Wonder Woman 1984 - Page 17

*Coola Yagami* · 12-25-2020, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp

yeah politically triggered people where everything is against them, Joker got it worse since it was either pro-trump or anti-trump depending what political side you were into. At the end of the day no one listened to either of these clowns (no pun intended) and movie was great.

Yeah, but that was the thing. I didn't really see 'Trump' in their portrayal of Thomas Wayne... just a bit of an asshole, but with good reason given the context. Was it more obvious with Maxwell Lord?

I guess I need more than just 'rich white guy asshole' to see someone as a 'Trump stand-in'. Like gimme mannerisms or something to work with here.

~~Leo656~~ · 12-25-2020, 12:23 PM

For what it's worth the costume designer said numerous times that Trump was the primary influence on the visual style for Lord, specifically his comb-over hairdo and the way his suits don't quite fit right, things like that. She said they had pictures of Trump all over the walls of the rooms they were working in so it would be a constant influence. And Jenkins said it was present in the way he projects at being a successful businessman but really it's a front and he's not doing as well as he wants people to believe. And how he's a con artist/manipulator, things like that.

I don't know, it's one thing when people infer or project things about a movie. But when the people who made the movie say over and over again "We were specifically evoking _________ with This or That creative choice" then I think that's worth listening to.

I mean, they said they riffed on him on purpose and the climactic fight scene happens in the White House. People can take or leave that kinda stuff but I don't think they were going for subtlety with this one.

~~Sumac~~ · 12-25-2020, 12:45 PM

I dunno, about "not being quite successful", if you are president of the mother****ing United States.

*Coola Yagami* · 12-25-2020, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumac

I dunno, about "not being quite successful", if you are president of the mother****ing United States.

To be honest, that meant more in the 80's where the movie takes place.

Trump kinda embarrassed the country worse than a crappy wrestler with a ****** title reign. The presidency felt like that one extra title that only gets defended on the pre-show. Maybe now with Biden, even though he's by no means perfect, the Presidency Title will show some prestige again and bring it back to main event status.

*ZariusTwo* · 12-25-2020, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

To be honest, that meant more in the 80's where the movie takes place.

Trump kinda embarrassed the country worse than a crappy wrestler with a ****** title reign. The presidency felt like that one extra title that only gets defended on the pre-show. Maybe now with Biden, even though he's by no means perfect, the Presidency Title will show some prestige again and bring it back to main event status.

The Presidency hasn't meant jack since Lewinski.

*Coola Yagami* · 12-25-2020, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

The Presidency hasn't meant jack since Lewinski.

Lewinksi was jacking who now?

*Andrew NDB* · 12-25-2020, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

She made ONE movie before Wonder Woman. And it was forever ago. And wasn't a big gigantic hit.

I guess despite accolades, it didn't even make money? According to Jenkins herself. But nevermind that, let's give her the same payday as Favreau and Louis Letterier and all that just because vagina.

*Andrew NDB* · 12-26-2020, 01:16 AM

Saw it. Meh. I really liked the first one but this was just OK. It felt pretty long, a bit bloated and it was hard to stay interested in what was going on. Also, there didn't seem to be any compelling reason to set the movie in the 80s. I expected more. Like, I don't know, a rockin' 80s soundtrack out of it, at least? Not just the mall from Stranger Things, tube TVs, and the usual gags about 80s clothes.

Spoiler:

Also, I'm almost positive the entire Max Lord son angle and subplot and even the character itself was a reshoot thing. Like, that wasn't a thing in the original version but they realized their Max Lord was cardboard thin and it wasn't enough to just use him to poke fun at the "idea" of a Trump-like guy.

~~Leo656~~ · 12-26-2020, 01:49 AM

Yeah, I'm hearing it has a LOT of plot holes and pacing problems. Even the positive reviews are saying that and criticizing the ending for the same reasons you mentioned. Definitely sounds like it mostly coasts by on "style", and how much a person enjoys it has a lot to do with how much more than Just That they want or expect. "It's bright! It's colorful! It's funny! If that's all you need, you'll love it; otherwise, eh."

