DC’s track record for the past 3-4 big budget movies has been pretty good it seems.
And the gold suit.! I though that was the villain or something at first, but then I remembered her outfit when she went on the warpath in Kingdom Come. It probs has appeared before in the comics, but I was never into WW and I only saw her wearing that outfit in the latter third of Kingdom Come.
Her lassoing between lightning bolts was kind of interesting. I also got the impression we were going to see the invisible plane. Surprised we didn't even get a glimpse of Cheetah, but after Sonic and Cats they probably want to make sure they get it right.
Turnip Jedi wrote: "well the near endless flood of edgy misery hasn't really worked out for us...let go silly and 80's, with a hint of Ragnorok"
that'll do DC, that'll do
Sort of - WW1, JL1 and Aquaman were all great Marvelesque movies
The excellent and brutal Atomic Blonde had plenty of great 80s fun / music.
JL was NOT a marvel esc movie. It was a disjointed shallow cgi nothing with mischaracterized nonsense.
Marvels quality is consistently better than that. WW, Aquaman, and Shazam are their only good entries at this point.
I think a little billion-dollar movie called Joker deserves to be included there. I'll also defend Man of Steel to the end...and feel like it's starting to be appreciated more with time.
But JL...well...I'll refrain from commenting and just say that story will be a fantastic read someday when someone spills all the beans on the bonkers stuff around that production. It's insane from the outside and must have been exponentially so on the inside. It's not -- for instance -- what Cavill's lip looked like. It's about the decision process and personalities that led them to that point and approved the film for release in that state.
Edit: Trailer has some style to it. Be interesting to see how much of that carries over to the film.
AduroT wrote: I don’t like that they’re bringing Steve back, but looks quite good otherwise.
It seems plot relevent in a sense that the villain produced some sort of illusion to give people what they want in exchange for their obediance. I suppose that the resolution will involve WW having to sacrifice Steve to restaure the natural order of things.
Turnip Jedi wrote: "well the near endless flood of edgy misery hasn't really worked out for us...let go silly and 80's, with a hint of Ragnorok"
that'll do DC, that'll do
Sort of - WW1, JL1 and Aquaman were all great Marvelesque movies
The excellent and brutal Atomic Blonde had plenty of great 80s fun / music.
JL was NOT a marvel esc movie. It was a disjointed shallow cgi nothing with mischaracterized nonsense.
Marvels quality is consistently better than that. WW, Aquaman, and Shazam are their only good entries at this point.
I think a little billion-dollar movie called Joker deserves to be included there. I'll also defend Man of Steel to the end...and feel like it's starting to be appreciated more with time.
But JL...well...I'll refrain from commenting and just say that story will be a fantastic read someday when someone spills all the beans on the bonkers stuff around that production. It's insane from the outside and must have been exponentially so on the inside. It's not -- for instance -- what Cavill's lip looked like. It's about the decision process and personalities that led them to that point and approved the film for release in that state.
Edit: Trailer has some style to it. Be interesting to see how much of that carries over to the film.
Joker was also great. I didnt include it because it isnt/wasnt meant to be connected to anything.
Well.... What do we have for DC movies (not just the DCU)
The first two entries into the Dark Knight trilogy were great, I'll say even better than anything in the MCU. Part 3 was a total let-down though.
Joker was very moving, and I feel awards are incoming.
Man of Steel was decent enough
BvsS wasn't great, but okay.
Suicide squad had a couple good moments, but subpar
Wonder Woman and Aquaman were great
Shazam was a quarky, fun side-step in the DCU.
I think that as a whole, the DCU is starting to work on its teething problem and finally know what it is.
I mean heck, even marvel movies had some utter turds. MCU was Ironman 3, and Thor 2. "Average" includes the Antman movies, Hulk, and I hate to say it.... Endgame.
Outside the MCU? Ghostrider (both of them), Spiderman 3, Punisher (both of them), Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 were all sub-par.
I think it's unfair to put non-MCU movies in the same basket as MCU movies. Those were all made by other studios. Every DC movie is made by Warner Bros. They own DC. It's all their fault.
That being said, the Dark Knight trillogy is a train wreck if you want an actual batman movie. Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
At least Clooney was in charge of the situation and prepared for what he was dealing with.
Christian Bale is the dumbest batman we have ever seen. He refuses to kill one guy so kills an entire building full of people on accident including the guy he refused to kill. At the end of every dark knight movie the bad guy explains the plot of the movie to him because he still hasn't figured out wtf is going on. He says no guns but shoots rockets at Talia's truck and kills her. He is a literal god damn moron running around in body armor and getting his ass kicked by every person he meets for the 6 hours we watch him. The WORST.
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
At least Clooney was in charge of the situation and prepared for what he was dealing with.
Christian Bale is the dumbest batman we have ever seen. He refuses to kill one guy so kills an entire building full of people on accident including the guy he refused to kill. At the end of every dark knight movie the bad guy explains the plot of the movie to him because he still hasn't figured out wtf is going on. He says no guns but shoots rockets at Talia's truck and kills her. He is a literal god damn moron running around in body armor and getting his ass kicked by every person he meets for the 6 hours we watch him. The WORST.
Well, yeah, but unlike Clooney at least Bale's head wasn't bouncing back and forth with every spoken salable like some kind of humanoid bobblehead.
AduroT wrote: I don’t like that they’re bringing Steve back, but looks quite good otherwise.
It's probably the same trope they used in the old Lynda Carter 70s tv series. It started in WW2, and then moved into the "modern" days, with Steve being a descendent of the older one or something.
AduroT wrote: I don’t like that they’re bringing Steve back, but looks quite good otherwise.
It's probably the same trope they used in the old Lynda Carter 70s tv series. It started in WW2, and then moved into the "modern" days, with Steve being a descendent of the older one or something.
Doubt that. She appeared to have to explain modern things to him, like that trash can isn’t an art piece. I think it’s more likely the weird resurrection/fake hearts desire thing by the villain. Well get to watch Steve die all over again.
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
At least Clooney was in charge of the situation and prepared for what he was dealing with.
Christian Bale is the dumbest batman we have ever seen. He refuses to kill one guy so kills an entire building full of people on accident including the guy he refused to kill. At the end of every dark knight movie the bad guy explains the plot of the movie to him because he still hasn't figured out wtf is going on. He says no guns but shoots rockets at Talia's truck and kills her. He is a literal god damn moron running around in body armor and getting his ass kicked by every person he meets for the 6 hours we watch him. The WORST.
Well, yeah, but unlike Clooney at least Bale's head wasn't bouncing back and forth with every spoken salable like some kind of humanoid bobblehead.
Yeah. When i go watch a batman movie the element i put above all others in terms of batman elements is the motions, or lack there of, that his head makes. We all knows thats what makes or breaks a good batman.
Turnip Jedi wrote: "well the near endless flood of edgy misery hasn't really worked out for us...let go silly and 80's, with a hint of Ragnorok"
that'll do DC, that'll do
Sort of - WW1, JL1 and Aquaman were all great Marvelesque movies
The excellent and brutal Atomic Blonde had plenty of great 80s fun / music.
JL was NOT a marvel esc movie. It was a disjointed shallow cgi nothing with mischaracterized nonsense.
Marvels quality is consistently better than that. WW, Aquaman, and Shazam are their only good entries at this point.
I think a little billion-dollar movie called Joker deserves to be included there. I'll also defend Man of Steel to the end...and feel like it's starting to be appreciated more with time.
But JL...well...I'll refrain from commenting and just say that story will be a fantastic read someday when someone spills all the beans on the bonkers stuff around that production. It's insane from the outside and must have been exponentially so on the inside. It's not -- for instance -- what Cavill's lip looked like. It's about the decision process and personalities that led them to that point and approved the film for release in that state.
Edit: Trailer has some style to it. Be interesting to see how much of that carries over to the film.
Could not agree more about how bad the Nolan Batman movies were.
Back to WW.
So is Steve a figment, reborn or is the other guy pretending to be him somehow, the bit where she sees him at the event, he seems to use the watch as a trigger and you donlt see his face until after, he has the same hair style(ish)
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
At least Clooney was in charge of the situation and prepared for what he was dealing with.
Christian Bale is the dumbest batman we have ever seen. He refuses to kill one guy so kills an entire building full of people on accident including the guy he refused to kill. At the end of every dark knight movie the bad guy explains the plot of the movie to him because he still hasn't figured out wtf is going on. He says no guns but shoots rockets at Talia's truck and kills her. He is a literal god damn moron running around in body armor and getting his ass kicked by every person he meets for the 6 hours we watch him. The WORST.
Wouldn't that be the story's fault and not the actor's fault?
Mr Morden wrote: Could not agree more about how bad the Nolan Batman movies were.
Back to WW.
So is Steve a figment, reborn or is the other guy pretending to be him somehow, the bit where she sees him at the event, he seems to use the watch as a trigger and you donlt see his face until after, he has the same hair style(ish)
There really is little doubt that the Nolan Batman movies -- 94%/94% RT, 84 MC rating, 'A' Cinemascore, multiple Oscar-winning and nominated, multiple billion dollar earners -- were completely terrible films.
But Thor 2...now that's a fething work of art...isn't that right, Morden?
Mr Morden wrote: Could not agree more about how bad the Nolan Batman movies were.
Back to WW.
So is Steve a figment, reborn or is the other guy pretending to be him somehow, the bit where she sees him at the event, he seems to use the watch as a trigger and you donlt see his face until after, he has the same hair style(ish)
There really is little doubt that the Nolan Batman movies -- 94%/94% RT, 84 MC rating, 'A' Cinemascore, multiple Oscar-winning and nominated, multiple billion dollar earners -- were completely terrible films.
But Thor 2...now that's a fething work of art...isn't that right, Morden?
I don;t care what others think of a film, They/you don't care what I think (and if so why?) - so whats the issue.... I don;t have to like what you like - and vice versa....
I like Thor 2 - I don't claim its a cinematic masterpiece - but Its enjoyable rather than the crap Nolan churns out -IMO
The Nolan films are still not a patch on Lego Bats
I think we need a Lego WW to embrace some of the stranger (well PG strange) parts of the Mythos, I'm sure at one point Paradise Island had Kangaroos instead of horses...
