[Movie] Wonder Woman 1984

Z-Corn · Post by **Z-Corn** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 12:25 pm

We've tried to watch this the past two afternoons and it just gets to the same point two minutes in and buffers.

Maybe I won't bother trying again though from the sounds of it.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:11 pm

Wow, that does sound quite bad. I guess it was hard to make a sequel when the original movie hit it out of the park, but still, sounds like quite a downgrade. Does it address being in the 80's any, or is it just used as set-dressing? Doesn't sound like they really put much thought behind it.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:19 pm

They should have set it in Orwell's 1984. Now that I would watch.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:23 pm

Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:11 pm Wow, that does sound quite bad. I guess it was hard to make a sequel when the original movie hit it out of the park, but still, sounds like quite a downgrade. Does it address being in the 80's any, or is it just used as set-dressing? Doesn't sound like they really put much thought behind it.

Doesnt address it at all. Other than a few minutes of lame wardrobe jokes, you'd never know.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:56 pm

I never felt the first was great. It was OK, but nothing special.

And I agree with the comment about Gadot's acting ability. She's a little stiff.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:57 pm

I really liked the first one, but what's being reported here and elsewhere is giving me the sads.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm

The first one, while merely OK, was an improvement over the other non Nolan DC films.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:09 pm

Opinions aside, Wonder Woman 3 being fast-tracked:

Wonder Woman 3 is being fast-tracked Warner Bros. announced today. The news comes as the pic has amounted $85M WW after a $16.7M domestic debut.

The threequel will be written by Patty Jenkins, who is attached to direct, and starring Gal Gadot.

The pic was released on HBO Max in the states and in theaters this past weekend. The sequel was in its second weekend abroad grossing $19.4M from 42 markets. Combined with U.S./Canada, WW1984 made $36.1M.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:28 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:23 pm
Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:11 pm Wow, that does sound quite bad. I guess it was hard to make a sequel when the original movie hit it out of the park, but still, sounds like quite a downgrade. Does it address being in the 80's any, or is it just used as set-dressing? Doesn't sound like they really put much thought behind it.
Doesnt address it at all. Other than a few minutes of lame wardrobe jokes, you'd never know.

That's what I feared from the get-go. Could have been a fun way to explore things.

McNutt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:56 pm I never felt the first was great. It was OK, but nothing special.

Well, it hit it out of the park for my family, at least, when you consider it was my Mom who wanted to see it and she's normally not into these kinds of movies. I think it did a lot of things right. It's the end though that ended devolving into the usual though.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:19 pm

I enjoyed it but I can totally see the issues that are ruining it for everyone with any sort of taste or expectations. Perhaps being on staycation the preceding 11 days softened my critical response (assuming I have one) due to an overwhelming state of relaxation.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:21 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:23 pm
Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:11 pm Wow, that does sound quite bad. I guess it was hard to make a sequel when the original movie hit it out of the park, but still, sounds like quite a downgrade. Does it address being in the 80's any, or is it just used as set-dressing? Doesn't sound like they really put much thought behind it.
Doesnt address it at all. Other than a few minutes of lame wardrobe jokes, you'd never know.

I noticed "it could only work in earlier times" during the opening set piece. WW used her tiara to take out a couple security cameras while she went to work (to help hide her identity I guess?). If it were set now, there would have been a thousand smartphones streaming the whole thing from every angle on Facebook Live.

As for '84 specifically:

Spoiler:

We had no problems with streaming on Christmas day, though it was 8-ish here on the West Coast so high demand from the East would have already died down.

JCC · Post by **JCC** » Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:08 am

Yeah, this is a pretty massive disappointment. The premise of the plot is just too stupid. There are entertaining moments but the core plot just sucked.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:08 am

I thought it was good but not great:

1) It took far too long to get started.
2) The fight scenes

Spoiler:

3) Where it really feel down with me was the final fight scene.

Spoiler:

4) I did love her learning

Spoiler:

I really thought Gadot did a good job showing surprise and vulnerability

Spoiler:

.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 28, 2020 10:27 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:04 am I adore Kristen Wiig but she’s a terrible villain.

I honestly thought Wiig fared pretty well. I certainly didn't expect her to work out. But she managed to win me over with her performance. Her character was poorly written, true (I especially loved the drunk would be rapist who magically appears whenever the plot needs him...they could have at least made it two different drunk would be rapists, but nooooo), but Wiig did what she could with the character and at least made her desire to be powerful less about 2 dimensional comic book villainy and more about suddenly finding happiness and refusing to give up on that.

I posted this in the HBO Max thread earlier, but my main gripes were

Spoiler:

Like Grifman though, I did enjoy most of the fight scenes. Although it seemed like the film started with action...then gave up on that for about 90 minutes before remembering it was a movie about superheroes and returning to that. A film like the first Thor was able to get away with that kind of thing because it was a fairly strong script (in comparison) that had a journey of growth for the main character. But WW is missing that. It tried to deal with loss, but it buried that message under so much bad writing that it failed to convey that for me.

Z-Corn · Post by **Z-Corn** » Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:39 pm

I was able to fast forward past the part that kept buffering and we watched it yesterday.

There was no need to do so.

JCC · Post by **JCC** » Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:11 pm

hepcat's article above brings up a good point...