Which is pretty much what I was afraid of, although it doesn't sound as bad as some of the pre-reshoot spoilers made it sound. Like at one point it was apparently REALLY bad and the test screenings were supposedly "a disaster", so I have no doubt that there was a lot of tinkering after the reshoots. Whether it had anything to do with the stuff you suggest, I have no idea.

I'm sure I'll see it at some point, but I already had low urgency and it really does sound really "meh" aside from the visuals. All that stuff and yet another "In Name Only" villain is just absolutely going to annoy the crap out of me, and I know that. Like, they wasted Max freaking Lord in a villain role that could have been just about anybody. I'm gonna have a hard time letting that go.

Some of the Exact Same People who really liked the first one are saying this one is a huge step back, so I really have no reason to disbelieve them. People who disliked the first one or thought it was overrated, I'd expect not to like this one much. But when people who really liked the first one are the ones saying something is screwed up this time, well... that's worth listening to.

If this is what happens when Patty Jenkins gets full creative control, then perhaps she's yet another director who works best with lots of oversight. Which wouldn't make her unique in any way, but it kind of shoots holes in the theory that the first one's success was ALL on her. "Controversial" as it may be to say so, I honestly think the first one had about as much to do with Snyder "holding her hand" the whole time to make sure the movie paralleled "Man of Steel" and fit in as a preamble to "Justice League" as it was designed to do. Like it was still "her movie" and it works great as a stand-alone, but Zack's fingerprints are still all over the first one if you pay attention and know what you're looking at. Even she's gone on record that he was sort of hands-on in his Producer role on the first one. It was more of a collaborative effort than a "Patty Jenkins Solo Movie" and the results seem to be speaking for themselves if the WW84 reviews are any indication. She had full creative control over this one, WB caved in to all of her demands including over money, and in the end it seems like she was in over her head.

Makes you wonder if Disney has any "buyer's remorse" about handing her a Star Wars movie. I doubt they'll up and take it away from her, nor do I think that's even necessary, but I have to wonder if they'll have her on a shorter leash than WB did.

Like she's clearly "fine" and competent as a director but that's about as far as it goes. Sounds like there were a lot of things wrong with this movie that could have been fixed if there was anyone in the room who was willing or able to say, "Why don't we try this, instead?" Next time out, there probably will be.

*Andrew NDB* · 12-26-2020, 03:24 AM

Jeeze. Now that I've seen it... I honestly think WB did, too, and took a long and hard look at it probably after a bunch of test audiences did as well. They realized this HBO Max release is probably the best way to go. They'd deny it, of course.

Think about it. If it barely makes any money, now they can go, "B-b-b-but COVID! Most theaters are closed and people are afraid to die in them anyway!" or they can just point to new HBO Max subscriptions or whatever.

If it'd come out unfettered by COVID nonsense a year ago, it still wouldn't have made anywhere near what part 1 did. I don't know that it would flop, but the novelty was over and this wasn't very good.

*ZariusTwo* · 12-26-2020, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, I'm hearing it has a LOT of plot holes and pacing problems. Even the positive reviews are saying that and criticizing the ending for the same reasons you mentioned. Definitely sounds like it mostly coasts by on "style", and how much a person enjoys it has a lot to do with how much more than Just That they want or expect. "It's bright! It's colorful! It's funny! If that's all you need, you'll love it; otherwise, eh."

I just finished it, and yes, it is more about the style...but Christ there's so much darn whimsey in this. It's very much in the tone of Whedon Justice League, both in humour and presentation, than the very Snyder dictated grit, natural humour/chemistry of co-leads, and colour grade of the first movie.

Spoiler:

*Coola Yagami* · 12-26-2020, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Sounds like there were a lot of things wrong with this movie that could have been fixed if there was anyone in the room who was willing or able to say, "Why don't we try this, instead?"

Anyone saying that would have risked being fired and cancelled for being a mysognist or something.

*CyberCubed* · 12-26-2020, 01:46 PM

Saw it, I really loved the first hour of the film, I'm not gonna lie. It was fun and entertaining, but then of course the back half of the film has to make the plot happen and that's when things go off the rails. I still enjoyed it overall but I can understand if others didn't, the first film was better.

