Wonder Woman 1984

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

I agree that all aggregators have credibility issues, but overall as a concept; I've ranted enough and before on why I think trying to divine universal truth was an inherently flawed algorithm - something that's trying to reduce a concept as subjective as Film - is ludicrous and a pox on Film Criticism. Were I mod I'd ban referencing them 'cos they're an inherent crutch to being able to talk about a movie's merits - or lack thereof.

As to the reviews, undoubtedly there are outlets that post favourable reviews in return for First Access (something others like RedLetterMedia happily tear into), but equally IIRC there were embargos put on reviews, which accounted for a big drop in the overall rating. So you can find any truth you wish to find with those aggregators but ~60% still feels about right for something as marmite as this film. We're scarcely talking about the Fantastic Four reboot or something more quantifiably awful - obviously YMMV.

As I said in my own thoughts, I didn't necessarily enjoy the movie, but I could also see what it was going for, and I tip my hat for aiming at Richard Donner than Yet Another Superhero Movie - which, in essence, was what the first Wonder Woman film kinda was, with its sequel unable to keep up the energy of that kinda-bonkers start.

I have no problem with the current score, it is what it is it was just the initial drop in critics scores that was interesting. Personally a decent "part with my money" signal for an action type movie is to see a low critics score and a high audience score but with cinemas largely curtailed for the foreseeable future the audience score probably doesnt mean what it used to mean to the same extent.

I would have been really pissed off if this had been waste of a cinema night, to be honest.

I assume there will be a sequel to this sequel. If so, no complaint from me, especially if Wiig and Pascal are in it.

December 30, 2020 | Rating: 3.5/5 | Full Review…

Stephen Romei

First RT review - I'm shocked a reviewer would write that. Shows very little understanding of these types of movies. Chris Pine must be smarting

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have been really pissed off if this had been waste of a cinema night, to be honest.

I saw it in the cinema. That helped I imagine

TheIrishGrover

I thought it was...... fine. No more than that. I enjoyed the first one far more. I did enjoy Pedro Pascal in this. He did seem to be enjoying himself.

I can never figure out why so many superhero sequels go for multiple adverseries. It doesn't raise the stakes, it dilutes the focus. Everything Spider-man 3 to Nolan's Batman sequels to this. About the only ones that buck the trend are the Marvel movies and that's because they tended to have an overall arc.

So, as I said, I thought this was..... fine. It was light and forgettable. But at least it wasn't Batman v Superman or any of the other DC output. Had I seen it in the cinema, I wouldn't have come out pissed off. But I wouldn't exactly have been queueing up to buy it on disc. It is what it is and the 3rd pne will be in the same vein.


I did enjoy the start a lot though. That that was great.

pjohnson

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Wonder woman pitch meeting :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Tm0SxIp6w

These things are fcuking gas.

TheIrishGrover

I hate the snapshots he uses. They really annoy me as clickbait but they are always very good and on the button.

Andrew76

pjohnson wrote: »

These things are fcuking gas.

His one about Tenet is very good too.

pixelburp

Yeah they're funny any time I've watched them but those thumbnails generate a totally irrational and disproportionate antipathy towards clicking.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

These things are fcuking gas.

That was better than the movie.

Agent Coulson

The more I think about the more it's mental that this movie cost $200m to make there is not $200m on screen there from the bad cgi to thee bad editing it looks more like someone slashed there budget and they were left to use home computing to make it.

There must be some creative accounting going.

homerun_homer

What a god awful movie. So unnecessarily long, and stupid to boot. Patty Jenkins has gone all out in saying this is completely her movie so you have to worry about her involvement with Star Wars. Hopefully she’ll go back to collaborating with some good people, or that movie franchise will continue to bomb with fans.

stateofflux

Have not seen the film but, from what i've seen of the plot, Ghostbusters 2 comes to mind.

Zardoz

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The more I think about the more it's mental that this movie cost $200m to make there is not $200m on screen there from the bad cgi to thee bad editing it looks more like someone slashed there budget and they were left to use home computing to make it.

There must be some creative accounting going.

There were reshoots after the disastrous test screenings, so its possible that a good bit of the budget was spent on cut scenes.

I'm always baffled at how big budget films seem to hire really poor scriptwriters like Geoff Johns.

Gothic Insanity

Make a movie base it in the 80s but don't use any 80s music in it...... Unfortunately this movie just kind of sucked, I zoned in and out hoping it would get better. Watching paint dry would have been better.



