WW84 (Spoilers)

[Slurktan]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

The Pitch Meeting guy(s) have taken a punt on this one.

I still haven't gotten around to the original, but this is kind of making me want to watch the sequel. It looks Cats levels of bad.

Its not Cats level bad in that you can still enjoy yourself while watching its insanity, whereas with Cats that wears off in like 5 mins sadly.  I wish Cats was a more enjoyable bad movie watch.

[Lord Patrek]

Lame response from the director:

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/wonder-woman-1984-patty-jenkins-controversial-steve-trevor-retur/?fbclid=IwAR0TujJHuZuj62_rgVvfYgdWrjtF3UGgBGQp_Lr3UoVKgVdeSW9ZLyEhQ7g

[Heartofice]

10 hours ago, Lord Patrek said:

Lame response from the director:

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/wonder-woman-1984-patty-jenkins-controversial-steve-trevor-retur/?fbclid=IwAR0TujJHuZuj62_rgVvfYgdWrjtF3UGgBGQp_Lr3UoVKgVdeSW9ZLyEhQ7g

I’ve read enough about the body swap scenario in this movie to think that people put too much time and effort into adding their own moral takes onto what are quite frankly stupid comic book scenarios.

It’s like those discussions had down the pub when everyone is wasted have suddenly become the mainstream conversation.

Having said that, the response to the criticism is pretty weak.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Finally watched it. I loved it and I hated it. Not a typical superhero movie. Some really interesting concepts that were just developed poorly. Kudos for trying something different but the execution was all over the place. A lot of this has been covered.

Chis Pine and Gal Gadot have genuine on-screen chemistry. The emotional moments really worked for me. I'm not even going to get into the metaphysics of spirit-mind surrogate-body sex acts and the ethics of consent.

I liked Pedro and Kirsten. 

Adiago in D minor was brilliant for the flight scene. Beautiful Lie for the climax was perfect.

Linda Carter 

The Action scenes were OK for the most part. It looked like a lot of wire work as opposed to CGI. 

Too much Golden Lasso stuff. She's not Spider-Man for crying out loud.

This movie gave me feels. So many feels.

On 12/26/2020 at 8:43 PM, Myshkin said:

What a mess of a movie. Feels like they figured they could just ride Gadot’s star power and not worry about minor details like, I don’t know, halfway decent writing or making any kind of sense. The first Wonder Woman was only 2/3 of a good movie, and this one doesn’t even come close to that. Also, for all the hype about this being an 80s extravaganza, aside from one scene where Chris Pine tries on some clothes, this could have been set in 2020. 

I find it strange that the script problems are being laid at Jenkins' feet. She wasn't the only writer on this film.

I think they should have set it in the Roaring 20's. Clearly it would have been a very different movie, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

On 12/26/2020 at 11:25 PM, RumHam said:

I think the 80's setting was more about not contradicting the first movie and Batman v. Superman. In the 80's she can take out a few security cameras with her tiara and that's that, she's a whisper. 

That is catching-a-bus-by-the-windshield (Shazam) level of suspension of disbelief. There are two hundred people in the mall and the criminals she bagged. No one could give a description? The cameras weren't recording to VHS tape in a room somewhere?

Maybe the invisible magic (that just appeared out of nowhere because why not) had something to do with her being able to conceal her existence in some draft of the script at some point?

On 12/27/2020 at 6:17 AM, sifth said:

Did Patty Jenkins forget her movie was a prequel? I just find it strange that Diana uses/unlocks powers in the second half of this movie, that she clearly doesn't have in BvS and The Justice League.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a stand alone film. It's just not possible to fit it into JL continuity unless you want to explain why a then teenage Bruce Wayne yielded his wish to get his parents back. The Waynes are murdered in 1981 in BvS. Also, the whole world giving up their wish? Yeah, good luck with that. I guess people living in grinding poverty that wished for food in their stomachs didn't have access to a TV. They should have aimed smaller.

Also the invisibilty, also that ability to fly. 

On 12/27/2020 at 6:42 AM, Tywin et al. said:

It's funny how people went from hating the casting choice to Gadot becoming a huge star. 

I always thought she was great in the role. I remember John Campea went hard criticizing the casting choice in a way that was cringe as hell. Even making a feeble joke accusing the director of sexism for casting a former underwear model. I think he was pulling hard for Jamie Alexander at the time. 