Surprisingly I liked Chris Pine's role in this which I thought I was going to really dislike. The way he came back and tied into Wonder Woman losing her powers was nice and I liked his farewell scene. A lot of the scenes he had were quite funny and I liked when Diana was showing him around the various places.

Also was Kristen Wiig/Cheetah trying to be like Burton's Selina Kyle/Catwoman? Another awkward blonde woman who doesn't fit in at her workplace and her boss takes advantage of her? Then she gains powers, gets stronger and takes revenge on people, and then almost dies at the end of the movie by electrocution but doesn't? This was all Batman Returns Catwoman, wasn't it? It's all I could think of while watching her scenes because of how similar they were.

I also kinda have to laugh how much they sold the gold armor in the flashback where it protected the amazon from 1000+ men and then Cheetah tears it apart in less than 2 minutes.

Ronald Reagan's scenes were spot on though.

*TigerClaw* · 12-26-2020, 01:51 PM

I loved the movie. While the 1st one was great and all. But it was set during WW1 which is a time I'm not familiar with. This movie being set in 1984 was such a delight for me. All the 80s nostalgia the movie throws at you were fun.

I loved all the humor in this movie as people's wishes started to magically happen. With how the things turned up in the end. This could lead to a different DCEU because people would know what happened in 1984 despite Wonder Woman being out there hiding.

*Coola Yagami* · 12-26-2020, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I loved the movie. While the 1st one was great and all. But it was set during WW1 which is a time I'm not familiar with. This movie being set in 1984 was such a delight for me. All the 80s nostalgia the movie throws at you were fun.

I loved all the humor in this movie as people's wishes started to magically happen. With how the things turned up in the end. This could lead to a different DCEU because people would know what happened in 1984 despite Wonder Woman being out there hiding.

Hmmmm that was kinda dumb. They could have used the wish or whatever to make people forget she was there. But I guess at this point who cares about JL anymore. Hell, the Snyer cut can mention that WW was seen running around in 1984 to cover their bases.

*ZariusTwo* · 12-26-2020, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I loved the movie

If you loved it, that's all the reason anyone needs to dislike it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I loved the movie. While the 1st one was great and all. But it was set during WW1 which is a time I'm not familiar with.

Being unfamiliar with one phase of history, which opened up a hell of a lot more conflict, risk, stakes, and drama, means somehow a phase of history where the only affronts to humanity were Thatcherism, fanny packs and shoulder pads was more relatable to you?

Quote:

This movie being set in 1984 was such a delight for me. All the 80s nostalgia the movie throws at you were fun

Dude, 80s memorabilia is everywhere, so much so that referencing it doesn't excite anyone anymore. Also, where were the 80s soundtracks? The trailers had an awesome remix of Blue Monday but isn't in the film at all.

*Autbot_Benz* · 12-26-2020, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I loved the movie.

you love every movie for crying out loud.

*NinjaPug* · 12-26-2020, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I loved the movie. While the 1st one was great and all. But it was set during WW1 which is a time I'm not familiar with. This movie being set in 1984 was such a delight for me. All the 80s nostalgia the movie throws at you were fun.

I loved all the humor in this movie as people's wishes started to magically happen. With how the things turned up in the end. This could lead to a different DCEU because people would know what happened in 1984 despite Wonder Woman being out there hiding.

Other than some of the wardrobe and the mall scene what was the 80s nostalgia?

*CyberCubed* · 12-26-2020, 03:04 PM

A lot of people on twitter and reddit are complaining about the "rape" scene in the movie:

Spoiler:

So they're calling Wonder Woman a rapist now. I dunno, who wouldn't want to be raped by Gal Gadot?

*neatoman* · 12-26-2020, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I dunno, who wouldn't want to be raped by Gal Gadot?

... By definition rape happens against your will, you can't "want" to get raped...