Only vaugly minor saving grace was kristen wiig.

Zardoz

Zardoz wrote: »

There were reshoots after the disastrous test screenings

interesting... and if THAT is the improved version :eek:

Coybig_

This was horrifically bad.

What an absolutely horrible movie. Pretentious, overlong, filled with atrocious dialogue, hilariously bad characters. All the charm of the first gone. Chemistry between Pine and Gadot which carried the first is absent. Some absurd message about how bad it is to wish for things to be better. Riddled with plot holes, and insane moments where Diana routinely is able to do something because the plot says so - Coffee Cup vs Plane? LOL.

The Barbara arc is bad beyond belief. And the morality behind the hero encouraging (or not seeing fault with) body and life theft? HELLO?

An absolutely rotten stinker.

JimmyVik

I bet it will be cancelled yet, for glamorizing non consensual sex.
Though i cant see who wouldnt consent to Gal Gadot anyway

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

I bet it will be cancelled yet, for glamorizing non consensual sex.
Though i cant see who wouldnt consent to Gal Gadot anyway

Someone gay. Someone that is anti Israeli.

JimmyVik

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone gay. Someone that is anti Israeli.

No. Its Gal Godot in a Wonder Woman getup.

silverharp

JimmyVik wrote: »

No. Its Gal Godot in a Wonder Woman getup.

Are you saying she has the power to turn gay men straight, ok more plauible than some of the other plot points in the movie :pac:

CastorTroy

https://www.cbr.com/wonder-woman-1984-oscars-consideration/

I guess with so few releases last year, they have to get the nominees somewhere

pjohnson

CastorTroy wrote: »

https://www.cbr.com/wonder-woman-1984-oscars-consideration/

I guess with so few releases last year, they have to get the nominees somewhere

Wouldnt be suprised if Jenkins won.

kerplun k

Finally available here in Ireland.

Found this to be a mixed bag. It’s the first film I’ve got a chance to sit down and watch in a while so think I enjoyed it a bit more than I normally would have.

It started off great, the message from the opening ceremony, and the tone throughout the movie about the truth being the truth, the truth should be enough, because it’s the only thing, seemed very on the nose for the real life events currently unfolding, especially in a time when so many people are so unwilling to accept basic truths. I actually thought it was very poignant.

It’s frustrating that PJ can get this part of the movie so right, but then fail so miserably on other aspects, it’s riddled with plot holes, the whole wish concept contradicts itself, the film depicts all men as toxic idiots, Kinda like the way that gillette ad, Birds of pray, the kitchen, Hustlers, they all did this as well and It’s not entertaining. Have a bit of nuance for feck sake. It’s especially disappointing here considering the film is essentially about hope and somewhat delivered on that message, but then PJ spews out this one dimensional tripe.

The thing is, with a few tweaks, it could have been so much better, for example, did they really need to do that with Steve Trevor?.. really ? Did the guys working at the museum have to be such asshats, it’s very poor writing and could have easily been fixed.

In any case, I did rather enjoy it. A nice message for the times we live in, the cast are all likeable and for the most part is a fun movie, you just need to ignore some sloppy writing and put your suspension of disbelief into maximum overdrive.

pixelburp

Leaving aside how gross the body takeover aspect was, the big speech at the end is also especially "yikes" inducing when you consider the fact our hero, during her global appeal, was asking people out in the world to renounce wishes like "I wish I didn't have cancer", "I wish my kid was alive", or "I wish my husband didn't hit me" and so on. You can't have it all, pleaded Diana. Well, uh, shít love I don't think people did.

Convenient we only saw selfish or hurtful wishes around the world; Jenkins must be a terrible cynic. Which is funny cos the first film had a fairly positive view of humanity reallt (that were decent people too often waylaid by other forces), and even at the start of ww84 the tone vibed with positive energy. Then in the last act the world became filled with àssholes.

kerplun k

That’s where the suspension of disbelief comes in and we are supposed to believe everyone is a greedy SoB that just wants a Porsche

All joking aside, it’s a poorly delivered bit of mix messaging from PJ. On one hand she offers such bleak cynicism of the human race, yet she then tries to do a 180 and suddenly every human will accept truth and set them free(no matter how selfless or selfish the wish was).

I do appreciate what PJ was trying to say, but it’s so sloppy it just comes across as parody.