I think we need a Lego WW to embrace some of the stranger (well PG strange) parts of the Mythos, I'm sure at one point Paradise Island had Kangaroos instead of horses...
Lego moveis - esp Lego bats were great fun - WW is in that one briefly.
Lance845 wrote: . Christian Bale is the worst Batman we have ever seen in live action. Yes. Worse than Clooney.
Ouch, that might be going too far. Clooney was horrible as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not to mention the feel of that movie was all over the place. And Batnipples.
At least Clooney was in charge of the situation and prepared for what he was dealing with.
Christian Bale is the dumbest batman we have ever seen. He refuses to kill one guy so kills an entire building full of people on accident including the guy he refused to kill. At the end of every dark knight movie the bad guy explains the plot of the movie to him because he still hasn't figured out wtf is going on. He says no guns but shoots rockets at Talia's truck and kills her. He is a literal god damn moron running around in body armor and getting his ass kicked by every person he meets for the 6 hours we watch him. The WORST.
Wouldn't that be the story's fault and not the actor's fault?
Nobody blaimed any one person or thing for how bad it is. Bales name is used to specify that THAT batman is the one we are talking about. But just fyi, Bale thinks Batman is one of the dumbest characters ever made and he played it ridiculous because he thinks the character is ridiculous. So i think its fair to say that it is partially his fault too.
Thor 2 didnt mischaracterize the people in it. While not the best of the mcus offerings its still actually a Thor movie which does make it better at its baseline job than any of the Nolan Batmans.
We simply dont have any data to know why steve is back or in what capacity. Speculation at this point could be in ww head, magic (cause he blew up in a plane filled with gas fueled by magic), time travel, anything...
We will have to wait for more info to find out why.
epronovost wrote: I wonder how this movie is going to compare with the Black Widow movie.
suspect it'll be a strange reverse the polarity of the neutron flow flip with the DC one being fun and the Marvel one attempting some kind of point (killing is bad m'kay, apart from when its not...)
epronovost wrote: I wonder how this movie is going to compare with the Black Widow movie.
suspect it'll be a strange reverse the polarity of the neutron flow flip with the DC one being fun and the Marvel one attempting some kind of point (killing is bad m'kay, apart from when its not...)
The first WW had "a point": war is horrible and is ultimately a human choice (mostly). Unsurprisingly, it also contained a fair deal of celebration of feminism and its rethoric. The second one seem to point toward a moral based on the rejection of duplicity (especially in politics) and conformism.
Black widow seems to be gunning for a "you can't erase or forget your past" sort of point.
Well... it did a bit. Odin certainly flipped entirely from his Thor 1 incarnation (rule with compassion and justice to casual racist with no pity for humans, plus short-sighted warmonger as things develop, exactly what he was railing against in film 1), and then flipped to something completely different for Ragnarok (mellow prophet, abandoning all responsibility), few of which are in-line with comic or mythological Odin, at least not in that short a span.
Well... it did a bit. Odin certainly flipped entirely from his Thor 1 incarnation (rule with compassion and justice to casual racist with no pity for humans, plus short-sighted warmonger as things develop, exactly what he was railing against in film 1), and then flipped to something completely different for Ragnarok (mellow prophet, abandoning all responsibility), few of which are in-line with comic or mythological Odin, at least not in that short a span.
Which is not actually a mischaracterization of the character.
Odin has always been a manipulative dick in the comics. He preaches a big game about honor and duty and justice and blah blah, but he uses everyone as pawns to his own ends. He says what he needs to say piece by piece to turn each person into the person he needs them to be to do the plans he wants them to do. Every aspect of Odin we have seen in the movies has been an aspect of Odin we have seen in the comics to one end or another.
Well... it did a bit. Odin certainly flipped entirely from his Thor 1 incarnation (rule with compassion and justice to casual racist with no pity for humans, plus short-sighted warmonger as things develop, exactly what he was railing against in film 1), and then flipped to something completely different for Ragnarok (mellow prophet, abandoning all responsibility), few of which are in-line with comic or mythological Odin, at least not in that short a span.
Which is not actually a mischaracterization of the character.
Odin has always been a manipulative dick in the comics. He preaches a big game about honor and duty and justice and blah blah, but he uses everyone as pawns to his own ends. He says what he needs to say piece by piece to turn each person into the person he needs them to be to do the plans he wants them to do. Every aspect of Odin we have seen in the movies has been an aspect of Odin we have seen in the comics to one end or another.
Except at no point is he manipulating people. That's the rub. He's having honest emotional reactions that run a random gamut. There isn't any plan, scheme or game involved, everything takes him by surprise (except Hela at his end). 1 & 3 run with the idea that he's really reformed and totally means it.
He wants Thor to be king, but not an 'unworthy' one, despite his own past and frankly terrible reputation. He exhibits genuine rage at the idea of Thor starting another war and not caring about his people.
Well... it did a bit. Odin certainly flipped entirely from his Thor 1 incarnation (rule with compassion and justice to casual racist with no pity for humans, plus short-sighted warmonger as things develop, exactly what he was railing against in film 1), and then flipped to something completely different for Ragnarok (mellow prophet, abandoning all responsibility), few of which are in-line with comic or mythological Odin, at least not in that short a span.
Which is not actually a mischaracterization of the character.
Odin has always been a manipulative dick in the comics. He preaches a big game about honor and duty and justice and blah blah, but he uses everyone as pawns to his own ends. He says what he needs to say piece by piece to turn each person into the person he needs them to be to do the plans he wants them to do. Every aspect of Odin we have seen in the movies has been an aspect of Odin we have seen in the comics to one end or another.
Except at no point is he manipulating people. That's the rub. He's having honest emotional reactions that run a random gamut. There isn't any plan, scheme or game involved, everything takes him by surprise (except Hela at his end). 1 & 3 run with the idea that he's really reformed and totally means it.
He wants Thor to be king, but not an 'unworthy' one, despite his own past and frankly terrible reputation. He exhibits genuine rage at the idea of Thor starting another war and not caring about his people.
Remember Thor at the beginning of Thor 1? Remember Thor at the end of Thor 3? Some could argue that Odin is responsible in many ways for the events that caused that growth. Especially if you attribute him some foreknowledge that is Odins classic shtick.
Reviews are rolling in. Not bad so far...90 on RT, 68 on MC. MC score doesn't seem inspiring, although the first film only had a 76 I think. And hey...we all know it's not going to be Citizen Kane.
This is unquestionably the movie I am most excited about this year. I bought a 4K laser projector for this, and I guess this is how we're spending Christmas.
Ouze wrote: This is unquestionably the movie I am most excited about this year. I bought a 4K laser projector for this, and I guess this is how we're spending Christmas.
How is that 4K laser projector going for you guys?
Me and my wife are eyeing to get one...
...and yeah WW on Christmas is how we're planning that day.
gorgon wrote: Reviews are rolling in. Not bad so far...90 on RT, 68 on MC. MC score doesn't seem inspiring, although the first film only had a 76 I think. And hey...we all know it's not going to be Citizen Kane.
So! Pretty good. Quite enjoyed it. Lasso stunts are incredibly dialed up to 11. Good drama and emotional bits. Lots of little Easter eggs and stuff. Mid credits scene was made me smile. Very enjoyable movie overall I thought.
Was kinda bummed out by it to be honest. It wasn't bad, but it was nowhere near as good as the first one (and that one had some real issues with the boss fight).
-Some of the lasso work honestly seemed a little too much, more Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon than Wonder Woman.
-
Spoiler:
All of the scenes of her flying around seemed to look really goofy to me, like bad CGI.
-Everything looked too... colorful in some scenes. It was a style choice I didn't love.
The golden eagle armor didn't look as bad as I was worried it might from the trailer. It looked fine.
The 2h30m runtime.... while I don't dislike longer movies, they really have to justify it by filling that time with quality storytelling. Malcolm X made it fly by, but this could easily have been edited down to 2 hours and improved the pacing.
+Cheetah looked good.
+Pedro Pascal
+loved the mid credit cookie.
+I enjoyed some of the other bits of fan service.
I hoped to love it, but it really was pretty meh at best. I saw it had a 59 on metacritic and that seems about right honestly.
Ouze wrote: I hoped to love it, but it really was pretty meh at best. I saw it had a 59 on metacritic and that seems about right honestly.
Pretty meh indeed.
Way too long and much campier than the first. The opening mall scene was a whole lot of cringe. From the robbers themselves, to the manufactured danger escalation of that scene, it felt like something from a gakky TV show.
The convoy chase scene was excellent though.
I found myself constantly looking at the clock to see how much longer this would last. Had I been in a theater, I probably would've hated this movie.
While I'd have to hold my hands up and say that whatever seems to have resonated with so many about the first one went over my head, I'm firmly in the meh camp.
The two bright points were the two female leads and Cheetah's arc. I think Gal Gadot is now second to RDJ as Tony Stark for me in the list of actors I can't imagine anyone doing it better list.
I didn’t love it, but Jenkins also clearly tried to make an 80s-styled film - down to the photography and performances. So while camp isn’t my thing, I get that dipping deep into the style of Christopher Reeve Superman films was the point. And I like that she tried to offer something very different from the first.
Biggest issue for me was the length...felt like it could have been shorter. Maybe needed a tighter story for the Max Lord stuff. Brightest spots were the performances IMO...Gadot has really locked in on Diana, and Wiig handled the transformation of Barbara really well. Hard to imagine anyone making Lord work better than Pascal did. It’s a big cheesy 80s villain role that could have gone really wrong in the hands of someone else.
I honestly thought Birds of Prey was better and WW, Shazam, Aquaman, and Man of Steel were all much better. The main plotline was good conceptually, but executed poorly. Pedro Pascal's performance was wasted. Wiig was surprisingly good. IMO, Gal Gadot was incredibly wooden all film. She doesn't emote at all. Literally every other actor (other than the kid) outperformed her.
It felt like they took a first draft of a script with Max Lord and a first draft of a script with Cheetah and then plucked Cheetah out of the latter, put her in the former and then called it a day. There were some good ideas but it needed to be refined a bit more. It should not have been a two and a half hour movie.