Spoiler:

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 1:07 am

Spoiler:

Overall the movie was fine - it's popcorn fluff, entertaining at times. My real issue with the movie is that it's just absurdly long for a popcorn movie - it really, really does not earn it's 2.5 hour run time. If this movie was an hour and 45, it'd be fine - it would basically be something like Captain Marvel. And it's not like there wasn't unnecessary fluff to cut. Apparently the studio wanted Jenkins to cut either the Amazon intro or the Mallrats intro for time. And I gotta say, as much as people tend to side with the directors in this kind of thing, I think the studio was 1,000% correct (I'd drop the mall scene).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 2:00 am

If it wasn't for all the slow-mo...

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 2:26 am

Wife and I watched it this evening at the theatre.

Wife liked it, I thought it was decent.

Spoiler:

They still haven't managed to make superpowered leaps and landings appear realistic. They still look floaty because of the wire work.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:50 am

I will also say that Gal Gadot's legs, in the dress that she wears to the formal party, deserve an Academy Award

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:05 am

Meh...she’s no Bea Arthur.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:30 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:05 am Meh...she’s no Bea Arthur.

Wasn't she the last winner of the "Best Gams" Oscar before the category was replaced by "Best Supporting Actress?"

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 29, 2020 1:32 pm

I want a film of Steve walking around the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum for two hours.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:27 pm

I do have to say that I thought Pascal's performance was pretty good, even if he does look like a Wish-ordered Nathan Fillion.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:26 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:27 pm I do have to say that I thought Pascal's performance was pretty good, even if he does look like a Wish-ordered Nathan Fillion.

Poor man finally got to do some acting where people can see his face!

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:50 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:26 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:27 pm I do have to say that I thought Pascal's performance was pretty good, even if he does look like a Wish-ordered Nathan Fillion.
Poor man finally got to do some acting where people can see his face!

Oh, you mean just like they could see his face on Narcos and GoT?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:48 pm

Being able to see his face didn’t work out too well on GoT. I don’t know about Narcos.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:41 pm

He was one of the main characters in the first series as one of the cops.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:11 pm

Fun fact: Pascal was one of the main characters on the Wonder Woman tv series that didn’t make it past a pilot. It was apparently pretty awful.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:38 am

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:48 pm Being able to see his face didn’t work out too well on GoT. I don’t know about Narcos.

The first two seasons of Narcos are great. Well worth watching.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:46 am

Baby Yoda played Pablo Escobar too!

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:04 pm

This movie is rough going. I think some of the decisions the director made are questionable. Example, and this is an early dialogue scene

Spoiler:

Another example of how sloppy it felt to me was when someone falls on to a car. There are police all around when this happens. NO ONE looks up to see where they fell from. I guess we are supposed to assume it's common for them to see people just appear out of thin air? Whoever directed that scene didn't seem to put a lot of thought into it. Because this is the second WW movie I expected it to be a finely tuned machine, instead it plays like it's a rough cut in need of more work.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:09 pm

Well duh, they obviously fell from Plot Armor Towers.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:20 pm

Wife and I watched it on New Year's Eve. I wasn't expecting too much out of it given the early buzz, and it turned out . . . fine. It wasn't as good as the first one (which I had just watched a couple of weeks before) and it had some logical issues big and small, but it was a silly, campy superhero movie. Having lowered expectations probably helped our enjoyment of it.

rittchard · Post by **rittchard** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:58 pm

This review summarizes most of what I felt:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 ... 617c3e180c

Honestly, though, I would say it was just a poor mishmash of concepts leading to a poor story and a poor screenplay, buoyed by a strong cast. Yet again with a DC movie, it feels like they are trying to do too many things in one movie, but in the end make none of them satisfying.

Here's the list someone started with:

Spoiler:

Ok someone mash this all together and get me a script!

There were some moments I enjoyed, and I just love Gal Gadot and Mando, but I couldn't help feeling like this was such a missed opportunity. I get the sense they wanted a lighter, fun tone, maybe? Or at least some of the team wanted that? But then it becomes difficult to take it at all seriously when the "villains'" are arguably more or just as sympathetic as the hero. Maybe if they had focused on the core of the "be careful what you wish for" storyline, it certainly had potential, but truthfully I've seen a bunch of low budget horror movies that used the concept better.

Maybe someone can digitally replace that annoying child and replace it with Baby Yoda. I'd probably forgive everything to see that.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:00 pm

I had a similar take. It was fine, but I won't be revisiting it the way I've re-watched the first WW movie. A bit of a letdown is all.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:26 pm

I hated it. I felt the story was weak, the villians were boring, the special effects lack luster, and overall just hollow.

I loved superman as a kid, but had I seen it as an adult, I'd probably feel the same. DC seems to struggle on putting out quality movies. I think the recent batmans would be the exception.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:34 pm

Bite your tongue. There's a sincerity and humanity to the first superman movie that still makes me tear up when watching it.

Ww84 doesn't have that though.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:27 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:34 pm Bite your tongue. There's a sincerity and humanity to the first superman movie that still makes me tear up when watching it.

Ww84 doesn't have that though.

I agree. But I think my view would be different if I saw it first as an adult.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:27 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:34 pm Bite your tongue. There's a sincerity and humanity to the first superman movie that still makes me tear up when watching it.

Superman and the Mole Men does have that effect on people!