Wonder Woman (WW84)

[keknivek]

I'm not certain anyone wants to discuss this movie, but I watched it this weekend and I see a lot of people disliking. I gotta say I thought it was nuts, but I kinda liked what they were doing. I am not one to fall victim to groupthink, but perhaps I'm just overlooking the flaws. I felt like I understood the concept and the visuals (while a bit thin at times and heavy CG in others) were fun overall.

Anyone care about this one?

 

[VideoViper]

Meh, that’s sadly my take away didn’t hate it, but wasn’t really anything special overall. They just kind of forgot about Cheeta at the end.

Didn’t really like signing up for 6 months to see one movie, but at least I get to watch the new season of Westworld again.

 

[Masterfett]

The biggest problem "in Universe" for this movie is the the stakes, with no "memory" of it in the DCEU. Although I've heard this was an attempt at a soft reboot of the character that distances itself from the established Snyderverse. So who knows? IMO It didn't really need a reboot or distancing since it's set so far removed form that era already. Even if she was able to erase herself from mall cams and any other video that exists, she's supposed to believe all those who saw her will keep quiet. Or for that matter expect everyone to withdraw their wish and for everyone to simply forget what happened on this day when we were essentially at war with Nukes fired?

IMO It just needed a more compelling story/plot that didn't hinge on Steve returning in order to cover for the still learning/improving Gal Gadot's shortcomings by having Pine there to do the heavy lifting. Because face it, without him it would have been even worse by not having her feed off his chemistry. Problem is that it causes additional issues because it wasn't really his body, thus her having non consensual relations with a stranger. Not to mention the possible damage caused to his life by him not going to work or interacting with his friends/family etc. while Steve was in play.

Then there's the Villain, well Cheetah is a main Villain but not here. I'm not big fan of Wiig in the first place so I'm a bit biased going in, but the way they portrayed her was bland typical trope that made her uninteresting from the start. And considering her position at the Smithsonian she wouldn't exactly be a bumbling fool they make her out to be, right? Which also bring up the issue of how long Diana has worked there without anyone ever noticing she doesn't age.

Max was almost believable only because of the way Pascal portrayed him, but this isn't exactly any iteration of the character I've ever seen in comics. Which for me made this character a pathetic loser and nothing like the character that has similar traits as Luthor, something I was actually looking forward to. A battle of wits if you will more than just wishing it all away, or the battle of brawn in the first movie.

There is just so much that went wrong with this movie, not simply a couple nitpick. When you left the first movie you felt something "an energy" and a sense that she actually did something impactful. This outing felt hollow and left you with a sense that it was all meaningless to the larger picture.
it's almost as if they were going for campy like the old series from the 70's. I don't know what they could heavy done different really to make it more cohesive and and interesting. I' have seen a few thoughts here and there that maybe she should have been the one who uncovers artifacts at a dig site rather than it being shipped to a Mall of all places. I don't know how you'd make Barbara and Max more interesting or adequate foes.

I did suspect they'd have their work cut out for them in the sequel though being as she doesn't have that compelling of foes on her own, they should have borrowed a JL Villain like Big Barda. Or even gone with a Greek them and used Circe, maybe even went with Deimos.

 

[LandoGriffin]

It wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen but it certainly was not good, especially compared to the first film.
The mall and climax scenes (talking to the audience, cuts to everything happening around the world) were particularly cringe.

 

[keknivek]

I saw this as a throwback sort of movie from the beginning. The intro with her as a little girl doing the Amazon "ninja warrior" run went a bit long and seemed rather anti-climactic, but while watching it felt like the first movie so I was interested (I see that first sequence as being less interesting upon any future viewings for sure).

The MALL.... I can see why cringeworthy is a word being used, but you can't tell me this didn't remind you of the orignal Superman films. If you wanted more realism then I get why you might have questioned what was going on. Yes, she was seen by a lot of people. Yes, the whole thing was a bit schlocky (cheap, cheesy... whatevs) but I saw that as the whole point of setting this in 1984. There is nothing more 1984 then malls, aerobics, TV, Video Games, Cold War, Nukes, all the colors and suits and bad hair... This was Wonder Woman in a more cheery Stranger Things episode.

I'm feeling like the 'in Universe' memory becomes a problem after the fact, but it's a superhero world... the world is at stake... like always.

I do think the Steve Trevor part is problematic... but mainly due to the current political/social climate. They could have brought him back without the body-snatcher scenario. Chris Pine reversing roles with Diana and being the 'fish-out-of-water' in this movie worked pretty well. I just wish they had found a better way to use him beyond him jus being there for Diana's growth.

