots ass and throws him out with the only parachute.
Gas is "hydrogen based" and the only reason I would think they'd insert that line is to relay that it's flammable and lighter than air.
Which is stupid for chemical agent that needs to flow into foxholes and trenches, but they wanted to provide the explanation.
As I said, the over the top, old school comicly villains were one of my favorite parts of the movie.
While I dislike the Affleck choice, I think he did a good job as Bruce Wayne. He looks dumb as Batman though, like his face/mask/whatever looks actually dumb instead of menacing.
If anything, Superman's the worst out of the bunch. Literally a non-character whose only visible traits are anger and depression. Nothing remotely close to a hero. Just a fucking insult to the character.
WB needs to stop hiring Snyder, really. The DCEU hasn't had characters until Suicide Squad came out. Yeah "shit movie omg RT lol" whatever, Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Waller and a lot more were actual characters, much more believable than any of the paper thin action figure marionettes from Snyder's films.
God I can't stand him as a director. Just... keep him away from the property. He just won't understand that characters are the absolute highest priority, and not making cool comic shots and gritty "realistic" universes.
Speaking of which, can you say anything about Metropolis and Gotham in the DCEU? They're glorified fighting game stages, shallow backdrops devoid of any characteristic or interest. There's zero credibility to them.
But hey, cool shotsss just like the comic!! Darkness, edge, realistic!!!
She didn't have her invisible jet. This time.
TheTylerDurden
Member
You just basically explained it yourself, and yet you don't GET it?
Gas dissipating in the sky = no one dies
Gas killing tens of thousands on the ground = really bad and Steve prevented that.
Why is this so hard for you?
As for whoever previously said "special shells" there is nothing special or unique about a bomb filled with gas that detonates when the shell explodes. The shells fired at the village were regular detonation shells filled with gas. The gas is released when they hit their target. The bombs in the plane are exactly the same in this respect.
Also, you must have missed the part where Steve asked Chief if the gas was flammable, thats when you knew he was going to try and set it off.
Uh huh.
tkscz
Member
Then how would she had been inspired? If Steve didn't sacrifice himself, WW probably would've joined Aries
TheTylerDurden
Member
I'd put good money on this not happening, ever, with this particular take on the DCEU. Maybe in a campy reboot 30 years from now, but not with this particular WW.
? That's not what I don't get. What I didn't get is why Steve had to stay in the plane while it exploded/gas dissipated. Apparently he tossed off the parachute with pilot. So he's stupid, or suicidal, or both. Not a heroic death.
You're also assuming he had a grenade.
? He could have jumped just before the timer expired. Dont think a grenade is necessary, albeit useful
TheTylerDurden
Member
And what if this particular method failed to set off the bombs? What then?
He was going to stay and get the job done, I suppose. The film left us with the impression that this was the only option.
Pretty heroic to trade your life to save others. That's my interpretation, and I have no trouble with the film setting it up that way. If you argue that he could have set the bombs off in the plane and lived, then you fail to get the point as to why they chose this particular death for Steve, to show his sacrifice which ultimately made Diana take the right path.
Basically, Steve dying in this way was pretty key to the character arc of Diana herself. Could they have filled the story with all kinds of bla bla exposition to cover all of your niggling points? Sure. They could have come up with reasons why grenades won't work/or he didn't have any, etc.
I'm glad they didn't. I understood the decision completely without all of that noise.
They typically don't make movies with plot hole detectives in mind - for evidence just look at pretty much every movie ever made.
TheTylerDurden
Member
The timer would have released the bombs and they would have hit the ground and killed people.
The timer was not a timer for the plane to explode.
You claim to "get it", but then you say this.
The whole reason he is up there is that the gas is hydrogen based and needs to be ignited. This has nothing to do with the timer. The timer would have just dropped all the bombs, wherever he is.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Wait.
Do you think the Germans set a timer that blows up their plane miles above their targets?
Think carefully.
I think the bombs/chemical gas rig has a timer. You're telling me that the Germans rigged a timer to the hatch of this particular airplane to open up and drop whatever? Think carefully.
I'm complaining about Steve's character. I don't consider suicide particularly noble. He knows Diana is not affected by gas, he could have let her handle that. I don't see why he had to go up with no plans to come back down
Why would the Germans ignite their own poison gas?
