It was a boring turd, about characters no one had ever heard of, except for Batman & the Joker who were barely in it.

I thought the Henry Cavill movies were great. Now we have to see if Gadot can work on her own. Or Wonder Woman, for that matter. Batman seems to be difficult on his own. Nolan's trilogy wasn't really about a comic book hero, it was a crime/vigilante story, with a beginning & end, and no set-up for an extended universe. But Batman as a superhero was great in BvSoJ. That suggests to me that maybe less is more for these sorts of characters. Wonder Woman was great in the same movie, but can she hold up alone? Especially in a movie that isn't going to have other superheroes, where she is arguably going to be a bully?

I can't remember where, but I got the impression, from either dates in BVS or promotional material, that rather than having a backstory in the Good vs Evil conflict of World War Two, she's actually popping up in World War One. So right off the bat, she's not going up against actual evil bad guys. And she seems to be joining the people who came into the war on the side of the terrorists who kicked it off. Further, Steve Rogers was only a bit better than human, he's not Superman, and shouldn't be able to wrestle demigods, but as far as I know, Wonder Woman is up on the levels of Superman and the Hulk and the other top of the line people. If she can survive what Doomsday dishes out, how are early machine guns supposed to present a threat? It could be that her challenge is some sort of anti-war thing, what with there being so much ambiguity in the war in question, but then, doesn't that make her responsible for most of the evils of the 20th Century, almost all of which can be traced back to the mechanism by which World War One was ended? There was also a hint of Daddy-issues in the movie, but what I know of Wonder Woman's background was more Pygmalion & Galeta than the usual "Mom boinked a god" stuff. If they make her father Mars, that might explain an anti-war theme in the movie, but that's not really a fun story.

It looks like they are going for a lot of imbecilic fish out of water humor, which "Thor" wisely kept from going to too often. At least two jokes in the trailers seem to focus on her efforts to carry her sword in places where that is not generally acceptable. I mean, when you are strong enough to be a peer of Superman, you NEED to carry a sword to a black tie event, right.

We've also got all the SJW bullshit potential given the material and the day and age in which it is being made. That stuff really killed Supergirl, on top of issues I had with the character and actress. Fortunately, that line from the first trailer about Steve's "slave" seems to have disappeared from subsequent commercials, so hopefully it will go the way of Jyn Erso's retarded "...I rebel" comeback from "Rogue One"

Baring any grievous missteps by the producers, enjoying it will probably depend on keeping an open mind and managing your expectations, especially if you are a fan of the original material.

AFAIK, they are coasting on a trio of wish-fulfillment characters invented around WW2 when people were badly in need of cheap escapism. The Marvel characters were invented a generation later, aroudn the time our culture was discovering irony, and seem to mostly have been the work of one guy who seems to have hit on a winning formula, by giving them weaknesses and problems against which they can develop actual character. From what little I know, Superman spent most of his appearances in print making heroic efforts to conceal his secret identity from Lois Lane. Even having seen all the movies and many episodes of their old TV shows, I couldn't tell you what personality traits Superman and Batman have beyond "good" and "smart" respectively. I don't see enough of a character established between the portrayals of West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and Bale to be able to make a stab at what the character they are interpreting is actually about. McGuire & Garfield present a much more coherent Peter Parker, and even Affleck & Cox seem to be playing versions of the same person in Daredevil (and Affleck's Batman is believable as a version of Bale's...does that make him the best actor of these sorts of roles? Take that internet! ). That suggests to me that Marvel actually had the good characters, rather than stock protagonists, on whom the readers can project themselves.

That might explain the relative successes of the two companies. Superman and Batman got a huge jump in the drama adaptations and might very well have mined everything there is to get from their material by this point, and lack the character depth to stay competitive.