Cheetah was a more believable version of Jamie Foxx's Electro. Wiig does the awkward thing well and I felt was great up until the 'apex predator' part ... which then honestly just gave Diana someone to fight and became a plot device. I completely got that character losing her humanity in exchange for the power she gained.

Pascal had a great year! I didn't care about Max Lord from comics so this character was full on gonzo and I loved it. This movie was not about Diana vs Thanos/Ares/Steppenwolf.... I can overlook CG because it's used so much now, I just want to be entertained and while this movie was too long really, I didn't get bored.

 

[Cobalt60]

I found some of the directorial decisions to be sort of sloppy, there were lots of continuity errors, and lots of... strange decisions, on the part of the director. for example barbara gives the homeless guy food and says "stay warm" -- the end scene takes place in winter (so this lines up with the "stay warm" comment) -- but for some reason we are told it's the "fourth of july" when they steal the plane?(whut?). it just seemed like the whole steve trevor subplot was tacked on after the fact with scotch tape, to the point where you could actually see the seams -- it didn't line up with the rest of the movie.

also the steve trevor subplot itself was mildly disturbing, when you think about it -- dude wakes up in the body of some innocent bystander (who never asked to be "possessed" by the spirit of a dead guy) -- who has never met Diana before in his life -- this guy had his body "comandeered" AGAINST HIS WILL... so ,naturally, the very first thing Diana does is have sex with him (against his will). later, at the end of the movie, we actually SEE this guy again (!awkward!), and not once does Diana mention to him that, oh btw, she had basically RAPED his inert body while he was unable to give consent.

this poor guy had his "body" taken over against his will by steve trevor, who continually risks this guy's life by putting his "body" in mortal danger (with no consent) -- wonder woman uses his "body" as a sex toy (also with no consent) -- and the worst part? he doesn't even REMEMBER any of it!! -- (like some sort of "date rape" drug) -- he basically got "roofied" by a DC superhero. the whole thing is just... bizarre, coming from a female director like patty jenkins.

it would be better if "steve trevor's ghost" had inhabited a dead body from the cemetery for Diana to ****. or if maybe the dreamstone could have simply just brought him back to life, complete and whole and "in the flesh" in his OWN body -- this thing caused a giant wall to magically appear in the desert out of thin air, after all -- it can certainly make a human body appear out of thin air. the explanation for ST's return is, quite literally, a "magic stone" after all.. so the whole "body snatcher" angle wasn't EVEN needed to make this narrative work. (jenkins could have just said "Steve's Back... Because Magic' and that would be enough in this story). the whole "date rape" subplot, just seemed random and unnecessary. and mildly disturbing, from the mind of a woman).



also, what's with the armor? at one point in the narrative, she's losing her powers, and bullets are shown to actually hurt her -- so the armor WOULD make sense in this scenario.... but she had already renounced her wish and gotten her powers back. she was at "full strength" again (so why did she go back to her apartment to get the armor for the final battle?). it's not like she -needed- it against cheetah's claws, (because she hadn't actually SEEN cheetah's final transformation), there's no way she would have known that cheetah actually HAD any claws.

it seems like the 'golden-armor' was a left-over from previous versions of the movie. ie: IF she had already encountered the cheetah earlier in the film (and had gotten her ass kicked by cheetah's claws) then it WOULD make sense to grab the armor for the rematch with cheetah (?perhaps this happened in an earlier cut of the film?); IF she was still losing her powers and vulnerable to bullets, then it WOULD make sense to grab the armor, to supplement her waning powers for the final battle (?perhaps this happened in an earlier cut of the film?); etc.

but Diana was at "full strength" again... she had no knowledge of cheetah's claws... so there was no (story-driven) reason for her to go back to her apartment, and take the time to grab the armor. it seems like the golden armor was just a "leftover" from previous versions of the script -- as every reason she might have had, to actually "use" the armor, was resolved BEFORE she put on the armor. LOL

^^ this whole movie is held together with scotch tape and bubble gum. I sort of expected more, from a director of her calibre. I was really looking forward to having her tackle Rogue Squadron.... which is why, it sort of pains me to say this... but this movie suffers from, nothing more than just, sloppy directing. *sigh*

 

[nintendo2600]

Movie was ok, the ending was terrible.

 

[keknivek]

It's always hard to tell what is directing, what is story, and what is meddling from studios. I agree with you on the point that this seems like a movie that could have been helped quite a bit through editing. I do wonder if there was a Cheetah plot that was lost and a Golden Armor plot somewhere and they decided it was too much but didn't want to scrap it so they kept parts .... seems like the amount of time and money spent would have been enough to iron out some of that for sure.

 

[DarkArtist]

I fell asleep 3 times during the movie. it didn't seem to have the action and heart of the 1st. I might try to watch it again but just didn't work for me.

