Batman-Online.com

I figure since we're starting to get official WW 1984 footage now, it's about time for a new Wonder Woman movie thread.

wonder Woman 1984 teaser promo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyDfi4x2kHg


Full trailer tomorrow.

We see a wall blowing up. And later Diana saying "nothing good is born from lies, and greatness is not what you think" while fighting inside the White House. Wow, so subtle. Wonder Woman 1984 is just more liberal propaganda. Disappointing but not unexpected. Studios can't just make a movie that appeals to everyone instead of so blatantly picking a side. They're the ones bringing politics into this, and believe me, a large share of people don't subscribe to their ideological position.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Dec  2019, 22:40
We see a wall blowing up. And later Diana saying "nothing good is born from lies, and greatness is not what you think" while fighting inside the White House. Wow, so subtle. Wonder Woman 1984 is just more liberal propaganda. Disappointing but not unexpected. Studios can't just make a movie that appeals to everyone instead of so blatantly picking a side. They're the ones bringing politics into this, and believe me, a large share of people don't subscribe to their ideological position.

The Trump'ish figure in the trailer was sort of the giveaway for me.

Trailer #1 is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfM7_JLk-84&feature=emb_title

Well, well, well. Not gonna lie, seeing Diana appearing in the Kingdom Come armor was a highlight.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m49B8R1q3NE/Xe1n7r_c9qI/AAAAAAAAt6Y/6tcih3Btc-Y8_Cv7J7xdnFE2TNuYb1dHACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/tumblr_78f66161d72d1a6d725a5a9a9e0336f0_3df371e4_540.gif)

The whole dynamic between Steve and Diana being flipped, to where he's the one that is the fish out of water, is likely to be played more for laughs in this than what we saw with Diana's situation in the 1st film, but that's not unsurprising. Don't really have an opinion on Kristen Wiig as Barbara Minerva/Cheetah from what little I've seen thus far. I always envisioned the Barbara Minerva incarnation of Cheetah to be decidedly the most 'sultry' out of the 3 Cheetah's that were in the DC Comics, to which I don't see Wiig embodying at all, but the film version could very well be a amalgamation of Priscilla Rich, Deborah Domaine, and Barbara Minerva. Maxwell Lord as the main villain might be alright I guess. Never found that character to be particularly interesting to be perfectly honest, and the rumored monkey's paw plot involving him doesn't instill much confidence that his film version will be any more constructive. His neck served it's purpose leading into Infinite Crisis in the comics, and I kinda liked seeing his reanimated corpse become a Black Lantern in Blackest Night, but that's about it really. Overall, the trailer is fine, but not outstanding. Digging the use of New Order's Blue Monday, BTW.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Dec  2019, 22:40
We see a wall blowing up. And later Diana saying "nothing good is born from lies, and greatness is not what you think" while fighting inside the White House. Wow, so subtle. Wonder Woman 1984 is just more liberal propaganda. Disappointing but not unexpected. Studios can't just make a movie that appeals to everyone instead of so blatantly picking a side. They're the ones bringing politics into this, and believe me, a large share of people don't subscribe to their ideological position.

A lot of media from Hollywood, post the 2016 election, has it's share of lib talking points. Joker certainly had it's share, I'm sure Birds of Prey will, and it's looking like WW 1984 is continuing on. It's really just a matter of how heavy handed it is in the film itself, and not dialogue that could very well be out of context in a super fast edited trailer, that ultimately matters.


New Posters:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELSttJ2W4AYIuav?format=jpg&name=large) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELSttJ9XUAAoNzH?format=jpg&name=large) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELSttrsXsAAoaF8?format=jpg&name=large) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELSttJ5X0AExl8a?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  9 Dec  2019, 01:38

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Dec  2019, 22:40
We see a wall blowing up. And later Diana saying "nothing good is born from lies, and greatness is not what you think" while fighting inside the White House. Wow, so subtle. Wonder Woman 1984 is just more liberal propaganda. Disappointing but not unexpected. Studios can't just make a movie that appeals to everyone instead of so blatantly picking a side. They're the ones bringing politics into this, and believe me, a large share of people don't subscribe to their ideological position.

The Trump'ish figure in the trailer was sort of the giveaway for me.

Sly digs are one thing but this WW84 stuff is very heavy handed, especially in a 2020 release cycle. JOKER's politics didn't really bother me. Funding for mental health is generic stuff. Thomas Wayne being viewed as a rich jerk by the working class/welfare class isn't exactly revolutionary, and Thomas didn't resemble any current day political figure.