Apparently the third film has not only been green lit, but fast tracked, in light of the initial performance of 84, so I guess it's been good enough to hit whatever KPI the corporate part of Warner Bros had set fairly handily.
But then, what are a bunch of people going to do over a socially restricted festive period?
Just got done....was glad I didn't pay for it in a theater. Pretty bad overall, and I enjoyed the first one. Knock this one up as another crappy DC movie (there are so many).
We watched the first WW in Xmas-eve and that was a mistake. WW84 just doesn't compare to the first WW.
I think the weakest link was the story itself. Every actors acted their asses off, and while the plot was fine it seemed a bit disjointed?
We did have a laugh at the story that Steve "borrowed" some dude's body and slept with WW... poor dude obviously didn't consent to have his body taken over. (I think the issue was that he didn't get to enjoy that encounter Assuming he's straight of course).
It may have actually been the worst DC movie...well, JL and Suicide Squad exist...but WW84 wasn't just dumb it, it was pretentious and obnoxious. And when all it takes is one emo kid wishing that everyone was dead to ruin the movie...well, you've written a bad movie.
Hmm, it sounds that WW 1984 turned out to be one of the most atrocious DC movies ever made. Thank you Corona, you saved me from a cinema visit filled with nothing but disappointment.
I wouldn't say that. Everything Snyder has touched is for sure worse. This one is just.... unfocused. There are good bones in this movie. The acting is all good. It's just SO long while trying to do SO much and it just ends up as a jumble. I am sure someone could cut 40 minutes off the movie and reedit it into something more punchy and a better more enjoyable ride.
Where as the REALLY bad DC movies (Snyders) are bad acting (not the fault of the actors. it's the writing and direction), mischaracterization, bad plots with people doing things for no or insane reasons. Just... the worst.
Gonna be honest. I thought the first Wonder Woman was overrated tripe that was passable and only looked good because everything that came before it was so so very bad. I think I actively resented the movie a bit, because it was getting so much praise that I found completely unearned. I decided to give this one a chance because I had nothing better to do and a little longer on my HBO Max trial.
I think I kind of tuned out around the beginning, when she used her tiara to destroy the security cameras as... VHS existed in 1984 and there weren't upwards of a hundred witnesses to the event. What exactly is she trying to keep secret and how does this even remotely qualify as keeping it secret? That's just so... I mean at that point I wasn't even willing to be generous and noticed how awful the entire scene was to watch. It was just lazy and dull.
I just shook my head, gave it another thirty minutes to see if it could reel me back in (it didn't) and then I started looking for a better movie. Overall opinion seems to be that the film is a disappointment after the first but as already stated I found the first unimpressive so yeah.
30 minutes in I had no idea what the movie was even about. Wonder Woman was just on screen doing... stuff. I know the comparison is old and probably tired, but most MCU movies (and really, any good movie) have at least established a primary villain and conflict arc in the first thirty minutes of the movie, even if the hero hasn't started acting on it yet. The movie did eventually start doing that with some dull foreshadowing but by then I was just completely uninvested and didn't care anymore.
This movie is like a 90s kid's idea of the 80s too. Stranger danger in a park, no internet so someone can leave hundreds of witnesses and still be a mystery, and a ponzi scheme. I mean, I guess those are all things someone who isn't from the 80s might identify as '80s' things but I can't help but feel like this movie was a shallow effort at a very vogue motif made by people who didn't really know how to assemble it and it's also just a boring movie on top of that.
There's some oldie Godzilla movies on MAX you know. They're all a lot funner than this movie XD
LordofHats wrote: Gonna be honest. I thought the first Wonder Woman was overrated tripe that was passable and only looked good because everything that came before it was so so very bad.
Yeah, I'm right there with you man. That first Wonder Woman film is a 7/10 at best. I'll eventually get around to '84, I'm not exactly dying to see it with the current buzz being what it is.
LordofHats wrote: Gonna be honest. I thought the first Wonder Woman was overrated tripe that was passable and only looked good because everything that came before it was so so very bad.
Yeah, I'm right there with you man. That first Wonder Woman film is a 7/10 at best. I'll eventually get around to '84, I'm not exactly dying to see it with the current buzz being what it is.
Being more honest, I felt like maybe I wasn't being fair after posting, went back, tried to watch the movie again and quit about another 20 minutes in because it doesn't get better and I just don't have patience for this mess of a movie that even an hour in is still struggling to find a plot.
EDIT: And I've realized what this movie reminds me of.
Every Michael Bay Transformers film after the first one. Time and distance are impossible concepts because the story doesn't care. Things happen for no reason to keep the plot going but the plot isn't really going anywhere. The action scenes suck and rely on an overuse of some gimmick (slow mo in this case). The movie seems to just assume that "people want to see Optimus Prime' but Optimus Prime doesn't really do anything but run around as someone else does interesting things. If this movie were a movie about one man destroying his life by having too much of a good thing, it would probably be pretty entertaining. As it is, the entertaining thing is happening over there while Wonder Woman just sort of exists doing things of questionable morality.
The best summary of that suspect morality I've seen was that it feels like a left over from an earlier draft where the macguffin coorupts your wish, so she gets him back but not really.
When the version of the macguffin we got just gives you what you want but takes something else instead, not only is it morally suspect it makes no sense and offers no good explanation.
Azreal13 wrote: The best summary of that suspect morality I've seen was that it feels like a left over from an earlier draft where the macguffin coorupts your wish, so she gets him back but not really.
When the version of the macguffin we got just gives you what you want but takes something else instead, not only is it morally suspect it makes no sense and offers no good explanation.
Yeah. On a whim I went to see if there was Pitch Meeting video for this movie, and I enjoyed this 8:00 video (full of spoilers) a thousand times more than the movie, have added the movie to my list of superhero movies with disturbingly fethed up moral 'lessons'* and feel that I was too generous in watching as much of the movie as I did XD
*If the movie actually ends as described, all I can say is wow. I thought The Incredible 1 & 2 managed to have incredibly fethed up lessons if you sat and thought about them, but this movie is easily 10x worse, especially because I can't figure how they connect the "nothing good comes of lies" bit at the beginning of the film to "how dare you want more than you have accept the truth that your life sucks and be happy with it" cause that's just... wow... Was this movie trying and failing to make some kind of contemporary political commentary via the naked capitalist idealism of the 80s? Cause it didn't even come close to sticking the landing. Actually, from what I saw of the film (about half) it never even managed to make the jump.
I think trying to distill a message out of this movie is like trying to take your cream and sugar back out of your coffee.
There's undoubtedly something being said, but it's so hopelessly muddled, perhaps because of that whole overlapping drafts issue, I think it's pointless trying to dwell too long on what.
The message is effectively, 'A Beautiful Lie is still a lie, that will ultimately harm you and everyone you care for.' Highlighted by using Zimmers piece of music called... A Beautiful Lie.
Ultimately you need to acknowledge, accept and work through the pain, harm and loss to find Truth and grow as a person.
Ultimately, it's a classic Wonder Woman theme, where the final confrontation was just classic Wonder Woman, with strong allusions to Gail Simones run.
Spoiler:
I'm definitely looking forward to upcoming films, there's lots still to be explored, like perhaps Maxwell Lords son becoming THE Maxwell Lord we know from the comics, EG founding Checkmate, gaining a lesser versions of Max's powers and, perhaps, it's him forcing Wondie to kill him that makes her so reclusive and reluctant in reluctant by BvS.
And, I can see so much potential for Barbara too, with her ultimately resenting her loss of power as the Cheetah, causing her to go on a quest and ultimately encounter Urzkartaga and becoming The Cheetah once more.
In saying all that, the film certainly wasn't perfect, nor better than the first (or even Wonder Woman Bloodlines). It definitely DID run overlong, and a lot of Max Lords rise to power could have just been handled by a montage sequence of him shaking hands, rather than the whole Presidential subplot.
They could also have been WAY clearly about the state of the world at the end and how much had been reset buttoned.
Compel wrote: The message is effectively, 'A Beautiful Lie is still a lie, that will ultimately harm you and everyone you care for.' Highlighted by using Zimmers piece of music called... A Beautiful Lie.
Ultimately you need to acknowledge, accept and work through the pain, harm and loss to find Truth and grow as a person.
I wonder how many people wished for someone they love not to be injured, dying, lost, abused, etc.
Gosh, what lies they told. Sorry kids, Wonder Woman says you've got to go lock yourselves back in the basement, because not being there is a lie. Ok, moms and dads, wish little Timmy's cancer back.
This whole film has disgustingly little thought put into it, beyond a 'cheetah's never prosper' meme.
I'm not entirely convinced that an artifact from the 'Duke of Deception' would be capable of a truly altruistic wish like that (There's suggestions of it exerting a similar influence ala 'The One Ring'). They make direct mentions of the wish being a monkeys paw. - It's a case of 'cure from cancer, oh look, Little Timmy's just been run over.'
Plus, there's the whole escalation at the end of, 'the whole world is about to be destroyed in nuclear fire'.
However, admittedly, this is part of the various things that could have been done better in the film as a result of a tighter editing and reviewing process.
Compel wrote: I'm not entirely convinced that an artifact from the 'Duke of Deception' would be capable of a truly altruistic wish like that. They make direct mentions of the wish being a monkeys paw. - It's a case of 'cure from cancer, oh look, Little Timmy's just been run over.'
Plus, there's the whole escalation at the end of, 'the whole world is about to be destroyed in nuclear fire'.
Eh. It runs square into the human nature problem. Statistically, someone is going to roll the dice on that last one, if not multiple someones if the wishes are big enough.
As to the former, as 'Duke of Deception,' I doubt all the 'prices' are going to be that blatant. And again, human nature. Some are going to be willing to accept the cost (in both positive and negative ways). We live in a world where abusive and even murderous parents are a thing. Someone's going to simply shrug if Little Timmy is their price. Others aren't going to care what happens to them if Little Timmy gets to walk again.
The idea that she can just talk everyone into recanting their wishes is absurd. I'm cynical enough to wonder if even a majority would, especially given the less connected nature of the 80s, where plenty of people wouldn't know or believe about the nukes.