It was almost as if even the actors and actresses didn't have their hearts in the movie.

 

[Masterfett]

I know that they prefer the solo outings to be "their" films but in the case of Gal I think she needs an ensemble cast similar to the team she had in the first Movie. And at least a charismatic co-lead, which why it only really worked when Steve was on screen sadly. Because they can't justify bringing him back in WW 3, they've already played that card. I know a lot of people like Gal Gadot but they have to face the fact she cannot carry a movie alone.

So unless they bring back Pine as a different character who merely looks like Steve, or is possibly a descendant, then they'll need to find a new actor that Gadot can feed off of. Which brings me to the possibility that she costars with another Leaguer for the third outing, perhaps Shazam since Gods and Magic are fairly similar and she even knows magic tricks. "Invisible Jet"

Or they introduce a new character as a potential JL member through this movie that she discovers on mission that she possibly mentors. Maybe even Donna Troy. Casting a romantic lead seems contrary to events in JL where she's still apparently hung up on Steve, so i don't know how they pull that off. I know they don't want to make this a JL 1.5 movie like Civil War was basically an Avengers movie, and would prefer to keep it about Diana and her growth. Personally I've always been fine with a team of in the solo movies, not every member of course but 1 or 2 would be fine.

 

[Cobalt60]

JL is a tough nut to crack. when I think of JL, I think of the cartoon version... the one where they live in the "Watchtower" and each character is (already) the best version of themselves -- which means -- there's not a whole lot of room for character growth if this were adapted straight to a motion picture version of the same thing, because these characters are presented to us in this cartoon as 'already developed' in the show's ongoing status quo.

I think Snyder chose to set this "version" of JL, as the "end-point" of ALL his planned story arcs for these characters in his Snyderverse... this "ideal" version of JL, was to be the "target" for what his characters would grow INTO, by the time he was done with them. so with that in mind, he sort of rewound the clock on each of these characters, and placed them each in a dark place, to start off with.. why? so they would have room to grow INTO that ideal version.

so when we first meet Batman in the Snyderverse (for example), Batman is a dark, cynical, jaded 'ex-hero' who has lost his robin and he's arguably at the darkest point of his life when the Snyderverse begins; Aquaman is exiled from atlantis and shunned by humanity and he's arguably at the darkest point in his life too; Cyborg is a tortured soul who hates what he's become, and he's arguably at the darkest point in his life; Wonder Woman has "turned her back on humanity" and is exiled from her homeland, and all alone in the world, and is arguably, at the darkest point in her life; Superman has no faith in humanity anymore, (he broke his "do not kill" rule in the VERY first Snyder film -- this is NOT your grandpa's Superman), he has come to wonder "why bother?" in Lois Lane's bathtub and he's, arguably, at the darkest point in his life... and etc, etc...

^^ I mean, holy crap! talk about a depressing bunch of characters! these are supposed to be "superhero movies" and everybody's walking around like manic depressives at the end of the(ir) world(s).

^^ presumably, under Snyder's watch, each of these characters would go on a journey of self-discovery which would see then 'grow' INTO those ideal versions of themselves, whom we all know and love, who live on the watchtower solving crimes on saturday morning cartoons....

....but his "starting point" for this journey was SOOO dark and depressing, for each of these characters, that the audience (and the studio) lost interestr and BAILED before he even got started. nobody could embrace these dark jaded versions of these characters.




after all, a "normal" character arc doesn't see this kind of "darkness" until act TWO. something along the lines of "...boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back in the end" (that KIND of thing).

we normally get to know (and get to LIKE) a character first... THEN the writer throws that character into the darkest point in their lives... THEN the character overcomes their conflict, and comes out the other side changed for the better. (aka: a proper arc)

but Snyder chose to start his epic character arcs in the middle of "act TWO" for EACH of these characters.... (presumably there's a backstory for why Batman is so jaded and bitter (as evidenced by his effigy to Robin) but Snyder thought the 'act one' part was unimportant. he wanted to START the story with batman already AT his "darkest-of-days", and go from there ...and THAT dark depressing "starting point" made EACH of his characters inaccessible.

we couldn't sympathize with a superman who KILLS his adversaries on his very first mission; we couldn't sympathize with a batman who WANTS to kill superman in return; we couldn't sympathize with a wonder woman who has "turned her back on humanity"(etc). these are NOT the ideal versions of ANY of these characters LOL.... because Snyder insisted on starting each arc in their respective act TWO, "the darkest-of-days", for EACH of the JL characters.