12-26-2020, 01:16 AM	#328
Andrew NDB Weed Whacker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 34,563	Saw it. Meh. I really liked the first one but this was just OK. It felt pretty long, a bit bloated and it was hard to stay interested in what was going on. Also, there didn't seem to be any compelling reason to set the movie in the 80s. I expected more. Like, I don't know, a rockin' 80s soundtrack out of it, at least? Not just the mall from Stranger Things, tube TVs, and the usual gags about 80s clothes. Spoiler: Max Lord's scheme didn't really make much sense (see also: he didn't seem anything like Max Lord). His own wish injured him physically... so he needs to grant people's wishes so he can heal himself by taking from them? So why doesn't he just stop there? What is he getting out of it, after that point? And we never even find out which god created the Monkey's Paw crystal thing after they made a big deal about it earlier on. Ending was lame. She kind of just... stops fighting Cheetah (and most of that fight is in the trailers)? And Max Lord suddenly becomes good because of a son they made up for him in this and apparently quietly gets away with his crimes? Meh. If they weren't going to do the real Max Lord and throw in OMACs and such then they needed to include some kind of true threat to Wonder Woman. Also, why did Max Lord step into the middle of that energy field near the end during his mass-wish granting session (after WW smacked away his mic)? What was that supposed to accomplish? Was it really like the Riddler beaming those dreams and stuff into his head on the island in Batman Forever? If so... yeesh! Also, I'm almost positive the entire Max Lord son angle and subplot and even the character itself was a reshoot thing. Like, that wasn't a thing in the original version but they realized their Max Lord was cardboard thin and it wasn't enough to just use him to poke fun at the "idea" of a Trump-like guy. __________________ [ ODYSSEY \| ORIGIN \| THE IMAGE/VOL. 3 CONCLUSION \| THE SHELLSHOCKED PODCAST \| ON FACEBOOK ] Last edited by Andrew NDB; 12-26-2020 at 03:22 AM.

12-26-2020, 03:24 AM	#330
Andrew NDB Weed Whacker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 34,563	Jeeze. Now that I've seen it... I honestly think WB did, too, and took a long and hard look at it probably after a bunch of test audiences did as well. They realized this HBO Max release is probably the best way to go. They'd deny it, of course. Think about it. If it barely makes any money, now they can go, "B-b-b-but COVID! Most theaters are closed and people are afraid to die in them anyway!" or they can just point to new HBO Max subscriptions or whatever. If it'd come out unfettered by COVID nonsense a year ago, it still wouldn't have made anywhere near what part 1 did. I don't know that it would flop, but the novelty was over and this wasn't very good. __________________ [ ODYSSEY \| ORIGIN \| THE IMAGE/VOL. 3 CONCLUSION \| THE SHELLSHOCKED PODCAST \| ON FACEBOOK ]

12-26-2020, 01:51 PM	#334
TigerClaw Mutant Tiger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Hialeah, Florida, USA Posts: 14,165	I loved the movie. While the 1st one was great and all. But it was set during WW1 which is a time I'm not familiar with. This movie being set in 1984 was such a delight for me. All the 80s nostalgia the movie throws at you were fun. I loved all the humor in this movie as people's wishes started to magically happen. With how the things turned up in the end. This could lead to a different DCEU because people would know what happened in 1984 despite Wonder Woman being out there hiding. __________________ Follow me on my Tiktok https://www.tiktok.com/@tygerclaw305

12-26-2020, 03:04 PM	#339
CyberCubed Overlord Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 43,883	A lot of people on twitter and reddit are complaining about the "rape" scene in the movie: Spoiler: Because Chris Pine is in another mans body when he sleeps with Diana. So they're calling Wonder Woman a rapist now. I dunno, who wouldn't want to be raped by Gal Gadot?

12-25-2020, 12:23 PM	#322
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	For what it's worth the costume designer said numerous times that Trump was the primary influence on the visual style for Lord, specifically his comb-over hairdo and the way his suits don't quite fit right, things like that. She said they had pictures of Trump all over the walls of the rooms they were working in so it would be a constant influence. And Jenkins said it was present in the way he projects at being a successful businessman but really it's a front and he's not doing as well as he wants people to believe. And how he's a con artist/manipulator, things like that. I don't know, it's one thing when people infer or project things about a movie. But when the people who made the movie say over and over again "We were specifically evoking _________ with This or That creative choice" then I think that's worth listening to. I mean, they said they riffed on him on purpose and the climactic fight scene happens in the White House. People can take or leave that kinda stuff but I don't think they were going for subtlety with this one.