And Diana is in the middle of fighting Ares. It's not like Steve and his crew can do much about that. She's not affected by gas, but doesn't mean she can survive a hydrogen explosion.
¯_(ツ
_/¯ because the Germans scientist/general are evil, isn't that what the story is implyingScript writers should have given them something better to do
They're so evil that they decided to destroy their own chemical weapons, killing nobody as a result? What?¯_(ツ
Script writers should have given them something better to do
And the crew does have something better to do. They're dealing with the plane.
Did you miss the part where that plane is on a direct path towards dropping this gas on London?
Scrap the whole suicide bplot
Poodlestrike
Banned
Dude, this is the reasoning in the movie.
They literally state all the reasons just "grounding" the plane wouldn't work. They mention it's flammable. They mention the gas is set to release on a timer. They mention it will kill anything within 50 square miles. It's taking off as Steve gets onto it, and Chief literally stares at a map with a big target circle drawn around London.
A single character choice is not a B-plot. And no, Steve's sacrifice is literally key to Diana's perspective on humanity which enables her to defy Ares.
Y'all DC defenders make up your mind
'Love' doesn't require suicide
You said that Diana could have stopped it, and then when it was pointed out that Diana was engaged elsewhere, you just pivot to saying the whole plot should have been cancelled for some reason.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm just not at all sure why you brought up the cannon. Firing an artillery shell designed to disperse the gas is different from puncturing a bomb with a gunshot.
And other than that there's like... no actual contradictions. I dunno man, I feel like you might just not be getting it.
You're attempt to poke holes in the scenario, but you're already admitting there's shit you missed.
And love doesn't require suicide. Stopping London from getting hit by a fuckton of poison gas probably did though.
The writers tied themselves up in knots. If Diana can't take care of this because she's occupied then give Steve and crew something they can actually handle themselves without suicide and/or scrap that bplot. It's a progression of an argument not a pivot
Am I missing stuff or are you just making shit up ? Are there specially designed shells or not?
Wayne Enterprises giving her a cloaking device would be a good nod. She won't be riding air, But it be a fun way to update the lore in a way that makes sense in a "real universe".
What is the argument, exactly? Steve's sacrifice is the core of the emotional climax of the movie.
Why would the writers need to avoid a scenario at the end of the movie where a suicide wouldn't be necessary? Like... what is lost by including a character choice that would result in a self-sacrifice during the climax?
And as far as the gas goes, the shot against the town was from a mortar cannon, and the plane was dropping canisters. Whatever method they intended on using were different in both scenarios, but both required the gas to not be ignited, so the shells from the cannon were then probably meant specifically for gas bombs.
Steve also has what happened to the village on his conscience. He knows Diana blames him for getting in her way of killing the general before the attack.
His frame of mind is he won't let that happen again. This is his chance to redeem himself from that error in judgment and he took the surest path to complete his objective. He's a soldier. He completed his mission.
The fuck it wasn't heroic. He got the job done.
The core of the argument relates back to the GP post that it's a stupid suicide by a side character, like Pa Kent in Man of Steel, to somehow enable the development of the superhero who doesn't prevent the death. I don't find Pa Kent or Steve suicides emotionally resonant at all. I find the contrived scenarios (not canon/derived from the comics by the way but made up by film writers) to be silly.
said my piece, I'll let y'all return to loving the film
Why is it a stupid suicide? He had to do it to save the day.
I guess it if it didn't work, it didn't work for you. But I don't really see how any sacrifice would work under the requirements you seem to be dancing around.
They checked all the logic boxes and the motivation passes the test IMO. I guess there just "I don't like it", but that's not really a valid criticism on the motivation or logic behind it.
Clark's father sacrifice is a little shakier because in that universe they've already shown Clark travels fast enough to save him and not even appear to have done so. It's sort of standing against the logic it already set up, just for the drama of it all. But thats Zack for you, cool scenes in the face of the connectivity tissue that binds a movie.
They checked all the logic boxes and the motivation passes the test IMO. I guess there just "I don't like it", but that's not really a valid criticism on the motivation or logic behind it.
Clark's father sacrifice is a little shakier because in that universe they've already shown Clark travels fast enough to save him and not even appear to have done so. It's sort of standing against the logic it already set up, just for the drama of it all. But thats Zack for you, cool scenes in the face of the connectivity tissue that binds a movie.
