Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

In all fairness i think none of the blame lands on Gal gadot's shapely shoulders...

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!

The issue I think is that it isn't so much bad as militantly mediocre, which is worse.

 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.

Here's a handy graphic!

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 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?

Yeah, that's exactly my point. I guess one of the 80's aspects they decided to use was rape as romance.

Edit: Cleopatra is going to be a disaster.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Yeah, that's exactly my point. I guess one of the 80's aspects they decided to use was rape as romance.

Edit: Cleopatra is going to be a disaster.

Yeah they should have cast a Greek actress for the role.

 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?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 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.

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?

Is it essentially, this movie could have been filmed at any time or place?

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

Parts of this thread have gotten more “cringey” than anything that happened in the movie.

 trexmeyer wrote:
The best thing about the movie was The Blue Monday remix.

Agreed - that is an excellent remake of a classic!

 Vulcan wrote:

 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.