Sammo

Corrected entry: In this version, Flash does not carry the hostages to safety; he is sort of a cheerleader/crossing guard appearing in different spots of the stairs asking if they are OK and saying "This way." What sort of role in a battle is that? How does that help in any way? It's not that he's afraid of battle like in Whedon's version and he fights nobody on the path. (01:58:25)

Sammo

Correction: Flash not moving the others up the stairs could have been for their own safety. This ability has been shown to emit sparks and electricity. We're even shown earlier that simply running in trainers is enough to incinerate them and sliding across the ground is enough leave cracks on it. Moving people from one location to another could have resulted in them getting electrocuted or burned, so it was likely best to let them run up the stairs themselves to ensure each of their safeties as best as possible.

Casual Person

He rescues his future girlfriend and the ever important sausage without burning them and no bodily harm from the wrong amount of kinetic energy applied or anything, which could be another possible objection. It is honestly the weirdest 'heroic' sequence I have ever seen, since there are literally zero threats on that staircase. Maybe it's just intended as a full-on gag even if played straight.

Sammo

The two scenarios are very different. The scene where he saves Iris, he is merely taking Iris from her car, and placing her on the ground. With the hostages, he would have to take hold of them, and move them up several flights of stairs. The distance he would be travelling is much larger than the car crash scenario, and due to the increase in kinetic energy, this might put them at much larger risk of injury.

Casual Person

Another thing to note: You can see that when he grabs hold of Iris' body, he has to handle her body with the utmost care, implying that he has to be extremely careful when he interacts with others while using the super speed. And even in that situation, he is only placing her on the ground. So running back and forth moving the people up the stairs might not be the safest thing.

Casual Person

Not even from the car, from midair; he nullifies somehow the whole momentum she has and redirects it with no trauma (same as the sausage). Of course, not referring to the theatrical cut where he just carries people.But I'm not debating physics, just pointing out that (going by what it is shown, you can tell me he pushed into oblivion 8 parademons and 20 falling bricks off-screen) the hero just spends the whole time shouting "You ok?" at people, sparking lightning bolts everywhere.That's...something.

Sammo

Factual error: In Part Two, as Diana explains to Bruce Wayne the history of the Mother Boxes on Earth, we see an extended flashback of Earthly gods and warriors in an epic battle against Darkseid. When Diana says, "A golden age of heroes fighting together," we see a close-up of an Amazon archer drawing back an arrow right-handed, leaning right, and releasing it. However, the arrow is unsupported on the bow, so she couldn't possibly aim or control the arrow. (01:03:59)

Charles Austin Miller

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's not even a matter of how good you are. Placing the arrow on the opposite side of your dominant hand is very much a Western style draw, popularized often times in Hollywood movies. Ancient and Eastern methods used a same side draw. It's mostly determined by the grip used and type of archery you're performing.

Bishop73

Nonsense. The physics of the draw demand that the arrow is supported on the riser. Even ancient Roman archers and American Indians supported their arrows on the bow. Again, go try it yourself. You can't hit diddly releasing an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow.

Charles Austin Miller

Not that this is the forum for it, but here's just 1 example. Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGSpYLdH8s.

Bishop73

Yes, it's possible to shoot same-side, as long as you're supporting the arrow with the bow. However, in the Justice League shot that I cited, the Amazon archer is holding the bow right-handed hunter style, with the bow tilted to the right, which means the arrow is totally unsupported and uncontrollable. There's this inconvenient force known as GRAVITY that pulls the arrow away from your intended trajectory when the arrow is unsupported.

Charles Austin Miller

Suggested correction: Incorrect. You can place the arrow either side of the bow. It depends on how good of an archer you are.

DBase

I've been an archer for over 40 years, and you don't load your arrow on the outside of your bow. I don't care "how good an archer" you THINK you are, you can't aim or control an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow. Try it. Make a video of it. You'll be embarrassed to find you can't hit the broad side of a barn with the arrow on the wrong side of the bow.

Charles Austin Miller

Firstly, it's clearly possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5M2KHVyWI. Secondly, given the multiple "impossible" feats achieved by the Amazons given their super-physiology, "being able to accurately fire an arrow on the 'wrong' side of a bow" obviously falls under suspension of disbelief, and doesn't warrant either a mistake or the level of anger you're showing to people here.