I won’t even go into what they were trying to do with Steve Trevor. Talk about a pandora's box.

silverharp

did it matter in the end whether people renounced or not once our villain did? I was thinking more that it didnt which made all the scenes kinds redundant and that it wouldnt make sense otherwise as its not plausible that everyone would

kerplun k

Yep, agree with that. I think once lord renounced his wish, it voided all. It’s a convenient out, but the plot was well beyond saving at that stage.

The point PJ was making was about people accepting truth. If you wish for something you want, whether it’s an election result, or to be rid of a horrible pandemic, cured from an illness, or bring back the loss of a loved one, as soon this wish becomes instantly true just because you wished it, you stop living in reality and start living in a fantasy. It’s better to accept the truth, because that’s the reality of the world we live in.

For the times we live in, it’s a poignant message and why I believe the film was so well reviewed upon its release, it’s just terribly executed.

AMKC

kerplun k wrote: »

Finally available here in Ireland.

Found this to be a mixed bag. It’s the first film I’ve got a chance to sit down and watch in a while so think I enjoyed it a bit more than I normally would have.

It started off great, the message from the opening ceremony, and the tone throughout the movie about the truth being the truth, the truth should be enough, because it’s the only thing, seemed very on the nose for the real life events currently unfolding, especially in a time when so many people are so unwilling to accept basic truths. I actually thought it was very poignant.

It’s frustrating that PJ can get this part of the movie so right, but then fail so miserably on other aspects, it’s riddled with plot holes, the whole wish concept contradicts itself, the film depicts all men as toxic idiots, Kinda like the way that gillette ad, Birds of pray, the kitchen, Hustlers, they all did this as well and It’s not entertaining. Have a bit of nuance for feck sake. It’s especially disappointing here considering the film is essentially about hope and somewhat delivered on that message, but then PJ spews out this one dimensional tripe.

The thing is, with a few tweaks, it could have been so much better, for example, did they really need to do that with Steve Trevor?.. really ? Did the guys working at the museum have to be such asshats, it’s very poor writing and could have easily been fixed.

In any case, I did rather enjoy it. A nice message for the times we live in, the cast are all likeable and for the most part is a fun movie, you just need to ignore some sloppy writing and put your suspension of disbelief into maximum overdrive.

Eh. It was available here in December. I should know. I went and seen it and it's one of the 5 or 6 movies I got to see last year in the cinema.

kerplun k

Apologies, meant for home viewing, I’d have loved to seen this in the cinema.

silverharp

kerplun k wrote: »

Yep, agree with that. I think once lord renounced his wish, it voided all. It’s a convenient out, but the plot was well beyond saving at that stage.

The point PJ was making was about people accepting truth. If you wish for something you want, whether it’s an election result, or to be rid of a horrible pandemic, cured from an illness, or bring back the loss of a loved one, as soon this wish becomes instantly true just because you wished it, you stop living in reality and start living in a fantasy. It’s better to accept the truth, because that’s the reality of the world we live in.

For the times we live in, it’s a poignant message and why I believe the film was so well reviewed upon its release, it’s just terribly executed.

I got that telling kids not to cheat in sports is a good life lesson but she was a bit weak on stealing from your employer and rohypnoling fellow humans and using them as f### dolls :pac:

kerplun k

silverharp wrote: »

I got that telling kids not to cheat in sports is a good life lesson but she was a bit weak on stealing from your employer and rohypnoling fellow humans and using them as f### dolls :pac:

I know, wtf were they thinking. The mind boggles. When the final script was handed out, did no one think to point out the iffy details of Steve Trevors resurrection.

pixelburp

So re. the body swap, it gets ... weirder. Insofar as it's 2020 and apparently one must divine meaning from retweets :rolleyes: Jenkins retweeted someone else's theory that the Body Swap is somehow(?), actually an inversion and highlights just how problematic that trope was in the 80s. I mean she could just be playfully agreeing with a batshít theory but the whole arc begged more questions than were answered.

Even if that was genuinely Jenkins intention - and in of iself was not a bad idea if it was a subversion - it in no way came across in the final film: it's never openly challenged as creepy, while the final scene where - oh lovely - Diana & the Host Body have their meet-cute was definitely played in a positive spin. Diana finds love again - and she already took it for a spin!

https://twitter.com/PattyJenks/status/1344386851453300736

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

So re. the body swap, it gets ... weirder. Insofar as it's 2020 and apparently one must divine meaning from retweets :rolleyes: Jenkins retweeted someone else's theory that the Body Swap is somehow(?), actually an inversion and highlights just how problematic that trope was in the 80s. I mean she could just be playfully agreeing with a batshít theory but the whole arc begged more questions than were answered.