However, admittedly, this is part of the various things that could have been done better in the film as a result of a tighter editing and reviewing process.
Truthfully, what would have been better is just not having this plot. Its really terrible and fails at the first pass.
And that doesn't even touch all the unfortunate implications with Steve.
Easy E wrote: So, how does the poor reception of this movie impact the following:
1. Careers of the actors/leads?
2. Career of the director?
Potentially not much, since they're already gone with a sequel.
It also depends on how they evaluate the earnings with the current situation- 'grade on a curve,' basically. I think the number of views will translate into someone's head as 'there is money here' and it won't have a negative impact.
3. The DC Universe of movies and how they evolve or continue?
Continue to flail randomly in different directions.
The main thing is that Marvel has a formula thats creaking at the edges a bit, but consistently produces average to good movies (that bring in good money).
DC puts out random stuff (recently: generic ensemble, psychological character piece, kids supers, and now however you'd categorize this) and there seems to be no knowing if they're going to be decent or flops. This seems to have garnered enough attention in the current state of things (if not direct ticket sales) that it probably won't change anything.
If we're really lucky, it might cause some re-evaluation of the 'blockbuster formula' and they'll fall back on tighter scripts and focus less on millions of dollars in snooze-fest 'spectacles.' But I'm not going to hold my breath on that.
Easy E wrote: So, how does the poor reception of this movie impact the following:
1. Careers of the actors/leads?
2. Career of the director?
3. The DC Universe of movies and how they evolve or continue?
Thought and wild speculation please....
Personally the performances of the core trio are some of the more positive aspects. I will watch a third one, but I will go to the absolute least effort or cost to do so in the light of this one.
I can't see this affecting the DCEU because it's insulated by time from the events of most other movies, and the director has another one and a SW movie to do, so while she might not be doing "worthy" projects, she's certainly doing high profile and lucrative ones.
Justice League was so bad I'm still trying to get a refund for it and I pirated it.
It didn't have enough sparkle and too many of the heroes were useless or had overlapping not complimentary skills.
WW was great, but it didn't do anything we hadn't seen before and definitely didn't do any of those things well, but it had an OK story, the main character had a good arc, the premise wasnt too bad, it looked great. There were a bunch of problems but lets just eat popcorn and enjoy the movie.
WW84 has me looking for that refund again. It didn't deliver on anything and directly contradicted established canon. And a WWI pilot flying a jet? Naaaah.
It reminds me of the scene in the Avengers where Steve is looking at the control bank for the helicarrier engine, and simply says 'It... runs on electricity?'
This movie does the opposite of that.
Its an 'out of context' problem. Working with older technology is possible. Working with future technology that doesn't tell you what to do is like staring at a blank wall.
Plus the Smithsonian Air & Space museum downtown doesn't keep fueled fighter jets on hand. Or have anywhere one could take off.
The Udvar-Hazy Air & Space annex center next to Dulles airport doesn't open until 2003 (and still doesn't keep fueled and maintained aircraft around)
And an 80s jetfighter would run out fuel somewhere in the Atlantic.
Like most of the 'Steve' problems in this film, the script creates the problem. Everyone else sees the possessed host. That guy could reasonably have a passport, and it doesn't strain any suspension of disbelief if he does. Just get on a flight to Egypt.
Or.. just don't chase Max to Egypt for no reason. Especially not just to pass him on the road rather than track him down. Have your little action-bash'em in Washington or on Satellite Island or on the way from one to the other.
I think I'm right in saying that the sequence on the road in Egypt is the first time Diana does anything like proper Wonder Womaning in the movie (if you discount the James Bond style near pre-credits sequence in the mall) and it's almost an hour into the film.
Azreal13 wrote: I think I'm right in saying that the sequence on the road in Egypt is the first time Diana does anything like proper Wonder Womaning in the movie (if you discount the James Bond style near pre-credits sequence in the mall) and it's almost an hour into the film.
Little more, actually- more like an hour twenty.
And the childhood prequel sequence is almost 18 minutes.
Apparently Warner Brothers wanted Jenkins to chop either the childhood bit or the mall bit, but she refused. Sadly, its one of the times where WB interference was right on the money. The movie would have been better.
Now we're getting a post hoc justification that the whole Steve sub plot was a commentary on the dubious moral nature of the body swap genre, and renouncing the wish in the end means the consequences are largely erased and therefore within the movie's reality it never happened and is therefore ok.
I mean... yeah, body swaps are generally morally dubious. This body swap is morally dubious. I'm glad they reached the point thanks to some random twitter post, but I'm not sure how that makes it OK?
It doesn't even vaguely address _any_ of the consent issues, either with sex or putting 'the random guy' in a great deal of danger. 'The swap is morally dubious' isn't a problematic statement (though the film really doesn't actually take much time to say that), their actions toward their victim is the problem. Having the director say 'I get that its problematic, that was the goal all along' doesn't make it less problematic. The heroic thing for WW to do is to revoke her wish the moment she realizes what's happened, not indulge in it for a bit and then pretend that revoking it later erases her selfish decisions.
Voss wrote: Plus the Smithsonian Air & Space museum downtown doesn't keep fueled fighter jets on hand. Or have anywhere one could take off.
The Udvar-Hazy Air & Space annex center next to Dulles airport doesn't open until 2003 (and still doesn't keep fueled and maintained aircraft around)
That doesn't even top the stupid of this scene (which is where I quit the second time).
Doesn't WW work for the Smithsonian and wasn't that her using her credentials to get into the facility? This idea is so hair brained. She's freaking fired and charged (and this is like, easily the third completely unnecessary crime she commits in this movie). It's baby detective work to look at who came and went from the building and note who never actually left after entering.
And that's still not the dumbest part. The absolute dumbest part is that neither WW nor Steve the Body Stealer ever bothered to go back and check if the guy Steve is inhabiting has a passport. You mentioned that, but it's so stupid it deserves condemnation twice.
Spoiler:
Maybe this is a bit more spicy of an opinion, but I'm curious. How are people feeling about the 'stranger in the park' drunkard who gets brutally slammed to the ground, seemingly solely so that WW can save Barb and make Barb want to be like her because... WW jumps straight to a brutal display of violence for a guy who was drunk and grabby, but didn't seem to actually be out to hurt Barbara. This scene particularly baffles me, first because it plays to a sexist (to men and women) myth that sex assault is predominantly committed by strangers accosting strangers. The film makers seem to realize that they're playing into a myth in the scene so they dial it back and the guy isn't a rapist, he's just a drunk jackass. Except that just makes the scene even more bizarre, because at that point WW slamming him into the ground feels like a massive case of excessive force and it happens solely so that Barbara can play into an equally sexist stereotype of the 'bland girl' who feels inadequate because she's not someone much prettier and stronger than she is.
Is the lesson here that any level of violence is heroic so long as the person it's directed against is even remotely unlikable? WW hit the robbers who were threatening to throw a kid off a ledge less brutally than she hit this guy... Which actually just makes me take note of how many little girls WW saves from inadvertently killing themselves in this movie...
I say nothing of my continuing complaint that Hollywood takes beautiful women, dresses them frumpy, and then honestly wants me to believe this person is 'ugly' solely because the plot insists, but in a movie that wants to brag about its feminist credentials, this entire plot point is especially jarring.
Having the director say 'I get that its problematic, that was the goal all along' doesn't make it less problematic.
It's also a self-serving BS defense, because on the face of it I see no point in this film where the issue of Steve is in another dude's body is even remotely addressed as anything but a quirky circumstance. Neither character lingers for even a second on the question of whether or not this guy is okay, if he's aware of what's happening, or ever ponders the morality of letting Steve stay in his body. In fact,
Spoiler:
from what I understand WW only returns the body to its proper owner because she's losing her powers. This random guy's well being and personhood plays no role whatsoever in the decision.
This is like retroactively calling Kill Bill a movie about how it's wrong to go to a wedding with guns. Like, that's something that happened and it is wrong, but that's clearly not even remotely close to what the movie is about and no one in the movie ever comments on that part.
Part of this is how completely muddled and impossible the plot's point is. Is it that living a lie is bad, or that some things, even nice things, aren't worth the price you pay for them? Either one of those themes could work in the movie but the movie would have to actually pick one and stick with it rather than meander about searching for a point (and a plot to make it with).
There's also something to be said for how baffling the whole 'in another body thing is.' The dream stone can conjure, walls, nukes, and paparazzi from thin air. Why exactly does it need some random dude to manifest Steve? It can conjure farm animals but not a body?
The Screen Rant Pitch Meeting mentions a couple of things that are worth considering, like how someone who had a terminal illness and wished to be cured would renounce their wish or a couple of other altruistic wishes which now mean those people renouncing their wish are worse off.
IMHO, and I know I'm going to get branded a toxic fanboy, the overall low quality of the story is going to be the downfall of WW84, just like Ghostbusters 2016. It is a bad movie and would suck no matter who was in it. (IMHO just like JL). I know the post Covid movie world is different but WW84 was never going to be a $ Billion movie. I may be wrong but it just doesn't seem as polished as other super movies. None of the interesting aspects of WW84 were explored. The morality of using others for personal fulfillment, the role of supers and mortals, the morality of a mortal and an immortal vs "no shortcuts".
Kayback wrote: The Screen Rant Pitch Meeting mentions a couple of things that are worth considering, like how someone who had a terminal illness and wished to be cured would renounce their wish or a couple of other altruistic wishes which now mean those people renouncing their wish are worse off.
These are good points, but I feel like no one is talking about the most absurd thing in the end sequence (which I've hunted down just to see how it plays out).
Spoiler:
The generic movie terrorist renouncing his wish for a nuclear weapon. lolwut? Why? This isn't a guy who probably plans to be alive for very long what gaks does he give about whatever consequences are inflicted on him for this wish? He's not giving that up. Someone who sits there wishing for a nuke, and with the power to wish for anything, isn't someone who is thinking through consequences.