12-25-2020, 12:45 PM	#323
~~Sumac~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 6,129	I dunno, about "not being quite successful", if you are president of the mother****ing United States.

12-26-2020, 01:49 AM	#329
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Yeah, I'm hearing it has a LOT of plot holes and pacing problems. Even the positive reviews are saying that and criticizing the ending for the same reasons you mentioned. Definitely sounds like it mostly coasts by on "style", and how much a person enjoys it has a lot to do with how much more than Just That they want or expect. "It's bright! It's colorful! It's funny! If that's all you need, you'll love it; otherwise, eh." Which is pretty much what I was afraid of, although it doesn't sound as bad as some of the pre-reshoot spoilers made it sound. Like at one point it was apparently REALLY bad and the test screenings were supposedly "a disaster", so I have no doubt that there was a lot of tinkering after the reshoots. Whether it had anything to do with the stuff you suggest, I have no idea. I'm sure I'll see it at some point, but I already had low urgency and it really does sound really "meh" aside from the visuals. All that stuff and yet another "In Name Only" villain is just absolutely going to annoy the crap out of me, and I know that. Like, they wasted Max freaking Lord in a villain role that could have been just about anybody. I'm gonna have a hard time letting that go. Some of the Exact Same People who really liked the first one are saying this one is a huge step back, so I really have no reason to disbelieve them. People who disliked the first one or thought it was overrated, I'd expect not to like this one much. But when people who really liked the first one are the ones saying something is screwed up this time, well... that's worth listening to. If this is what happens when Patty Jenkins gets full creative control, then perhaps she's yet another director who works best with lots of oversight. Which wouldn't make her unique in any way, but it kind of shoots holes in the theory that the first one's success was ALL on her. "Controversial" as it may be to say so, I honestly think the first one had about as much to do with Snyder "holding her hand" the whole time to make sure the movie paralleled "Man of Steel" and fit in as a preamble to "Justice League" as it was designed to do. Like it was still "her movie" and it works great as a stand-alone, but Zack's fingerprints are still all over the first one if you pay attention and know what you're looking at. Even she's gone on record that he was sort of hands-on in his Producer role on the first one. It was more of a collaborative effort than a "Patty Jenkins Solo Movie" and the results seem to be speaking for themselves if the WW84 reviews are any indication. She had full creative control over this one, WB caved in to all of her demands including over money, and in the end it seems like she was in over her head. Makes you wonder if Disney has any "buyer's remorse" about handing her a Star Wars movie. I doubt they'll up and take it away from her, nor do I think that's even necessary, but I have to wonder if they'll have her on a shorter leash than WB did. Like she's clearly "fine" and competent as a director but that's about as far as it goes. Sounds like there were a lot of things wrong with this movie that could have been fixed if there was anyone in the room who was willing or able to say, "Why don't we try this, instead?" Next time out, there probably will be.

12-26-2020, 01:46 PM	#333
CyberCubed Overlord Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 43,883	Saw it, I really loved the first hour of the film, I'm not gonna lie. It was fun and entertaining, but then of course the back half of the film has to make the plot happen and that's when things go off the rails. I still enjoyed it overall but I can understand if others didn't, the first film was better. Surprisingly I liked Chris Pine's role in this which I thought I was going to really dislike. The way he came back and tied into Wonder Woman losing her powers was nice and I liked his farewell scene. A lot of the scenes he had were quite funny and I liked when Diana was showing him around the various places. Also was Kristen Wiig/Cheetah trying to be like Burton's Selina Kyle/Catwoman? Another awkward blonde woman who doesn't fit in at her workplace and her boss takes advantage of her? Then she gains powers, gets stronger and takes revenge on people, and then almost dies at the end of the movie by electrocution but doesn't? This was all Batman Returns Catwoman, wasn't it? It's all I could think of while watching her scenes because of how similar they were. I also kinda have to laugh how much they sold the gold armor in the flashback where it protected the amazon from 1000+ men and then Cheetah tears it apart in less than 2 minutes. Ronald Reagan's scenes were spot on though.