Even if that was genuinely Jenkins intention - and in of iself was not a bad idea if it was a subversion - it in no way came across in the final film: it's never openly challenged as creepy, while the final scene where - oh lovely - Diana & the Host Body have their meet-cute was definitely played in a positive spin. Diana finds love again - and she already took it for a spin!

https://twitter.com/PattyJenks/status/1344386851453300736

I read your post and the link, still confused - it was trying to do what, again?!?

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read your post and the link, still confused - it was trying to do what, again?!?

Honestly I'm not sure myself, but it's the first time I've seen or heard Jenkins even tangentially address or acknowledge the ... arc?

I guess the tweet is kinda saying that because the finale reverted all wishes, her sex with Mr. Host was also reverted so doesn't count as non consensual?

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly I'm not sure myself, but it's the first time I've seen or heard Jenkins even tangentially address or acknowledge the ... arc?

I guess the tweet is kinda saying that because the finale reverted all wishes, her sex with Mr. Host was also reverted so doesn't count as non consensual?

So Diana was happy to use his body, as a sex toy, without knowing that she could "undo" it (even though she still obviously remembers it...)
So if Diana remembers it, it still happened, just that the host does not. Hmmmm there is a name for having sex with a non conscious person...

What a load of retroactive nonsense.
They may have been playing up to the body swap films but no way in hell is it similar.
There was no swap going on, that guy's mind was displaced.



Diana was happy that a guy was dead, for all intents, so that Steve could live
She was happy to have sex with that stolen body


And what really drives this home is they did not stop to even care about where the "host" consciousness had gone.


It's Body Snatcher level of wrongness

Stark

When watching it I kind of just took it as Diana losing her morality when she made the wish, doing a deal with the devil as it were.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

When watching it I kind of just took it as Diana losing her morality when she made the wish, doing a deal with the devil as it were.

Pity that guy who wished for Coffee so.

But did she lose her morality, she seems to be doing fine on that front in every other aspect of the film. You only see her slowly lose her powers.
So either the script is wildly uneven or the direction was crap...

Coybig_

Deleted User wrote: »

Pity that guy who wished for Coffee so.

But did she lose her morality, she seems to be doing fine on that front in every other aspect of the film. You only see her slowly lose her powers.
So either the script is wildly uneven or the direction was crap...

Yeah the morality angle is bogus, it seems like Jenkins never thought to consider the ramifications of her decision. Which isn't surprising when you take into account how absolutely horrific the rest of the script is, and how ill thought through most decisions are in the movie.

On her "slowly losing her powers". That's another interesting one because we see her discover a new power when she makes an entire plane invisible. Doesn't she say that a relative only was able to do it to a cup?

And on the power thing, sometimes shes strong, sometimes shes not - we really have no frame of reference to how powerful she should be. It's done as more of a Spiderman 2 type thing where Peter randomly can't use his webbing anymore but when he can he is still very effective, rather than a gradual weakening.


And on the morality point - does that count for everyone that made a wish? Is it immoral for a dying person to wish to live? For a person in a wheelchair to wish to walk? For a mother to be able to feed her starving children? Strange that they just renounced all those wishes! And if Max renouncing his renounces all others, then why would Kristin Wiig not still have Dianas strength? She made that wish before Max got the stone right? If that's the case why is Diana even talking to everybody?

kerplun k

It’s good thing for Diana that the guy was good looking.

Imagine if you reversed genders, but not only that, the guys girlfriend was a 3/10 in the looks department, and jumps into the body of Gal Gadot.

Now that’s the movie I wanna see PJ make next.

L'prof

Slydice wrote: »

Brazil Comic Con Trailer
Just a trash can!

Tazzimus wrote: »

Google and Reddit to the rescue

Thanks lads. Just seeing these now. I enjoyed the remix far more than the film. The film was grand. Easy watch, won’t go back to it

pixelburp

The above reminds that among the film's other egregious missteps, the absence of any 1980s needle drops was another big one. Who sets a movie so overtly in that decade - a decade synonymous with great, iconic pop music - then fails to use a single example?