Like it's amusing to point out how someone who wished for their child to be cured of cancer probably wouldn't renounce their wish cause there's gonna be someone who made that wish and is probably willing to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to save their kid. Really this movie's plot gets even more hairbrained when we consider how every wish made is absurd or wholly selfish. If you're granting wishes to the whole world, someone is wishing for an end to world hunger. Probably some beatnic at Berkley or something. It's stupid how the movie seems to think all of humanity is just a bunch of selfish donkey-caves incapable of altruistic action, unless your WW or Steve I guess, but then it's honestly gonna tell me a guy wishing for a nuke is going to have a retrospective and think maybe he shouldn't have a nuke unless he earns it fair and square?
Now I want to see the How It Should Have Ended, that's gonna be funny!
Apparently there were an immense amount of behind the scenes shenanigans over the last few years. There were studio/production issues, many many rewrites and reshoots, some of which were long after initial completion. I get the impression this could be an instance where a documentary on the making of the film could be more interesting than the actual film itself.
On this one or the first? Jenkins has been opening up to media about the stuff that went on leading into the first film, and that was when the studio was at its most meddlesome. I think she had pretty much full creative control on WW84, so if you don't like it...you can probably lay it right at her feet.
Hamada -- the guy now in charge of DC films -- has been more of a traditional WB 'let the creators create' executive AFAIK. Aquaman, Shazam, Joker, Birds of Prey, The Batman, etc...directors just doing their thing without Feige-style central control.
Definitely from this one as well. Apparently a lot of what happened was due to negative test screenings over the summer of 2019 and a lot of reworking done since. There's also a lot of stuff rumored to be intended as lead ins for other DC properties (the trip to Egypt, for example is rumored to have teased Black Adam) that mostly got cut out. I've also heard that the body swap guy was supposed to be "somebody".
What I haven't heard is the story that this was a great movie "ruined" by executive meddling. It seems more like it just didn't work to begin with coupled with the ever shifting state of the DCEU that left some ugly patchwork seems while trying to fix it.
LunarSol wrote: Definitely from this one as well. Apparently a lot of what happened was due to negative test screenings over the summer of 2019 and a lot of reworking done since. There's also a lot of stuff rumored to be intended as lead ins for other DC properties (the trip to Egypt, for example is rumored to have teased Black Adam) that mostly got cut out. I've also heard that the body swap guy was supposed to be "somebody".
What I haven't heard is the story that this was a great movie "ruined" by executive meddling. It seems more like it just didn't work to begin with coupled with the ever shifting state of the DCEU that left some ugly patchwork seems while trying to fix it.
Right. Executive involvement is an independent variable from a film having a troubled production. There are certainly films where the studio should have gotten more involved.
Peter Jackson's King Kong, I'm looking at you. There was a really good movie in there, Peter...cut the fething film!
At any rate, she's been talking about how she had creative control on this one. So unless she's lying...she just didn't bring it home. There's a rumormonger out there saying that Jenkins booted all of Snyder's people -- writer, FX folks, etc -- from this one and it bit her. Said rumormonger is wrong as often as right however and is a big Snyder booster. So I suspect that there's some spin going on with that scoop.
It looks like it could have used more control. Some parts should have been cut out with an axe or never committed to film.
As others have pointed out, she also wrote/co-wrote this script, and didn't for WW. She might just be a good director with terrible story ideas.
And wont to force her actors to deliver wretched, unending platitudes that don't match what's going on.
Voss wrote: It looks like it could have used more control. Some parts should have been cut out with an axe or never committed to film.
Finding the right balance of creator freedom and franchise control seems to be a consistent theme of late.
The MCU has it right I think, at least insofar as they can keep churning out consistently films that meet a certain quality threshold.
Fox never seemed to know what to do with X-Men or Fantastic Four except get sold to Disney. Sony stumbled about with Spiderman after the Toby trilogy the modern age of comic book movie adaptations. Star Trek and Star Wars have been so incredibly hit and miss the past decade, with 'so okay it's average' entries, pretty good entries, and awful entries. the DCU though I think is easily the biggest disaster of the bunch since Fox's constant not knowing what to do next. They've put out in my book, two so okay it's average movies (Man of Steel and Wonder Woman), one really good movie (god how fun was Shazam! right?) and everything else has been an awful movie that seems to run on nothing but nostalgia and hope and at best looked good just because Batman v Superman and Justice League were so terrible. And they've got this huge roster of movies announced but seemingly no real idea what they're trying to do with any of them.
At least the animated films keep being pretty good XD
Suppose we'll see how Snyder's Justice League super cut does. My bet is the internet response will be way more entertaining than the product though XD
I just saw the Pitch Meeting parody and yeah, it sounds just awful.
I mean the best I could say for WW WWI was it was a good start. This just sounds like a plethora of bad ideas. Certainly not something I want to pay money for.
Easy E wrote: I am the minority in that I LIKED Birds of Prey.
The rest of the DCEU..... not so much. WWI was a great start though.
I think that's the intended DCEU experience. Something for everyone across the overall portfolio. I mean, they'd prefer that you like everything. But between say Joker, Shazam, and Aquaman...three very different films...there's probably something there for many people. The MCU experiments, but there's guardrails and central control. They're selling a universe, so those who like that formula are in all the way.
Of course, it's unfortunate for WB when one of their big franchises has a misstep. It won't have the inertia of the MCU to pull it along. Still, WW84 would probably be making solid bank in normal times, regardless of reviews.
The more I think about it the more I think that WW84 is the worst movie I've actually sat all the way through. It's Game of Thrones S8 stupid, but somehow even worse. It's offensively stupid. It's pre-K story quality.
trexmeyer wrote: The more I think about it the more I think that WW84 is the worst movie I've actually sat all the way through. It's Game of Thrones S8 stupid, but somehow even worse. It's offensively stupid. It's pre-K story quality.
Did you sit all the way through The Predator? Because that is BY FAR the worst movie I have ever seen.
I mean...I've seen probably 100 movies worse than WW84. Did no one else rent movies? Video stores had whole sections of horror and scifi films with bad writing, worse acting, and effects that were several levels worse than 'special'.
I watched WW84 a second time with my brother the other day.
This is what I realized.
The entire movie, from the opening olympics nonsense scene all the way to the post credits, is entirely made up of a set up scene and a scene later in the movie to pay off on that set up.
Often the set up scene is WAY too long and often the pay off scene is meant to have some big impact because of the set up except there is no impact because it's just pay off after pay off with no real connecting tissues (or at the very least the most dragged out and flimsiest connecting tissues possible).
The olympics is just so diana can remember to take no short cuts later. The Max loves his kid is just so he can yell about having his kid later. The oil baron stuff is just so max can go get oil later.
Now these kinds of set up and pay out scenes are in lots of movies right? It's not even a bad thing to have them. But this movie is NOTHING but that. It's 100% built at every moment to lay a foundation for some scene later to pay off. The beginning 1/3rd of the movie drags on so long because it's NOTHING but set ups. And the last 3 is just pay off after pay off after pay off meaninglessly stacked end on end. And in the middle it's a mad mix of set ups and pay offs.
trexmeyer wrote: The more I think about it the more I think that WW84 is the worst movie I've actually sat all the way through. It's Game of Thrones S8 stupid, but somehow even worse. It's offensively stupid. It's pre-K story quality.
Did you sit all the way through The Predator? Because that is BY FAR the worst movie I have ever seen.
Oh, yeah, see...I'm not crazy enough to watch movies I know will be terrible and the Aliens/Terminator/Predator sequels fall into that category. I haven't seen the last 2 Alien Movies, any Terminator other than the first two, and only Predator 1/2 and Predators (sadly). The worst things I've seen recently would be various DC films.
gorgon wrote: I mean...I've seen probably 100 movies worse than WW84. Did no one else rent movies? Video stores had whole sections of horror and scifi films with bad writing, worse acting, and effects that were several levels worse than 'special'.
Indeedy, as a veteran of the VHS era I've watched some stinkers, often purposefully due to the nerdsphere rule of renting the worst film if all the good movies were out, but those didn't have the budget, brand or talent attached, so in the immortal words of William Hurt, how do you fup that up ?
I offer for evidence: SWAT, starring Sam Jackson and Colin Farrell at a time when that meant something.
I left the cinema actually angry that I'd wasted time, money and effort on that piece of gak movie.
But because it was a nothing film with nothing characters (as opposed to something high profile or a literary adaptation which tends to be more enduring) I'd completely forgotten it existed until channel surfing late a few nights back. Which is the only reason I think to suggest it now.
The trouble with bad franchise movies featuring popular characters is they don't have the luxury of fading into obscurity the same way all the other terrible blockbusters do.
Easy E wrote: I am the minority in that I LIKED Birds of Prey.
The rest of the DCEU..... not so much. WWI was a great start though.
I think that's the intended DCEU experience. Something for everyone across the overall portfolio. I mean, they'd prefer that you like everything. But between say Joker, Shazam, and Aquaman...three very different films...there's probably something there for many people. The MCU experiments, but there's guardrails and central control. They're selling a universe, so those who like that formula are in all the way.
Of course, it's unfortunate for WB when one of their big franchises has a misstep. It won't have the inertia of the MCU to pull it along. Still, WW84 would probably be making solid bank in normal times, regardless of reviews.
I watched Shazam! last night. It’s......entirely mediocre. Like a Spider-Man Homecoming by the numbers, with all charm sucked out of it.
In the end WW1984 will be excused because of covid, maybe even praised for trying to make a movie during the pandemic, and the people who hate it will be labeled misogynistic incels by the media.
I'm not all that convinced of patty jenkins as a director if i'm being honest. Has me worried about that rogue squadron film. But then again I generally dislike almost all marvel/dc films. I initially did like the first WW movie but upon rewatch last year I began to wonder what I even liked about it in the first place.
Matt Swain wrote: In the end WW1984 will be excused because of covid, maybe even praised for trying to make a movie during the pandemic, and the people who hate it will be labeled misogynistic incels by the media.
You're stretching. The media reviews I've seen for this movie have been pretty consistently negative, and put the blame for that squarely on the director.
Matt Swain wrote: In the end WW1984 will be excused because of covid, maybe even praised for trying to make a movie during the pandemic, and the people who hate it will be labeled misogynistic incels by the media.
A quick check shows principal photography wrapping before Christmas 2018 and supplementary shooting being finished in 2019. So, no, nothing that's fundamentally wrong with this film can be blamed on Covid without a degree of mental contortionism.