Both videos state explicitly (especially Lars Andersen's) that yes, you CAN shoot from 'the wrong side', IF and only IF you use a particular, Eastern based grip, the thumb one. Watch the movie. She uses (which makes sense, for someone from the Greek mythology, I guess!) the 'Western style' so, left side as stated. I personally love over-analyzing this sort of things that give you so much insight and fun tidbits, rather than "Ah it's magic, who cares."

Sammo

Corrected entry: In this version, Queen Hippolyta whispers "Return to me, Diana" as she shoots the arrow, as opposed to "Listen to me, Diana" in Whedon's version. Whedon's line made sense, since it was a warning, this does not, since Diana never comes back to Themyscira nor she is supposed to, being busy thwarting the invasion in the Land of Men. There's no reason why the Queen would say that line. (00:43:10)

Sammo

Correction: It wasn't the Queen telling Diana to come home at that moment, but a way of saying "survive the war." This would be like a mother telling her soldier son as he goes to war to return home.

Bishop73

Under normal circumstances yes, but in the WW movie (forgetting comic book canon) the Queen herself bids her farewell on the beach telling her that she can't come back if she leaves, and by every indication she has not in a century even if she was unhappy here. Ironically in the movie itself she "returns home" only when we see her dead! I know it's splitting hairs though, and I am swayed by the fact that in the other version this unnecessary contradiction was changed, for the better.

Sammo

Corrected entry: Dr. Stone manages to miss the parademon in his apartment (or the broken window, for that matter) when it should have been in plain sight literally as he opened the door. (01:40:40)

Sammo

Correction: It was hiding behind the table. Also, he thought Victor caused all the damage, including the broken window.

lionhead

I can certainly see how he could assume that Victor did the damage, ties in nicely with the broken tape player, good thought. However I still don't see where the beast could hide, if you look at the room as it is shown for instance around 46:50, there's no way not to see someone in that corner while you approach the closet - it comes from the right of the window, not the left where the table is.

Sammo

He is focussed on the mess at the closet, and the missing box. He is not looking in that corner. As he approaches the corner he doesn't see the creature because it's hunched behind the table. It is also quite dark in the room.

lionhead

Again, you can't help but look into that part of the house, and the table is on the left of the broken window, the creature comes from the right, where there's just a computer station too small for the winged demon to hide under, and at the same time preventing anything to just duck into the corner unnoticed (there's no corner, in that sense). That's my perception anyway.

Sammo

Plot hole: WW mentions that "As Darkseid waged war on Earth, he found a secret there", that being the Anti-life equation. But later on it turns out that after being defeated, planet Earth is so "anonymous among a trillion worlds" that he never manages to find it again and destroys another 100,000 worlds (his words!) to look for it again. That would mean that they lack any sort of navigation, and it's hardly possible anyway that the planet would be "anonymous" when it contains what Darkseid wants the most.

Sammo

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This is in the form of a question and should be uploaded as such. There are several reasons to think why Darkseid couldn't find Earth.

lionhead

The questions were rhetorical, but thanks to your comment I edited rephrasing it without any questioning ambiguity, since my interest is not much in hearing fan theories filling the gaps in the narration, but rather in pointing out the obvious contradiction where Darkseid is fully aware right from the start that the most important thing in the universe is on Earth, but can't find it again and conquers another thousands of worlds instead "still looking" for it.

Sammo

Earth was a random planet they attacked and on that random planet Darkseid found a secret, he didn't go there for the secret, he found it whilst there. I don't expect him to go into his ship and put a pin on a map to remember where the planet was in case they were defeated. They expected to win. In their retreat, their way to navigate back to Earth got lost. Perfectly reasonable. You don't know anything about Darkseid's way of conquering and also no idea on how they navigate from world to world.

lionhead

You know he was not alone, he had an army with a whole slew of ships and subordinates, it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to swallow the idea that they are conquering worlds going in totally blind and "conquer" worlds they can't ever visit again lacking any charting.They refer the Earth by name and know who their opponents are. An explanation would be also less stringent if Darkseid didn't learn about Anti-life at all and simply "moved on", but it's not the case.

Sammo

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.