Mitch Connor

Watched this yesterday and my biggest issue is the physics of wonder woman.

Everything thing she did felt floaty or just didn't feel like there was any real momentum or impact. Just didn't feel like she was connected to the world.

Smacruairi

I didn't read the thread. I searched one key word, and there was only one hit.. So I dunno but..

So everyone has the chance to undo Trump/brexit mistake if they really wish really hard... Was it meant to be subtle


Is that it. Is that thr film? Ww1 I had a lump in my throat when she went over the top, it was a gorgeous piece of cinema that I wasn't expecting, and gleefully applauded. And then she hooked up with Steve and again, for a one film romance, it felt real, earned, tangible.

This is horrendous. I don't care about the body swap rape thing. Come on, it's an old trope, just don't think too hard about it and like it for the niceness it is.but for me it actually really undermines the #woman factor of the film. They blatantly thought Gal couldn't carry the film without Chris Pine, which is the most damning thing.

Gal looks, talks, feels like Wonder woman. That slide kick thing she does is hers, she gets to keep it. Mwa. So why did she need fluff of dressing up her boyf like a barbie, her boyf teaching her how to fly, her boyf saving her in Egypt, and on. Thsts what I'm annoyed about, and don't get me started on cheetah who wished to be sexy and strong like Mary sue diana.

I'm a bloke who likes strong female characters, when a bloke is a motivation it really takes me out of it. If you're gonna have her lose her powers because she wished a bloke back, that's actually a better metaphor for me,not slowly slowly. Sacrifice your independence for a guy it'll paralyse you, I get that. But slowly slowly? Nah

Wonder woman's armour... I don't read thr comics
I don't get it. It wasn't a thing for me to mark out on. I'm sure someone somewhere squeaked but meh.


Did wiig have to be in the film. It sounded like films 2 and 3 got squished together.. Yet the film was really long.

Everyone is praising Pedro... I thought he was so hammy. I love Mando.. I know he does subtle father.. This was... Yeah I just didn't understand because it was like he was in a diff film in terms of desperation compared to godot and pine.

Again, I loved Ww1, thought it was great. This was worse than BvS. I'm happy I saw this but... I'm disappointed.

Also, why did Zimmer rehash I think inception music for the flight when he could have done anything, anything else.

FortuneChip

Smacruairi wrote: »

Also, why did Zimmer rehash I think inception music for the flight when he could have done anything, anything else.

It's John Murphy's "Surface of the Sun" from Sunshine.
I found it a bizarre inclusion, given they had Zimmer at their disposal. They could have rehashed Man Of Steel's "Flight" if they were feeling lazy and it would have been a nice nod to the wider DC arena.

Dtp1979

FortuneChip wrote: »

It's John Murphy's "Surface of the Sun" from Sunshine.
I found it a bizarre inclusion, given they had Zimmer at their disposal. They could have rehashed Man Of Steel's "Flight" if they were feeling lazy and it would have been a nice nod to the wider DC arena.

I thought the John Murphy music worked really really well

Sad Professor

FortuneChip wrote: »

It's John Murphy's "Surface of the Sun" from Sunshine.
I found it a bizarre inclusion, given they had Zimmer at their disposal. They could have rehashed Man Of Steel's "Flight" if they were feeling lazy and it would have been a nice nod to the wider DC arena.

Presumedly a case of temp track love. It's when a director falls in love with a track from the temp track and nothing the composer comes up is good enough to replace it. Most likely Zimmer did his own thinly veiled copy of the Sunshine track but Jenkins still couldn't let go of it.

pixelburp

Temp tracks, ropey FX that bordered on unfinished, pacing and script all over the place ... You'd wonder who made the call this was feature complete, to use the tech term ...

kerplun k

FortuneChip wrote: »

It's John Murphy's "Surface of the Sun" from Sunshine.
I found it a bizarre inclusion, given they had Zimmer at their disposal. They could have rehashed Man Of Steel's "Flight" if they were feeling lazy and it would have been a nice nod to the wider DC arena.

Completely forgot about that. I also remember thinking it was odd when watched that scene and thinking something as high profile as this really should have its own original music. I really like the Wonder Woman theme they use in the DCEU, a version of that would have been good for that scene also.

silverharp

Wiig was also miscast, although she is the best person to play wiig, she is nearly 50 , which kind of puts her outside the bracket of the mousey new girl on the block, Ive never met any 50 year old women who want to become an "apex predator"