Discussion of a sequel began shortly after the release of the first film in June 2017 and the decision to proceed was confirmed the following month. Principal photography began on June 13, 2018, with filming taking place at Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden in England, as well as the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia in the United States, London and Duxford in England, Tenerife and Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands, and Almería in Andalusia, Spain. Production wrapped on December 22, 2018, after a six-month shoot, with additional filming in July 2019.
Thargrim wrote: I'm not all that convinced of patty jenkins as a director if i'm being honest. Has me worried about that rogue squadron film. But then again I generally dislike almost all marvel/dc films. I initially did like the first WW movie but upon rewatch last year I began to wonder what I even liked about it in the first place.
The middle bit is pretty decent superhero fare, if a bit cliched. The CGI end is the usual naff muddle, and the beginning is another plodding origin story, but there is a brief bit where they're actually convincing as people, which really stands out for DC films.
Matt Swain wrote: In the end WW1984 will be excused because of covid, maybe even praised for trying to make a movie during the pandemic, and the people who hate it will be labeled misogynistic incels by the media.
A quick check shows principal photography wrapping before Christmas 2018 and supplementary shooting being finished in 2019. So, no, nothing that's fundamentally wrong with this film can be blamed on Covid without a degree of mental contortionism.
Discussion of a sequel began shortly after the release of the first film in June 2017 and the decision to proceed was confirmed the following month. Principal photography began on June 13, 2018, with filming taking place at Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden in England, as well as the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia in the United States, London and Duxford in England, Tenerife and Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands, and Almería in Andalusia, Spain. Production wrapped on December 22, 2018, after a six-month shoot, with additional filming in July 2019.
There you go again, being reasonable, citing facts, etc. That's not how some people work. Covid will get the blame for the bad editing and poor CGI, the director will claim her original vision was better and eventually someone will be accused of attacking her because she's a woman. Maybe a 'director's cut' will be done with improved cgi and some deleted scenes added that will be at least a little better.
WW1984 was originally announced for release on Dec. 13, 2019. Then it was moved up to Nov. 1, 2019. Then it was pushed back to June 5, 2020 (with producer Charles Roven explaining the film had a rushed pre and post-production and could use the extra time).
Literally the only reason it got caught up in the pandemic at all was to give it more time in post production. It was feasible it could have been released a full year before it eventually did, and ironically putting Jenkins in more of a time crunch may have resulted in a better movie.
-Please leave the politics out of it at this time, thanks!
The only people not ripping on WW84 are hardcore DC/WW fans. The reactions to the movie are overwhelmingly negative. Gal Gadot doing that Imagine crap earlier in the year didn't help.
trexmeyer wrote: The only people not ripping on WW84 are hardcore DC/WW fans. The reactions to the movie are overwhelmingly negative. Gal Gadot doing that Imagine crap earlier in the year didn't help.
And honestly, at this point I'm not sure their opinions are worth much when it comes to DC movies. The amount of praise Justice League got from some corners was baffling. If you like it like it. I won't begrudge you. But don't sit there and tell me this was anyone's idea of a good movie XD
I don't think Patty Jenkins is a bad director. But my understanding is she had some measure of input with the writing on this one. And I think thats the downfall. PJ can direct a movie. But she probably needs to stay the feth out of the writing room.
It might be another situation like with Peter Jackson or George Lucas where their success earns them a degree of freedom that's actually detrimental to their creativity.
Yeah, like how the director's cut on blade runner was actually worse without decakrd's dialog voiceover. I know that Scott bxxxxed and moaned about being forced to add the voice over from deckard. Well, guess what, riddy? It worked in a lot of classic film noir movies and bladerunner was film noir.
I had to buy that movie on dvd like twice to get the theatrical version because scott insisted on his director's cut.
Lance845 wrote: I don't think Patty Jenkins is a bad director. But my understanding is she had some measure of input with the writing on this one. And I think thats the downfall. PJ can direct a movie. But she probably needs to stay the feth out of the writing room.
I think this has been increasingly true of many directors. Turns out people who know how to set up the camera, the actors, and the sets, and make compelling images from them... Are very good at those things. Which actually makes sense with how spectacle focused many modern movies are. Maybe it's not that they lack creativity, but that the creativity they do have is focused in such a way that it makes something that looks pretty but often falls apart in context.
Even then though, 1984 is just bad. I found none of the scenes compelling in any way. They were generic and that's all I can really say about them. The action scenes were terrible, with lazy use of slomo that did nothing for the scene and angles/set ups that seemed to want to hide the fight rather than show it.
Anime might spoil me actually. Lots of anime has lazy fight scenes and animation, but the ones that really put work into the action can use angles and a flow that is impractical/impossible with live action. Fights like Kakashi and Tobi at the end of Naruto, or Barbatos and Hasmal in Gundam do some things that are thrilling, but that you could never do with an actual person and set. Maybe I'm being unfair in my expectations?
Oh no. The actors were serviceable in this film. Maybe they were even good. This film just offers nothing worth appreciating them with. It sucks to much. The plot's holes and contrivances are too distracting.
You guys are making me so curious to actually watch this film. Not even Suicide Squad or Justice League caught this much flak on this board. My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Azreal13 wrote: The issue I think is that it isn't so much bad as militantly mediocre, which is worse.
I would agree.
There's a reason we have the phrase 'so bad it's good.' Sometimes, being awful is actually in ones favor and makes a movie more enjoyable than one that just... sucks.
creeping-deth87 wrote: My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Apparently Canada got a bad deal as here, and seemingly other places, it is just part of HBO Max which is $15 for a month and includes all their other movies/shows. A free trial might even still exist. The only film I have heard of costing that much to rent was the awful Mulan live action Disney film on Disney+.
I do believe it leaves HBO Max at the end of the month but haven't seen anything to say it would be an overpriced rental at that point.
gorgon wrote: I mean...I've seen probably 100 movies worse than WW84. Did no one else rent movies? Video stores had whole sections of horror and scifi films with bad writing, worse acting, and effects that were several levels worse than 'special'.
Well, yes, but if one paid movie theater prices for them one would be vastly more disappointed than if one paid rental prices, or better yet caught it on Netflix or the like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt Swain wrote: In the end WW1984 will be excused because of covid, maybe even praised for trying to make a movie during the pandemic, and the people who hate it will be labeled misogynistic incels by the media.
I wish I could argue with this, but...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: People can think what they like, but mistaking opinions for facts is basically Trumpism and cannot stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
Ah... you are aware Trumpism carried enough hearts and minds to put him into the Oval Office, and came reasonably close to keeping him in for a second term, yes?
There's a lot of people out there for whom facts mean nothing, only feels matter.
I honestly haven't seen much labeling of 'incel' in the film's criticism. Maybe people are smarter than we think. Maybe the film's cringy 'let's have sex in this random guy's body with no idea how he feels about it' plot completely blunted that criticism. Even the much feared online SJW's aren't jumping to defend the movie with that kind of plot point. Especially since no one has really been insulting Gal Gadot for not smiling enough or something stupid like that.
creeping-deth87 wrote: My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Apparently Canada got a bad deal as here, and seemingly other places, it is just part of HBO Max which is $15 for a month and includes all their other movies/shows. A free trial might even still exist. The only film I have heard of costing that much to rent was the awful Mulan live action Disney film on Disney+.
I do believe it leaves HBO Max at the end of the month but haven't seen anything to say it would be an overpriced rental at that point.
Yeah, no HBO Max up here. We always get a raw deal in Canada when it comes to crap like this. It's infuriating.
creeping-deth87 wrote: You guys are making me so curious to actually watch this film. Not even Suicide Squad or Justice League caught this much flak on this board. My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Suicide Squad, Justice League, BvS, and Birds of Prey all had at least a handful of decent action scenes with JL being the most lackluster.
I'm not trying to kick anything off, all I am saying is if this was Wonder Man who had their WW1 Girlfriend come back from the dead by taking over the body of a random "Beautiful Girl", the discussion about this movie would be rather different.
BaconCatBug wrote: I'm not trying to kick anything off, all I am saying is if this was Wonder Man who had their WW1 Girlfriend come back from the dead by taking over the body of a random "Beautiful Girl", the discussion about this movie would be rather different.
This plot point is already getting a lot of flak. It's also basically the same goal of Imhotep in The Mummy.
BaconCatBug wrote: I'm not trying to kick anything off, all I am saying is if this was Wonder Man who had their WW1 Girlfriend come back from the dead by taking over the body of a random "Beautiful Girl", the discussion about this movie would be rather different.
This plot point is already getting a lot of flak. It's also basically the same goal of Imhotep in The Mummy.
Except the Mummy had Brendar Fraiser in it. And was just plain fun. And actually well put together enough that we didn't feel the need to nitpick every moment. Also Imhotep was the bad guy. Body stealing is bad guy gak.
Actually, thinking of it in this way makes 1984 worse XD Can someone make me a meme fusing WW1984 with that comedy skit where the one comedian asks the other comedian "are we the baddies" and they're both wearing WWII German uniforms?
BaconCatBug wrote: I'm not trying to kick anything off, all I am saying is if this was Wonder Man who had their WW1 Girlfriend come back from the dead by taking over the body of a random "Beautiful Girl", the discussion about this movie would be rather different.
Yeah, you can bet your last dollar on THAT. But white men are expendable and don't matter.
LordofHats wrote: Anime might spoil me actually. Lots of anime has lazy fight scenes and animation, but the ones that really put work into the action can use angles and a flow that is impractical/impossible with live action. Fights like Kakashi and Tobi at the end of Naruto, or Barbatos and Hasmal in Gundam do some things that are thrilling, but that you could never do with an actual person and set. Maybe I'm being unfair in my expectations?
Further evidence that watching anime is bad for you?
creeping-deth87 wrote: You guys are making me so curious to actually watch this film. Not even Suicide Squad or Justice League caught this much flak on this board. My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Suicide Squad, Justice League, BvS, and Birds of Prey all had at least a handful of decent action scenes with JL being the most lackluster.
I heard the fight scenes in Birds of Prey were badly choreographed because the stuntmen took too much time waiting to be punched/kicked by the emancipated heroine cast.