a better strategy would have been, to present each of these characters in their own "hopeful" first-episode-movie (like WW1), and THEN throw them all into darkness for act two -- to show Batman at his 'best' before robin died (to gain the audience's sympathy for Snyder's version of the character), BEFORE we see him presented to us as a jaded murderous ******* (with whom the audience cannot sympathize, even if they TRY).




in the case of WW, Jenkins went back to her Origin and told the story of her coming into the world, full of "superhero ideals" and full of faith in humanity.. so Jenkins got the opportunity to go back BEFORE the Snyder version, to a time BEFORE Diana "turned her back on humanity".. to a time when the character was actually someone whom the audience could actually identify/agree with.. and this is why WW1 did so well at the BO (when compared to all the "dark" and cynical Snyder-characters populating the rest of the DCEU).

in that sense, WW84 should have brought us to the "act two" of Diana's arc, where Diana "turns her back on humanity", and grows more towards the cynical jaded ex-hero that we see in BvS. but it seems like Jenkins has decided to buck against Snyder's "version" of the character. so now it's almost like we're dealing with two different "versions" of wonder woman in the DCEU -- the Jenkins version is not quite lining up with the BvS movie. LOL

the only way this works now is if WW3 is yet another prequel which takes place before BvS -- if they use the WW3 movie to bring Diana to that point where she "turns her back on humanity" (to line up with the Snyder version).

but that would suck for Jenkin's "trilogy" (as a whole) because that would mean she basically has to END her trilogy on the proverbial "Act TWO" of Diana's character arc (as discussed above). Jenkins would need to END her trilogy, at Diana's "darkest of days", just to line up with Snyder's "starting point" that he used back in BvS. (and I don't think Jenkins will be keen to play ball on that field -- she will want to wrap her trilogy up with a neat bow, where Diana comes out the other side 'changed for the better. aka: a proper arc' -- I don't think she will be keen to END her trilogy with Diana "turning her back on humanity") (they really should have done that in WW84, and then set WW3 to take place AFTER the JL movie).

 

[Cobalt60]

I know that they prefer the solo outings to be "their" films but in the case of Gal I think she needs an ensemble cast similar to the team she had in the first Movie. And at least a charismatic co-lead, which why it only really worked when Steve was on screen sadly. Because they can't justify bringing him back in WW 3, they've already played that card. I know a lot of people like Gal Gadot but they have to face the fact she cannot carry a movie alone.

So unless they bring back Pine as a different character who merely looks like Steve, or is possibly a descendant, then they'll need to find a new actor that Gadot can feed off of. Which brings me to the possibility that she costars with another Leaguer for the third outing, perhaps Shazam since Gods and Magic are fairly similar and she even knows magic tricks. "Invisible Jet"

Or they introduce a new character as a potential JL member through this movie that she discovers on mission that she possibly mentors. Maybe even Donna Troy. Casting a romantic lead seems contrary to events in JL where she's still apparently hung up on Steve, so i don't know how they pull that off. I know they don't want to make this a JL 1.5 movie like Civil War was basically an Avengers movie, and would prefer to keep it about Diana and her growth. Personally I've always been fine with a team of in the solo movies, not every member of course but 1 or 2 would be fine.

the same thing happened with Linda Carter in the 70's. the first season took place in ww2 and the second took place in the present day. apparently her onscreen chemistry with steve trevor was deemed to be important to the show (and/or dude had an iron-clad contract for season2) so they used the same actor to play steve trevor jr... so Diana had a love-interest in "steve trevor" and then 30 years later she carried on with the same guy's son. (it was the swingin'seventies, so I guess nobody thought that was weird).

 

[keknivek]

I know that they prefer the solo outings to be "their" films but in the case of Gal I think she needs an ensemble cast similar to the team she had in the first Movie. And at least a charismatic co-lead, which why it only really worked when Steve was on screen sadly. Because they can't justify bringing him back in WW 3, they've already played that card. I know a lot of people like Gal Gadot but they have to face the fact she cannot carry a movie alone.

So unless they bring back Pine as a different character who merely looks like Steve, or is possibly a descendant, then they'll need to find a new actor that Gadot can feed off of. Which brings me to the possibility that she costars with another Leaguer for the third outing, perhaps Shazam since Gods and Magic are fairly similar and she even knows magic tricks. "Invisible Jet"

Or they introduce a new character as a potential JL member through this movie that she discovers on mission that she possibly mentors. Maybe even Donna Troy. Casting a romantic lead seems contrary to events in JL where she's still apparently hung up on Steve, so i don't know how they pull that off. I know they don't want to make this a JL 1.5 movie like Civil War was basically an Avengers movie, and would prefer to keep it about Diana and her growth. Personally I've always been fine with a team of in the solo movies, not every member of course but 1 or 2 would be fine.