On 12/27/2020 at 8:17 AM, sifth said:

Also what was the point of the opening scene of the movie? It was cool to look at, but didn't connect to anything in the story. Did they just sign all of those actors on for the sequel, only to suddenly realize after writing the script, that they had no place for them in the story?

That was my favorite part of the movie. Also, most viewers would have missed this, but I remember thinking, "Holy shit; prickly pears? Did they shoot this in Greece?" Turns out they shot in Spain and Italy. Still, it took me back.

On 12/27/2020 at 9:08 AM, JEORDHl said:

Coming in relatively blind, I'd say it smacks of executive meddling-- which would hardly be surprising given the recent history of DC films. 

Aquaman and Shazam both blew goats.

I'd say executive meddling is very likely. I liked it much better than Shazam. Haven't seen Aquaman. 

On 12/27/2020 at 10:17 AM, Myshkin said:

Well, it’s not Aquaman bad, but it don’t beat Shazam!

Yes is does.

[Spockydog]

Shazam was miles better than this.

[Jeor]

I went into the movie with high hopes but ended up being quite disappointed. I felt the plot was flimsy and raised a lot of questions (and not in the good way - more plot hole type questions).

I didn't ever really get to grips with the Maxwell Lord character, whose motivations and plans weren't particularly convincing. At times they seemed to make him very human - a failed oil executive, with a son he wants to connect with - and yet at other times he knew about the Dreamstone (which had strange mechanics of working) and was quite otherworldly in his grandiose plans etc. I also don't really know who would wish explicitly to be an "apex predator", although the Cheetah character was a bit more fleshed out. For a film set in the 80s, the vibe wasn't that strong. On the positive side, the movie looked great, and there was still good chemistry between Gadot and Pine.

I'm hopeful we'll get more installments, but overall I got the feeling that 1984 bit off a bit more than it could chew.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

 I also don't really know who would wish explicitly to be an "apex predator", although the Cheetah character was a bit more fleshed out.

That line stuck out like a sore thumb. And Cheetahs are not an apex predator. Where the cheetahs live, that would be lions.

[sifth]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

That line stuck out like a sore thumb. And Cheetahs are not an apex predator. Where the cheetahs live, that would be lions.

Why did she want to be a Cheetah lady again? I get wanting to be more like Diana, that makes perfect sense, but suddenly wanting to be a Cheetah..................not so much.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

7 hours ago, Jeor said:

I'm hopeful we'll get more installments, but overall I got the feeling that 1984 bit off a bit more than it could chew.

Apparently they gave a third film the green light. What I want to know is, ah, when? Jenkins is starting pre-production on Rogue Squadron. That'll be the next 2-3 years for her. Then she's got the Cleopatra film, which Gadot is supposed to star in.

3 hours ago, sifth said:

Why did she want to be a Cheetah lady again? I get wanting to be more like Diana, that makes perfect sense, but suddenly wanting to be a Cheetah..................not so much.

Barbara before her first wish wanted to be more like Diana, but it turned her from a warm, friendly person into a bit of a violent sociopath. Violent-sociopath-Barbara, feeling good about having kicked WW's ass, wanted more of the same.

[Macklunkey]

It was good.........but could've been better.

[sifth]

18 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Barbara before her first wish wanted to be more like Diana, but it turned her from a warm, friendly person into a bit of a violent sociopath. Violent-sociopath-Barbara, feeling good about having kicked WW's ass, wanted more of the same.

Yea, but why a cheetah? I get her wanting to be more powerful than Diana and being badass, but what I don't get is why she wanted/needed to be a literal cat lady for that to happen, lol

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

15 minutes ago, sifth said:

Yea, but why a cheetah? I get her wanting more powerful than Diana and being badass, but what I don't get is why she wanted/needed to be a literal cat lady for that to happen, lol

Um, because she was really envious of Diana's pumps at the beginning of the film. Duh.

I don't know, man. This movie is so all over the place yet I can't find it in me to really hate on it. It's like a gang of angry chimpanzees wrote the thing. GOD WHY DO I LOVE THIS MOVIE?

I just got through a second viewing. People have mentioned the lack of '80's music in it. Did anyone else notice that it feels like it was scored by like, five different people?

The jet sequence is so many layers of wrong. I'm nitpicking but so what:

At the Smithsonian, which is huge BTW, in a section where Diana clearly doesn't work but is able to enter and navigate no problem.

Fully fueled and ready to fly.