LordofHats wrote: Anime might spoil me actually. Lots of anime has lazy fight scenes and animation, but the ones that really put work into the action can use angles and a flow that is impractical/impossible with live action. Fights like Kakashi and Tobi at the end of Naruto, or Barbatos and Hasmal in Gundam do some things that are thrilling, but that you could never do with an actual person and set. Maybe I'm being unfair in my expectations?
Further evidence that watching anime is bad for you?
The Cowboy Bebop movie's train fight is some of the best fight choreography I've ever seen. As is the fight on the radio tower. Google "cowboy bebop train fight" and "Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, Spike vs. Vincent Full Scene", won't link them here as they can get a little violent.
Bakugo vs Uraraka is also a well done fight that uses the powers of the two combatants in a great way.
Easy E wrote: So, they purposely put the movie in 1984, but does it even utilize or critique any of thing about 1984? The Book? The actual year?
No. There's a small cold war backdrop, ponzi schemes, hyper-optimistic capitalism, and break dancers. Those are 80s things, right? It doesn't really do much with any of them though. The movie's only real connection to the year 1984 is pointing a finger and saying "hey look, it's the 80s!" And it's not even good at that.
Is it essentially, this movie could have been filmed at any time or place?
They honestly could have titled the movie Wonder Woman 1999 and it really wouldn't have changed outside of swapping around WW and Diana's wardrobe from clunky 80s fashion to clunky 90s fashion. Because all fashion eventually looks silly once it's not fashionable anymore *shrug* The only thing this movie maybe succeeds at is capturing the pre-9/11 American optimism and confidence, but I'm not sure how tangible that really is as a concept?
I said pages back that the movie felt like it was made by a bunch of 90s kids or something, who wanted to cash in on the 'weren't the 80s an amazing time to be alive' theme that's been very vogue for the past few years for movies. Problem is, no one making this movie seems to have any appreciation, interest, or even more than rudimentary knowledge, of the 80s. In this way, the setting of the film actually feels really superficial and fake. It's got that air of someone trying to replicate something while having no real idea what that something is.
The best thing about the movie was The Blue Monday remix.
Concering BoP: The jail break in and subsequent fight in the evidence room was more enjoyable to watch than any part of WW84. The big fight at the end was where the choreography was sketchy.
Easy E wrote: So, they purposely put the movie in 1984, but does it even utilize or critique any of thing about 1984? The Book? The actual year?
No. There's a small cold war backdrop, ponzi schemes, hyper-optimistic capitalism, and break dancers. Those are 80s things, right? It doesn't really do much with any of them though. The movie's only real connection to the year 1984 is pointing a finger and saying "hey look, it's the 80s!" And it's not even good at that.
Is it essentially, this movie could have been filmed at any time or place?
They honestly could have titled the movie Wonder Woman 1999 and it really wouldn't have changed outside of swapping around WW and Diana's wardrobe from clunky 80s fashion to clunky 90s fashion. Because all fashion eventually looks silly once it's not fashionable anymore *shrug* The only thing this movie maybe succeeds at is capturing the pre-9/11 American optimism and confidence, but I'm not sure how tangible that really is as a concept?
I said pages back that the movie felt like it was made by a bunch of 90s kids or something, who wanted to cash in on the 'weren't the 80s an amazing time to be alive' theme that's been very vogue for the past few years for movies. Problem is, no one making this movie seems to have any appreciation, interest, or even more than rudimentary knowledge, of the 80s. In this way, the setting of the film actually feels really superficial and fake. It's got that air of someone trying to replicate something while having no real idea what that something is.
I wholeheartedly agree that WW84 really flubbed capturing the 80's theme.
What they really needed was the same folks who made the 80's nostalgia sing in Netflix's Stranger Things'.
But, that's just window dressing... the plot was an absolute mess.
BaconCatBug wrote: I'm not trying to kick anything off, all I am saying is if this was Wonder Man who had their WW1 Girlfriend come back from the dead by taking over the body of a random "Beautiful Girl", the discussion about this movie would be rather different.
Yeah, you can bet your last dollar on THAT. But white men are expendable and don't matter.
Yeah, if you read the sonya blue novel "Paint it black" you'll see that writ large. I won't describe what happens to a WM in it, but it makes what happened in WW84 look pretty mild.
I liked the novel and i liked the sonya blue character, but still if the gender roles in that novel had been reversed there would have been a gak hurricane over it.
Azreal13 wrote: I suspect the various comments attempting to manufacture outrage about theoretical other manufactured outrage.
I mean, I wasn't gonna say anything but it's good to know I'm not the only one who noticed XD
You weren't. I've seen a thread on a different forum that had the same thing--
"If the genders had been reversed, everyone would be criticising the movie for it!"
"They ARE criticising the movie for it."
"Yeah, but they'd be....criticising it a bit harder or something!"
There's a subtle difference between graphically depicting violence towards women (especially in ways that happen in reality, rather than movies. This is also true of minority groups, fyi), and a villainous character casually killing people.
I think maybe the real issue is that insinuating that people would be angrier if the male character had been female does nothing to actually contribute to the discussion people are having and one could say that the sole point of dredging it up is the flame bait the thread and send it spiraling off topic.
I'm actually quite pleased that plenty of people have actually apparently spotted that some posters were, wittingly or otherwise, casually tossing landmines into the thread and have chosen not to indulge it.
Eh, I *do* think there would have been a bigger outcry if the roles were reversed and if the director had been a man. However it is unfair to say there isn't any reaction to it. Personally I'd have appreciated seeing it addressed in the movie, it could have made an interesting plot point and it could have driven some of the core movie.
creeping-deth87 wrote: My morbid curiosity is super high, just not high enough to blow $30 to rent it!
Apparently Canada got a bad deal as here, and seemingly other places, it is just part of HBO Max which is $15 for a month and includes all their other movies/shows. A free trial might even still exist. The only film I have heard of costing that much to rent was the awful Mulan live action Disney film on Disney+.
I do believe it leaves HBO Max at the end of the month but haven't seen anything to say it would be an overpriced rental at that point.
30 bucks seems like a lot but I watched it trick is I did it with my family, we even had my sister over (she's in our bubble no tsking people) so it wasn't that bad as it was basicly "instead of the movie theatres" 30 bucks spread among 4 people is 7.50 a pop? I WISH movie tickets where that good. (and my couch is infantely more comfortable then a theatre seat)
Azreal13 wrote: If there's one thing the film doesn't need it's more plot points, regardless of how interesting or worthy they may be.
I've seen that issue addressed in multiple places by people that would typically excuse a female director. The idea that it's being ignored is absurd. Maybe it would be slightly bigger if it was a male director and male lead is accurate, but it's far from being ignored. The reaction to WW84 is such that people I know who haven't seen it are mentioning that they heard it was bad.
Right now the like rating for WW84 per Google is lower than The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker and TROS wasn't well received by critics.
For Google Users:
Birds of Prey: 81%
Justice League: 80% (what?!)
BVS: 75%
Suicide Squad: 81% (also what?!)
Wonder Woman (2017): 87%
Wonder Woman 1984: 67%
I think people are ignoring claims about WW84 being liked or tolerated because they're simply false. It's 1 of 2 films under 80% on Google Users and also the lowest one by a wide margin.
Azreal13 wrote: If there's one thing the film doesn't need it's more plot points, regardless of how interesting or worthy they may be.
No true, I didn't mean in addition to I meant in place of.
The whole "Wonder Woman losing her powers because of a man +regaining them and being able to soar once a man stopped holding her back" subtle thread could have been replaced with the moral dilemma of immortal vs mortal morals and the wrongness of using people for your own pleasure and even addressing the social issue of preferred (pro) nouns. The original guy could have started breaking through and she could have seen what her wish was doing to *other people* as opposed to just herself. Handled right it could have been more fitting to this.... Period drama? Than the poor excuse for an action movie it was. And not disrupted continuity by breaking canon as it did.
As a movie I'd give it like a 3/5. As a Wonder it gets like a 3/10. As part of a DCEU it get a 3/2.
Azreal13 wrote: If there's one thing the film doesn't need it's more plot points, regardless of how interesting or worthy they may be.
No true, I didn't mean in addition to I meant in place of.
The whole "Wonder Woman losing her powers because of a man +regaining them and being able to soar once a man stopped holding her back" subtle thread could have been replaced with the moral dilemma of immortal vs mortal morals and the wrongness of using people for your own pleasure and even addressing the social issue of preferred (pro) nouns. The original guy could have started breaking through and she could have seen what her wish was doing to *other people* as opposed to just herself. Handled right it could have been more fitting to this.... Period drama? Than the poor excuse for an action movie it was. And not disrupted continuity by breaking canon as it did.
As a movie I'd give it like a 3/5. As a Wonder it gets like a 3/10. As part of a DCEU it get a 3/2.
Edited for way too many typos.
I think you are giving this movie WAY too much credit for having "themes". There is only one, maybe 2 themes. 1) there are no short cuts. 2) Be careful what you wish for. Everything else in this movie is a set up in service to those 2 messages. Steve trevor needs to come back from a wish both so WW can suffer the monkey's paw curse and have to be careful what she wishes for and so that her wish can act as her short cut she can ultimately refuse. Thats it. There is no more depth to anything in this movie than that. There isn't an underlying gender message here because the movie doesn't have enough depth to even begin to touch on any of that. Steve exists purely to be WWs plot device and any scene with him is circumstantial at best in service to those 2 messages.
People compare Maxwell Lord to Trump? Superficial at best. He just needs to be careful what he wishes for and suffer for taking short cuts.
Lance845 wrote: . Thats it. There is no more depth to anything in this movie than that. There isn't an underlying gender message here because the movie doesn't have enough depth to even begin to touch on any of that. Steve exists purely to be WWs plot device and any scene with him is circumstantial at best in service to those 2 messages.
People compare Maxwell Lord to Trump? Superficial at best. He just needs to be careful what he wishes for and suffer for taking short cuts.
Not sure I agree with you. Yeah sure the movie lacked depth, which I think better plot points would have given it depth. Was my plot point going to do that? I dunno. I'm not a screenwriter. I could be very wrong.