I cannot disagree that Gal Gadot appears to be limited. She's certainly not limited in looks or personality, but she does need something to play off of. I know that Steve Trevor was a big deal in the comics, but I think WW84 fell flat because of that reliance on the character and the way he became a central plot point through what is honestly a rather creepy and perhaps poorly thought out way.

I think a lot of the DC stuff suffers from that lack of humanity. How do people really relate to Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Superman? Batman is like Iron Man... not so hard to see his motivations. All of the Marvel characters have rather understandable situations... even the Norse God and the talking tree/raccoon combo. I would dare say A-man, WW, and Sups are hard to put in any real peril.

I'm hopeful for WW III. I didn't hate WW84 I think because I really like her, Pedro Pascal, Kristin Wiig and Chris Pine.... all great... just wish they'd had a better story.

 

[Masterfett]

That was the biggest reason I was against that casting decision in the first place, her acting strengths for a lead role. Sure she may look like she could be Amazonian but you don't hire a person solely on looks do you? Now I'm not anti Gal, I actually like her in a couple things but I know/knew very well she's not a titular actress by any means. She really does need to feed of of someone. My thought is, why would Snyder go with her, was she basically just a "cameo" for BVS and JL? And did he not see her weakness or thought she'd improve sooner? He definitely has some odd choices in for casting at times, some god some bad. IMO

However, this one seems the weakest for a main character. How well would MoS gone over if they had gotten someone not as talented as Cavill for Clark/Superman?

 

[keknivek]

I was really disappointed in MoS. I still think that the Justice League Characters can be done well, but they really need someone with vision to put it together. Out of all the recent movies that have been done for DC characters the only ones that didn't have MAJOR flaws were the Dark Knight Trilogy (and in my opinion the first 2 only) and Wonder Woman.

Gal Gadot was perfect for Diana in the first one.

70 years may have been too big of a jump though. We are left to believe that she just exists and occasionally (or perhaps routinely) kicks butt in malls. Have the same Max Lord and Cheetah storyline but played out in the 50's for example. Keep her out of the spotlight and show her having worked with the military in some capacity and now in a generic government job during McCarthyism and the Red Scare. You could explain the paranoia to Max Lord and the wishing stone and have Cheetah be basically the same character but she becomes a more ruthless investigator plotting to out Diana and take her place. Gal Gadot done up in 50s style hair like the original Wonder Woman would have been pretty fun. Give her anyone else to play off of instead of Steve Trevor. Just a thought

 

[Diablo20]

This movie was flat out bad. I didn't even bother to finish it. I already have HBOMax, so the movie didn't cost me anything, and I still wanted my money back.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

If I had to sum up WW1984 in one word? Goofy.

It feels like this sort of mixture of Christopher Reeve's Superman, Saturday Morning Cartoon, and Super Friends. It's got this bygone naive tone to it and I get it. It's 1984. But it's not really...what I expected. Now maybe that has a charm to it at times, I'm not saying every superhero film should be grim and gritty, but this just was camp all the way through. It feels l like going backwards instead of forwards. Firstly, the gimmick is a magic rock. Like...really? I mean I understand it's still superhero, you have to basically just accept the absurdity of it...but that kind of pushed it for me. It felt less superhero to me and more fairy tale. From the super sequel playbook, they use the Superman 2 or Spider-Man 2 trope of the hero is losing their power. Yet here it's done so poorly, sometimes she's lost it when other times it's barely an inconvenience. It seems to just come and go. What exactly are the rules of this magic rock? Just the whole film feels like a throwback to that innocent superhero movie time, ultra family friendly and "Think of the children!" innocence...but not done as well as, say, the Richard Donner Superman films. I barely felt there were any stakes. It just feels...silly. But what's perhaps most shocking to me is how so much of the runtime of this film is utterly...well...boring. Like nothing is happening. There's like over an hour without a single action beat. This is WONDER WOMAN...not Sixteen Candles. I'm not saying I wanted mindless non-stop action either, but yeesh! There was a moment where I sincerely almost fell asleep. That...shouldn't happen...in a superhero film.

 

[Masterfett]

I agree, and at the end of the day you don't want an Action-less Superhero movie. It being boring and dull for 3/4 of the runtime definitely shows its flaws and that it was way too long. I honestly don't know how any of the test audience managed to stay engaged in the movie for that long.

Doing lighthearted woks just fine without making it goofy, this isn't Shazam and Diana isn't a child who suddenly get powers one day.

 

[LukesSaber]

If the movie was cut down to 1:40 and edited better it would have been really good.