TheTylerDurden
Member
If it were even close to imaginably real tech, I wouldn't sneeze at it.
But an outright invisible jet - that I don't think will happen. It would have to be believable within the realm of what Batman can invent.
Jack Scofield
Member
For the sequel, are they setting it in present day? It would seem really weird to just skip completely over WWII.
TheTylerDurden
Member
Not really.
Diana said she turned her back on mankind about 100 years ago, in BvS.
That would put her as being inactive from WWI to present day. Pretty perfect.
We don't know why she stayed out of it for 100 years, but that's been set now.
Emulated Hype
Member
I like what someone said earlier in the thread. Make it obvious that she sidelined herself and went numb to humanity when World War 2 started without Ares' influence.
TropicalFish
Member
Watched it again today. I still really enjoyed the third act lol.
I hope WW2 starts off with a brief montage of Diana standing at a cemetery looking at the graves of graves Steve, and then eventually Etta, Sameer and Charlie. I really hope the Chief returns for the sequel for a greater supporting role too, what with him also being a demigod.
I hope WW2 starts off with a brief montage of Diana standing at a cemetery looking at the graves of graves Steve, and then eventually Etta, Sameer and Charlie. I really hope the Chief returns for the sequel for a greater supporting role too, what with him also being a demigod.
missed this since you didn't quote
Nah, my requirements aren't onerous nor is it not just because "I don't like". Basic motivations for sacrifice should be show why the character is in 'suicidial' state and show the hero at least attempting to save the character (they are superheroes ffs and really should not be letting any character they love just die).
Two other superhero films this year easily meet those basic requirements:
- In GotG2, Yondu sacrifices himself and I cried. Yondu is in a 'suicidial' state (thinks his old teammates will never accept him again, loses his crew) and Peter tries his best to save him during the sacrifice.
- In Logan, Wolverine sacrifices himself and I didn't cry. Logan is explicitly in a suicidal state and Laura tries her best to save him during the sacrifice.
In Wonder Woman, Chris Pine has everything to live for (just fallen in love and shit) and Diana doesn't try to save him. Those motivations don't pass the basic test.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Steve is in a "suicidal state" in that he has deep-seated cynicism that he's trying to overcome. Basically, he's in the war at all trying to find a meaningful way to change a world that he thinks is too bleak.
It's true that Diana doesn't try to save him, though-- but she's busy.
And Yondu's death did nothing for me. I liked GotG a lot, but virtually all of the family/emotional beats felt forced (Yondu, Rocket, and the sisters' rivalry). Kept it from being as good as the first one.
StarCreator
Member
Uh, what? Are you saying only suicidal people would ever go through heroic self-sacrifice?
Yeah lol that's a dumb argument
Um no? Please keep up with the discussion. I actual argued the opposite earlier. I don't consider suicide to be particularly heroic.
To recap the flow of the discussion
- Why did Steve sacrifice himself?
- Was it necessary?
- Was he too stupid to not take a parachute?
- Did he deliberate decide to die by not taking the parachute from the pilot?
- Is that type of sacrifice not a suicide?
- Did the movie depict him in a 'suicidal' state before the sacrifice?
¯_(ツ
_/¯No, I'm not saying that (if I did elsewhere that's a mistake). The 'validity of the heroic self-sacrifice' depends on that sacrificed character's arc. Notice how I framed the discussion flow for Steve above. It just so happens that Clark Kent was there to witness Pa Kent's death and Diana was there for Steve's. That adds in a separate but related issue of the hero's reaction to the character performing the sacrifice. A hero saves people, that's basically their job description. A superhero tries to save everybody (that's what makes them super). A superhero who doesn't attempt to stop their loved one from giving up their life has their superhero characterization out of whack.
He had time to give Diana his treasures beforehand, he had already decided to die ergo suicide.
Edit:
While I'm at it, if I had the opportunity to doctor the script (without just scraping the entire bplot) I'd have Charlie do it. One of my problems with the story was Diana's relationship with Charlie. Diana is a warrior; she's been itching to fight since she was a child. Her aunt/trainer/mentor earlier in the film tells her not to hesitate when fighting. She kills people too; she ain't
crisdecuba
Member
I don't understand why the hero has to be in a position to try to save the person who's sacrificing themselves in order for it to be a valid heroic self-sacrifice. Could you explain why this is necessary? If you posted this elsewhere then sorry - just link me to the comment.