Steve, totally unfamiliar with anything more modern than a WW1 Bi-plane is able to not only fly it but he can start it up without a ground crew, with no manual, and in the dark.

That model of plane doesn't have a side by side cockpit configuration that I can find.

That model of plane has a ferry range that *might* get you half way to Cairo, even with drop tanks.

Invisibility! Right on! With no exposition. Only used that one time (by someone who has never cast a spell on screen) despite maybe, I dunno, potentially coming in handy for the final battle. Also, ancient Olympian spells make the plane invisible to modern radar. How lucky!

[Jeor]

Yeah, my overall feeling is that there was a lot that didn't make sense or was very, very thin from a plot point of view. But the film still looked good and there was the odd shiny thing so that kept it (just) from being truly awful. I think my favourite part of the movie was the fight sequence where Steve was whacking people with a tray.

[sifth]

See for me the worst part of the movie was when our heroes were in Egypt. Diana and Steve didn't do any interesting detective work to find Maxwell, they just literally by pure coincidence drive past him, because Egypt is such a small place apparently, lol

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Aaand it's rotten. 59% on RT (RT is the devil).

Something tells me they learned entirely the wrong lesson from Shazam! and no lesson at all from Batman and Robin.

There are some massive disparities here. The early reviews (pre-Dec. 25) largely praised the film with 85% positive reviews. The post release review average is below 50% positive reviews, to yield the current average. Dan Murrell has a video breaking this down.

There's a similar disparity in the audience scores:

The "verified audience" is 74% positive with an average of 3.95/5 from a sample of 2,507 reviews.

The total audience (including those who don't have ticket receipts), is 43%, 2.83/5, from 17,417 reviews. Ouch.

Is this indicative of the proportion of theater and streaming customers? I don't know. 

[Gronzag]

10 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Aaand it's rotten. 59% on RT (RT is the devil).

Something tells me they learned entirely the wrong lesson from Shazam! and no lesson at all from Batman and Robin.

There are some massive disparities here. The early reviews (pre-Dec. 25) largely praised the film with 85% positive reviews. The post release review average is below 50% positive reviews, to yield the current average. Dan Murrell has a video breaking this down.

There's a similar disparity in the audience scores:

The "verified audience" is 74% positive with an average of 3.95/5 from a sample of 2,507 reviews.

The total audience (including those who don't have ticket receipts), is 43%, 2.83/5, from 17,417 reviews. Ouch.

Is this indicative of the proportion of theater and streaming customers? I don't know. 

Wait, did you also watch this video?

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

@Gronzag Yeah, I mentioned it.

Doolittle is the has the 4th highest domestic gross of the year. 

[Gronzag]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

@Gronzag Yeah, I mentioned it.

Doolittle is the has the 4th highest domestic gross of the year. 

Oh, you did. I missed that. Sorry.

Anyway, review aggregators are flawed anyway, and RT 'fresh/rotten' meter is probably the worst one out there. Sadly, also the most popular and part of the pop culture, which is, I believe, purely due to a catchy name.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Gronzag said:

Oh, you did. I missed that. Sorry.

Anyway, review aggregators are flawed anyway, and RT 'fresh/rotten' meter is probably the worst one out there. Sadly, also the most popular and part of the pop culture, which is, I believe, purely due to a catchy name.

Look at what happened with Annabelle: Creation. This isn't the first time this has happened. Is there a degree of shilling going on for reviewers that get early access? I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but I'd have to say probably, yes. Not good for the credibility of the aggregator.

You're better off finding one or two reviewers you like and respect if you want to know where to spend your movie moneys.

[Gronzag]

39 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Look at what happened with Annabelle: Creation. This isn't the first time this has happened. Is there a degree of shilling going on for reviewers that get early access? I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but I'd have to say probably, yes. Not good for the credibility of the aggregator.

You're better off finding one or two reviewers you like and respect if you want to know where to spend your movie moneys.

I very much agree that finding a few critics whose tastes align with yours is the best way to go, but most people have no patience for a 5-10 minutes video or article. I think that people who watch/read reviews are usually outliers who often through increased engagement give a wrong impression about what the general audience wants. Hence why so many 'highly anticipated' sci-fi movies bomb, even with great reviews.

And as for shilling, I do believe that the studios are gaming the system by giving early access to selected critics who they expect will give a positive early score and maybe influence others critics' opinion. I don't think that they are actually paying people off with money.