It was way way too long. Many of the scenes would have worked better if it had flow (cut runtime down) and editing makes or breaks a movie. Some movies just can’t pull off being that long. But I am a believer in less is more.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

I'm still kind of laughing at the "Oh YEAH! I can turn things invisible now," like...what?

 

[Masterfett]

I'm not as flabbergasted by that as other people seem to be, at least not the ability itself. The way in which she just pulled it out of her backside after only succeeding once before at it was the issue, and the way it was written in without context. If we had seen brief scene earlier in the movie alluding to the fact she can do this it wouldn't have been so out of left field. Though you're also left wondering where was this trick when they all trying to sneak up to people in JL, I mean after 33 years she should be an expert at it...

I get that since her father had the same ability being as he's the one who hid their city from the rest of the World, so then she might also have the same ability to a certain degree. She did have 50(?) years to practice so she should have mastered it by 1984, one would think.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

I'm not as flabbergasted by that as other people seem to be, at least not the ability itself. The way in which she just pulled it out of her backside after only succeeding once before at it was the issue, and the way it was written in without context. If we had seen brief scene earlier in the movie alluding to the fact she can do this it wouldn't have been so out of left field. Though you're also left wondering where was this trick when they all trying to sneak up to people in JL, I mean after 33 years she should be an expert at it...

I get that since her father had the same ability being as he's the one who hid their city from the rest of the World, so then she might also have the same ability to a certain degree. She did have 50(?) years to practice so she should have mastered it by 1984, one would think.

See that was the thing...that's what made it SO bad. I mean whatever, it's a superhero film, I can buy she can turn things invisible if I can buy she can do all this other stuff...but IT CAME OUT OF LIKE NOWHERE. I legit started laughing. "Oh, of course you can just turn the plane invisible." Hah! And that's just it man, it exists ONLY for one reason: nostalgia. They wanted to use the invisible jet.

 

[VideoViper]

I also hate how Hollywood thinks all the planes in the Smithsonian are all fueled up & ready to launch & that apparently anyone can walk up to them & get in fly away.

(IRL Most of the important parts are removed, cleaned of toxic stuff & the planes are really just shells of their former day. Unable to fly even in an emergency.) Imagine is any 5 year old could tap the (fake) bomb & boom goes all the people.

Although Transformers was a little worse as they thought the Smithsonian clearly in Washington DC & the Arizona plane grave yard where a wall away from each other.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

I also hate how Hollywood thinks all the planes in the Smithsonian are all fueled up & ready to launch & that apparently anyone can walk up to them & get in fly away.

(IRL Most of the important parts are removed, cleaned of toxic stuff & the planes are really just shells of their former day. Unable to fly even in an emergency.) Imagine is any 5 year old could tap the (fake) bomb & boom goes all the people.

Although Transformers was a little worse as they thought the Smithsonian clearly in Washington DC & the Arizona plane grave yard where a wall away from each other.

It's like I said...I'm willing to have to suspend disbelief for a superhero movie. I mean you sort of have to. But there are...limits. And that was just one of those moments for me when I CRACKED UP. Oh it's all READY TO GO and she just can MAKE IT INVISIBLE now. Hah.

Another so convenient it made me laugh moment? Anyone else ROLL THEIR EYES at the fact that they get to that Egypt-like country...and instead of having to go on some espionage like spy search for Max Lord he just immediately LITERALLY DRIVES BY THEM ON THE HIGHWAY?

MAN that's lucky!

 

[VideoViper]

I wouldn't mind so much if it was the only movie to use that trope, but its far from the only one. Museum with or without crazy security. - Anyone can just stay after closing & everything will work.

Just seems Hollywood is a little disconnected from reality, - but I won't go down that route on this site.

For the record, it is a fun movie - just not top of the list.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

Yeah I do think it's getting a bit too much hate. I didn't HATE it...it's just like I said, it's goofy. It's not going to be one I'll recall well in even a few months. It reminds me of my reaction to Iron Man 2. It was very "Meh. Whatever..." for me. There's far worse out there, but it's def. got some pretty questionably bad stuff in it...but nothing so offensive bad for me either. It reigns in as "forgettable" ranking for me.

 

[keknivek]

I'm not as flabbergasted by that as other people seem to be, at least not the ability itself. The way in which she just pulled it out of her backside after only succeeding once before at it was the issue, and the way it was written in without context. If we had seen brief scene earlier in the movie alluding to the fact she can do this it wouldn't have been so out of left field. Though you're also left wondering where was this trick when they all trying to sneak up to people in JL, I mean after 33 years she should be an expert at it...

I get that since her father had the same ability being as he's the one who hid their city from the rest of the World, so then she might also have the same ability to a certain degree. She did have 50(?) years to practice so she should have mastered it by 1984, one would think.