I'm kinda surprised that's your conclusion. Cause Thomas Wayne in Joker, embodied virtually all the lib narrative talking points of a very high profile politician's character and perception. I kinda find that hard to dispute really. I could go thru the list, but what's the point? You're astute. You know what I am talking about. Juxtaposition this with what is going on with the people in the city, and the response to what is conveyed Thomas represents, and the intent is transparent. Did I like this? No. Can't say I did. And I believe I've stated previously that stuff like this (especially Thomas Wayne's portrayal, which made the film feel more elesworldsy to me and I chose to view it in that light) is what I disliked about Joker as a film.

Actually, the only things that was needed to make this painfully and absolutely clear, was if Thomas Wayne would have had blonde hair, and been played by the guy who was the original choice, and who only remains relevant in today's pop culture for playing the lib caricature of said politician, Alec Baldwin.

Overall, all of this wasn't enough to make me dislike the film itself, as I consider the movie, Joker, special in a lot of ways. And not all of it was even in the film.

The thing about Max Lord is that he's more than he seems. Such as was the case in the comics, and assuredly in this film as well. I don't really care about the character that much (and would have preferred Doctor Psycho to be perfectly honest), but the guy was often conveyed as a fairly consistent caricature of a 1980's businessman, with a sometimes decidedly cornball look to him. I think it was around the time Infinite Crisis was taking place where suddenly he appeared like a buff MI6 agent right out of a James Bond movie.

But if we're going to harp on the resemblance's between Max in this movie, and a political figure, sure, ok. That's probably going to be the strongest argument. Otherwise, the whole rumored plot involving Max using, essentially, a magic monkey's paw that grants your personal wishes (including from what I gather, heightening nukes for the U.S. during the '80s cold war setting the film has), comes across a lot more comic booky Bond super villain plot (Hell, from what I gather, Max is not even going to be portrayed as a absolutely irredeemable villain), and a lot less politically indulgent than what we got with Thomas Wayne's portrayal in Joker.

These days, it's going to take a serious amount of cringe from Hollywood (like Ghostbusters 2016, Terminator Dark Fate, Doc Who, Batwoman variety even) to get me triggered. Joker never came close to that, nor did this trailer. But that's me.

I'd agree if Baldwin was cast the vibe would be stronger, even though the role would still be minimal. But the fact Thomas Wayne does not resemble any current day politician in the physical sense does allow a greater sense of separation. The only real things that stood out were the 'fascist' posters during the protest, but again, it seemed generic enough, and then the moment is gone. The clown movement is something lingering in the background to Arthur's struggle. Thomas himself didn't come off as a jerk to me, but rather someone looking to clean up a dirty city. 

I do like WonderGal, but I'd be lying if I said this aspects of this trailer didn't rub me the wrong way. The political hits seem more direct and focused to me. Positive aspects are there, of course. Looks like we'll get an invisible jet, the action looks fine and the fish out of water routine will again feature. The combat suit looks good, the soundtrack is killer and they're really playing up the 80s setting.

Let's see how it all plays out. (I know how much you love WW!)  ;)

I agree that the likeness doesn't add up, but felt that even though Thomas is thankfully not depicted as being comically evil (being shady at times in his past is left to interpretation, which makes the movie more interesting in this approach), he is still shown to be a rich guy who has a decidedly atypical politician demeanor (more brash, unfiltered, in-your-face) that, by design, invites positive/negative comparisons to a political figure in current day. As you said, it's just not painfully overt with Brett Cullen than it would have been with Alex.

Glad you atleast enjoyed the other aspects of the trailer! To me, it seems like Gal has grown even more comfortable in the role going strictly off the trailer, and that just makes her portrayal even more appealing overall. Finally seeing the invisible jet in a DCEU WW movie is going to be a real treat, and Chris Pine returning as Steve Trevor is a welcome addition. I didn't know how they were going to address this when he was announced for coming back. Steve's had a knack for dying and returning to life in the comics (more of an occurance during the silver/bronze age eras), and in the the Lynda Carter tv series, Steve Trevor became Steve Trevor Jr. when the time jump from the 1940s in Season One to the 1970s in Seasons Two/Three transpired. I guess they could have gone with the grandson/nephew route, but it looks like it's going to be more the former, and less the latter.

Just for the fun of it, here's the cover for "Blue Monday" used in the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zhnrM3LW9Y

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 12 Dec  2019, 01:39
Glad you atleast enjoyed the other aspects of the trailer! To me, it seems like Gal has grown even more comfortable in the role going strictly off the trailer, and that just makes her portrayal even more appealing overall.

Speaking purely with the lower half of my body, WonderGal is my second favorite DC hero behind Batman. She's just great. The costume looks amazing on her, the fighting style is uniquely Wonder Woman (lasso and bracelets), the Zimmer theme is rockin' and Gal's charisma is infectious. The showcase WonderGal gets here from a hero standpoint is as good as anything we've seen.