But I do think the thinly veiled virtue signalling is there. Even if it isn't meant to be there the allegory of getting rid of the man who's draining your powers to be a Wonder Woman and being able to *literally* spread your wings once he's no longer holding you back is a little on the nose to be unintentional or accidental.
And getting your superpowers back is a shortcut to victory. Ask Logan. He had to pay dearly for his final victory after losing his powers.
Compel wrote: For what it's worth, I think the intention was more about stop looking backwards to the past, than anything gendery.
I don't think its any good at teaching that lesson though.
1) Everything depends on the idea that she only remembers shortcuts/easy roads are bad because she's still hyper-focused on an eleven minute lecture she got for cheating once when she was a brat.
2) She was hung on up this guy she knew for maybe a couple weeks for almost 70 years.
3) She digs out the armor of some past heroine because... something, something. (plus end credits cameo)
Sure she has a moment where she shrugs out of the armor, walks away from her hangup and painfully retells the childhood lecture to get people give up on their dreams, but even then it still seems painfully past focus (something the dusting of 80s 'nostalgia' reinforces). Even at the end there's still a sense of wallowing in the dreams of the past, and looking forward to the future with hope, dreams and fantasies is somehow wrong or for other people.
The messaging is (probably unconsciously, because nothing seems well thought out) pretty depressing, overall. The past is something you're stuck with, but aspirations are damaging.
The suit of armor, wings and all, only exists because Alex Ross painted it that one time when he did Kingdom Come. Again, I don't think there is meant to be any message here. Consider how much "dumb" WW gak they put in there with sometimes entire scenes dedicated just to showing you that they put it in the movie. The Invisible Jet. The Tiara boomerang. Tat horrible looking armor. They just took things that were "cool" and smashed them in over the a bloated plot that had a lot of nothing going on with a couple VERY simplistic messages that were better related to the audience in episodes of the original Twilight Zone.
Just can’t bring myself to pay for it. Spesh as I found the first “meh” at best. Just like her appearance in BvS, it was more The Least Worst Thing about a series of jobbies.
Just can’t bring myself to pay for it. Spesh as I found the first “meh” at best. Just like her appearance in BvS, it was more The Least Worst Thing about a series of jobbies.
Kal-El, no! How could you not be willing to purchase the best film since Citizen Kane? /s
People compare Maxwell Lord to Trump? Superficial at best. He just needs to be careful what he wishes for and suffer for taking short cuts.
there are some similaries to trump, the hair (seriously go look at a pic of trump in the 80s, he looks quite similer to how Lord was designed) the guy pretending to be richer then he is to sell himself as the master of a life style etc. he's obviously differant but the similarites are there eneugh that it's easy to see why people think trump given how on our mind the man has been
Yeah I get it. Sleazy 80s business man. Cheating his way to the top. I am just saying there is no message there. If they ARE intending to design Max Lord to be a Trump stand in then they did nothing with it to any effect or theme. Which leads me to think any similarities are either paper thin or coincidental. Like everything else in the movie.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Either you’ve got a really good memory for my (admittedly few) criticisms, or we’ve a similar ear for flatly delivered lines.
I’m always slightly baffled when folk praise her acting, because I’m just not seeing it.
She's a model in a metal bikini, there were far better choices to play Diana out there. Hell, Alexandra Daddario basically played her in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.
gorgon wrote: LOL. Daddario...truly one of our finest thespians. Shall we also bring into the conversation fan-fave Gina Carano, the new Meryl Streep?
You're absolutely right, we should flippantly dismiss any suggestions out of hand while lauding the current actress who is so wooden she made the actress who played Maria Rambeau an emotive juggernaut.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Either you’ve got a really good memory for my (admittedly few) criticisms, or we’ve a similar ear for flatly delivered lines.
I’m always slightly baffled when folk praise her acting, because I’m just not seeing it.
She's a model in a metal bikini, there were far better choices to play Diana out there. Hell, Alexandra Daddario basically played her in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.
Don’t get me wrong. She’s not hopeless, so much as just painfully.....mediocre.
And to my own fault (not hers, for sake of clarity) it could be down to an accent my ears aren’t familiar with, and as such I’m not picking up nuances. This is a genuine consideration of mine.
People compare Maxwell Lord to Trump? Superficial at best. He just needs to be careful what he wishes for and suffer for taking short cuts.
there are some similaries to trump, the hair (seriously go look at a pic of trump in the 80s, he looks quite similer to how Lord was designed) the guy pretending to be richer then he is to sell himself as the master of a life style etc. he's obviously differant but the similarites are there eneugh that it's easy to see why people think trump given how on our mind the man has been
"Slick and sleazy businessman making impossible promises." is a pretty well-established archetype associated with the 80's. Even if Trump probably did a lot to inspire the archetype, it exists beyond him.
gorgon wrote: LOL. Daddario...truly one of our finest thespians. Shall we also bring into the conversation fan-fave Gina Carano, the new Meryl Streep?
You're absolutely right, we should flippantly dismiss any suggestions out of hand while lauding the current actress who is so wooden she made the actress who played Maria Rambeau an emotive juggernaut.
I can pretty easily dismiss Daddario as a potential improvement. Like flicking a booger off my finger, it's that easy.
If you'd come to the table and said that a Wonder Woman movie starring Charlize Theron should have been made at some point, I'd be with you. She's not getting that role now at 45 (unfortunate Hollywood reality), but she has chops, fierceness, beauty, presence...total package Diana. If you'd even said Jaimie Alexander (another fancast), I'd agree that she might be the most physically perfect for the part. She looks like she walked right off Cliff Chiang's pages from Azzarello's run. She's a solid actress, but certainly not in Theron's class and I don't know that she'd be an enormous upgrade from Gadot.
Look, plenty of people love Gadot in the role. She's certainly not a great actress, but neither are dozens of male action movie stars. For my money she 'inhabits' the role well, like a lot of other action movie have as they've delivered their lines in wooden fashion.
People compare Maxwell Lord to Trump? Superficial at best. He just needs to be careful what he wishes for and suffer for taking short cuts.
there are some similaries to trump, the hair (seriously go look at a pic of trump in the 80s, he looks quite similer to how Lord was designed) the guy pretending to be richer then he is to sell himself as the master of a life style etc. he's obviously differant but the similarites are there eneugh that it's easy to see why people think trump given how on our mind the man has been
"Slick and sleazy businessman making impossible promises." is a pretty well-established archetype associated with the 80's. Even if Trump probably did a lot to inspire the archetype, it exists beyond him.
Right...it's not a binary thing. He was one of that type that inspired the script and performance...but it's not meant to BE him or solely suggest him.
I think of all the DCEU casting so far Gaddot is the only one that really has "inhabited" the character. She looks like Wonder Woman. She plays the "hope for the world of man" angle really well. She doesn't slouch (or her stunt doubles don't) in the action beats and her fighting style is neat and unique. All that sliding around and tripping people up. Taking away every ones footing and subduing them. I think she really nails a lot of Diana's "optimum" best qualities.
No, she doesn't do the wrath and vengeance angle of WW that crops up in comics now and then (especially in the modern era) but the DCEU is already drowning in that kind of bs. I am glad to have WW be a hopeful aspect in there. She really deserved a better second movie.
Yeah, I can't argue with that. Could someone do a better job with WW? Possibly. But Gil Gadot has done a pretty good job with what they've given her. Sorta like Daisey Ridley or Kelly Marie Tran did the best they could with the garbage they were given.
Long and short, there's only so much even a great lead actor can do with bad writing and directing.
Yeah, I can't see anyone successfully chewing through the belabored and excessive 'moral' lectures in this film. Doesn't matter who was cast, what was written down was just not authentic or inspiring.
The accent works for me because she amounts to an alien.
She is a literal demi god raised on a secluded island of immortals. The accent and her interactions with people help build that separation that she should have. She ISN'T human. She isn't "from here". She likes people and interacts with them and wants to see them be the best they can be but she ultimately isn't one and cannot be one.
When shes having her diner date with Barbara for instance you can see that as much as she is having fun with this person in this moment, this is still a WW that has had all of her family lost to her (staying on their island), and had every friend she made when she entered the World of Man in the 1920s grow old and die.
Shes disconnected. And that disconnect translates to her interactions with these people.
Again, I think Gal Gaddot does a really good job with the character. But feth this movie needs like 40 minutes trimmed off it and a ton of editing work.
trexmeyer wrote: The best thing about the movie was The Blue Monday remix.
Concering BoP: The jail break in and subsequent fight in the evidence room was more enjoyable to watch than any part of WW84. The big fight at the end was where the choreography was sketchy.
I was actually more excited about the Frankie Goes to Hollywood "Welcome to the Pleasuredome" remix in the movie.
Being set in 1984, why they didn't revolve this movie around the Cold War is beyond me.
Probably because the "making the Russians the villains" horse has been flogged into its component atoms.
If you want Cold War films there's any number of films set in the era or allegorical stories about it, we didn't need another. I guess choosing not to do that's a new thing in the positive column.
Who said anything about making Russia the villain? You can play into the escalation of war better between the 2 sides if manipulated by a neutral villain. Anything better than the villain we got, which quite frankly was worse than any single episode tv series villain.
At least the setting of 1984 would have made sense. And tbh, the Cold war hasn't been touched too much recently in movies at all.
Think it's pretty clear that the creators didn't want another film about war/conflict between nations. This one was supposed to be about Diana as a force for love and truth, winning the day with an emotional appeal and not a god-power blast.
Well, a movie set in the 80's where "Love and Truth" triumphs over "Greed and Lies" would be a pretty great thematic movie and have something to say about the 80's and modern life.
However, I get the feeling this was not that movie.....
For those that don't read the comics Dianna recently ascended to, essentially, godhood so perhaps the third movie will do that. Doing that without a weird god-like Batman-who-laughs will be tricky but WB has never been all that great with their DC licenses so I doubt that would matter much.
Compel wrote: Diana ascends to godhood and drops back down again pretty much all the time. It's pretty much as common a comic staple as Alfred dying by this point.
It is like dying in comics: it isn't permanent. Still that doesn't change the fact that at the moment she is a deity, of sorts, again and Brazilian Wonder Woman is out and about.
Assuming he's straight of course).