This is exactly how I feel about the Carrie Poppins scene in TLJ. IF they had shown Leia have ANY sort of force power beyond just sensing things (AND completely changed how they filmed it so it didn't look so ridiculous) then maybe... maybe. Instead: "she can fly now?"... "She can fly now"

 

[keknivek]

If the movie was cut down to 1:40 and edited better it would have been really good.

It was way way too long. Many of the scenes would have worked better if it had flow (cut runtime down) and editing makes or breaks a movie. Some movies just can’t pull off being that long. But I am a believer in less is more.

There has to be a decent amount of footage left over because they clearly cut something related to that golden armor and they had to know Cheetah would be difficult to develop so there must be footage that makes that less of an immediate transformation. ALSO... everyone on Earth denounces their wish... everyone. Getting everyone in my town to stop at stoplights is tough enough.

Editing could have saved this movie 100% agree.

 

[Masterfett]

For me even editing wouldn't have saved the movie, it would have just meant less time being bored. No amount of editing can fix the core story which was its biggest detractor, well at least the way in which they went about it.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

There has to be a decent amount of footage left over because they clearly cut something related to that golden armor and they had to know Cheetah would be difficult to develop so there must be footage that makes that less of an immediate transformation. ALSO... everyone on Earth denounces their wish... everyone. Getting everyone in my town to stop at stoplights is tough enough.

Editing could have saved this movie 100% agree.

Honestly, that was such a stretch. That might be my LEAST favorite part of the film. It's so unrealistic. The way I put it...it felt like a fairy tale. It's very much like Peter Pan when the audience has to shout "I believe in fairies!" to save Tinkerbell. EVERY FREAKING PERSON DENOUNCED THEIR WISH? REALLY? I HIGHLY doubt that. It was absurd.

It also reminded me of TDK with Joker's plot to blow up the ships. Everyone loves TDK but that moment always bothered me...Joker is monologuing to the boats the situation and I always found it SO unrealistic and OVERLY optimistic. You just know, if it were real life, BOTH those boats would have exploded at the SAME TIME before Joker even FINISHED talking. I hate when comic films deliver this overly-cheese "people are good" moral compass.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

Plus I forgot to mention one glaringly obvious mistake: so did they just forget it was established she was missing or in hiding for ages? Now she's running around VERY publicly in 1984 and asking the WORLD to take back their wishes? Huh? Man, you'd think Batman would be able to figure out who she was like... instantly...in BvS.

 

[Cobalt60]

wasn't the whole world under the influence of the golden lasso at that moment? (or was that just my brain trying to rationalize it?) it wasn't clear.

 

[sharky]

also the steve trevor subplot itself was mildly disturbing, when you think about it -- dude wakes up in the body of some innocent bystander (who never asked to be "possessed" by the spirit of a dead guy) -- who has never met Diana before in his life -- this guy had his body "comandeered" AGAINST HIS WILL... so ,naturally, the very first thing Diana does is have sex with him (against his will). later, at the end of the movie, we actually SEE this guy again (!awkward!), and not once does Diana mention to him that, oh btw, she had basically RAPED his inert body while he was unable to give consent.

this poor guy had his "body" taken over against his will by steve trevor, who continually risks this guy's life by putting his "body" in mortal danger (with no consent) -- wonder woman uses his "body" as a sex toy (also with no consent) -- and the worst part? he doesn't even REMEMBER any of it!! -- (like some sort of "date rape" drug) -- he basically got "roofied" by a DC superhero. the whole thing is just... bizarre, coming from a female director like patty jenkins.

Yeah, that aspect bothered me as well. I'm scratching my head why they decided to even put that in the movie. Why not actually bring back Steve Trevor body and all. It's not like they didn't do other completely magical things as part of a wish fulfillment. It seems like, for some odd reason, they decided they needed a more "realistic" way to bring back Steve because it would be too fantastic to just have the actual person come back from the dead. The whole thing was bizarre and out of place.

 

[VideoViper]

I think there was the implication that she would start a romance with the body guy. But when over analized it comes off creepy.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

Yeah, that aspect bothered me as well. I'm scratching my head why they decided to even put that in the movie. Why not actually bring back Steve Trevor body and all. It's not like they didn't do other completely magical things as part of a wish fulfillment. It seems like, for some odd reason, they decided they needed a more "realistic" way to bring back Steve because it would be too fantastic to just have the actual person come back from the dead. The whole thing was bizarre and out of place.

EXACTLY! It's just so odd...so wishes can come true, but wishing Steve to actually come back is too much? It's like I said...what are the rules of this rock? They're never explicitly clear. So I guess it's saying it can't bring people back from the dead, but...it can...bring them back in another body? Why? How? How does this even work? Is the dude possessed conscious? Wouldn't WW eventually be like...oh...ah...what have I done? This is awkward. We just don't know. It just feels like SUCH little thought went into this script.

There's a big misconception that Patty Jenkins wrote the original and are baffled how she'd come up with this as the sequel. Apparently she didn't write the original, people just thought she did. She only directed the original. But WW1984 she did write. That has me...mildly concerned...for Rogue Squadron.

 

[keknivek]

It is pretty amazing that at no point in the making of this movie anyone said, "um... she's aware that this is not Steve Trevor and she's having sex with him anyway?" or "maybe we should have Diana 'invisible herself' instead of breaking cameras so the invisible jet later isn't such an obvious plot device?"
I think those were the 2 big ones. The wishes... well that could get disturbing if we think about it too much, but I think the point of getting something you desire but losing something as well came across as well as Max Lord going a bit nuts with it, especially while he's 'trying' to control things. The turning into a Cheetah thing was also weird... they probably should have had Kristen Wiig's character turn into Giganta.

Giganta (terrible name) could grow like Ant-Man but tended to get dumber the bigger she got (just FYI). Fits with the 2 wishes... wishes to be like Diana, then wishes to be 'big' (and immediately turns into Tom Hanks... )

I still think the movie was kinda fun, but I'm usually pretty easy on Superhero stuff because I just like the whole genre really.

 

[MysterioMaximus]

I've also thought of...like...would I have done Cheetah? I know she's probably her most iconic villain, but it just came off poorly IMO. When they announced Wigg I was kind of baffled. Like, Wigg? She's a comedic actress. Are they trying to make this tonally like Adam West Batman? Well turns out, maybe not THAT campy...but yeah. They sure came close at times. So I too kind of came to Giganta. I mean if we can buy Giantman in the Avengers movies, why not? When she wishes to be "bigger" than WW, perhaps the stone takes that quite literally. But truth is, with WW, we're not really dealing with the top brass villains in comics. None IMO are especially all that memorable or great.

With Cheetah you can just clearly see what they're doing. It's meek little Selina Kyle from Batman Returns mixed with other cliched social misfit pre-villain caricatures like Electro from ASM 2, Riddler in Batman Forever, and Ivy from Batman and Robin. It so rarely works. They always go...too...over the top cartoonish with it. Like firstly, Kristen Wigg is an attractive women even BEFORE her new persona...yet pretty much literally everywhere she goes she's bullied by grown adults. Like not ONE person outside of Diana is nice to her? Really? But lose those glasses and style her up in tacky cat prints and out come the chauvinistic pig men at every corner.

 

[keknivek]

I had not gone so far as to put all of those together, but wow.... right? Let's hope that someone out there making movies sees this and realizes that this can end now.

 

[Diablo20]

Remember all those nerds you picked on in school? They're coming for you!

 

[MysterioMaximus]

I had not gone so far as to put all of those together, but wow.... right? Let's hope that someone out there making movies sees this and realizes that this can end now.

I mean I get it...a typical background story is to have the villain feel disrespected or slighted by life, overlooked and unfulfilled. I get it. It's just EVERY one of those doesn't do it RIGHT IMO except...MAYBE...Selina Kyle. Yet I never cared for Michelle's performance as Kyle BEFORE the accident, but once she becomes Catwoman she was the best part saving grace of Batman Returns IMO. Just roles like Foxx's Electro and the others are all so animated and unrealistic. They come off campy, quirky, completely fake in how they behave but also how the world vastly treats them. I get people get bullied and picked on. I get there are awkward, socially inept, bizarre people out there...but everywhere these roles go they're bullied and beaten down and it's just a bit too much. These are grown adults, not high school kids. Not ONE PERSON is ever kind to them? Not ONE EXEPT the hero? Then you start to get that odd stalker stereotype, they grow obsessed with the hero. Then once slighted by them, now they feel betrayed. It more or less happens to every one of those roles above. And it's ironic in that WW84 ends basically saying "People are good," yet boy they sure weren't to Cheetah till she because superficially and artificially "sexy," so to speak. And even then men were just dogs to her. Joker at least did it right. He did have friends, he was just mental and pushed people away...intentionally or unintentionally. He came off creepy. Nothing about most of the above roles was EVIL or CREEPY and warrants the SHEER AMOUNT of bullying they get in their intros EXCEPT Edward Nigma/Riddler. He was the only one that was potentially unstable and dangerous from the second you meet him. They were eccentric, dorky, but that sheer amount of abuse everywhere they go? Come on...it just comes off like a cartoonish exaggeration of a nerdish social misfit more than anything that really exists in the real world IMO.