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/f582a5cbe85f5b949567d841019724d7/b97989a2bbbf4362-a7/s500x750/25b7c08bac7bb20c9bc433461a10c8b6fa798baa.gifv) (https://icon.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/12/ezgif.com-crop-10.gif)

Pretty exciting stuff aesthetically. A strong, skilled warrior who would dispatch the likes of Black Widow with ease. Swinging from lightning bolts too!

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/wonder-woman-1984-in-the-heights-delayed-coronavirus-1203539795/

Release date pushed back to Aug 14th.

French edition of Premiere Magazine.

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0hL1hhx/Mag-Premiere-French.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bvGxhLL9/Mag-Premiere-French-Interior1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/3wPgJpc5/Mag-Premiere-French-Interior2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/cLL7Ddnj/Mag-Premiere-French-Interior3.jpg)

Why does Chris Pratt look like a wax figure in both of those photos?

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 30 May  2020, 03:32
Pratt

Pine

Another magazine cover.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tJ7MJBmK/Mag-Speed-Cover1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/76KRqFX1/Mag-Speed-Cover2.jpg)

Looking forward to this.

Spinning the lasso against gunfire at 1.07-1.09 - pure comic book.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-22-2020/e_1EjD.gif)

Oh, and WonderGal's back from 1.13-1.14 because reasons.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-22-2020/IyvWPI.gif)

P.S. - I know The Joker will also appreciate these GIFS of mine.  ;)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 22 Aug  2020, 18:09
Looking forward to this.

Spinning the lasso against gunfire at 1.07-1.09 - pure comic book.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-22-2020/e_1EjD.gif)

Oh, and WonderGal's back from 1.13-1.14 because reasons.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-22-2020/IyvWPI.gif)

P.S. - I know The Joker will also appreciate these GIFS of mine.  ;)

Yes indeed, sir.

(https://i.postimg.cc/N0d7rvS5/A-Ok-Perfect-O.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92IwJLfetPE

I'm surprised that nobody here has mentioned that WW84 will debut on Christmas Day in theaters AND on HBO Max.

What doesn't surprise me that ALL of WB's upcoming films next year is getting the same treatment.

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2020/dec/03/warner-bros-release-all-2021-films-hbo-max-theater/

Theaters are definitely suffering right now. At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if this extends to 2022.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxppYsRaUM

Yes, theaters are have really took a hit this year (see the Regal Movie Chain), and with major studios (probably) going with this digital streaming on the same day as release strategy, 2021 is shaping up to deliver yet another heavy blow to the movie theater industry.

I like the theater experience, so I already know what I'm going with.

In theory, movie theaters will be able to show these films. But if past is prologue, the big chains will most probably boycott them in protest. A fact that AT&T would surely know.

Frankly, I don't think this is directly related to the beer bug. Obviously, we can't overlook that. But the fact is HBO Max is weak sauce. Plain and simple. It hasn't gotten the level of traction AT&T was hoping for. Disney+ is doing well atm and HBO Max doesn't have the content advantages that Disney+ does.

And the Snyder Cut alone won't change those realities.

But AT&T dumping WB's 2020 slate of films onto HBO Max IS a game-changing proposition. For all practical purposes, I think these films WILL streaming-only (because of the above-mentioned likely boycott). Dune, The Matrix 4, Wonder Woman and the rest of them WILL bring people to the platform. How many is up for grabs, of course. But the number will be higher than zero. Probably a lot higher.

With streaming these days, people seem to come for exclusive content but stay for evergreen content. Maybe HBO Max will be the exception. But someone desperate to see Dune just might stick around to watch, say, The Vow. Or if it's The Matrix 4 maybe they'll stick around for something else.

Point is that HBO Max has a decent cross-section of evergreen content. That along with exclusive/new content combined with original content could be enough to make HBO Max more competitive with Disney+.

I can't prove it. But I think that's the play.

Remember, streaming isn't the future anymore. It's the present.

I'm sure you're right about that, colours, and if other major studios follow suit it could sound the death knell for theatre chains. They've already been struggling horribly this year, and according to Variety AT&T's announcement resulted in AMC Entertainment's stock plummeting 17%, Cinemark's 21% and the Marcus Corporation's over 11%: https://variety.com/2020/film/news/theater-stocks-warner-bros-hbo-max-matrix-4-dune-1234845702/

Quote"Clearly, Warner Media intends to sacrifice a considerable portion of the profitability of its movie studio division, and that of its production partners and filmmakers, to subsidize its HBO Max startup," said Adam Aron, CEO and president of AMC Entertainment, in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "As for AMC, we will do all in our power to ensure that Warner does not do so at our expense.  We will aggressively pursue economic terms that preserve our business."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-says-warner-bros-streaming-plan-will-sacrifice-studio-profits

Will a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan, who has always advocated the cinema-going experience, continue to work for Warner Bros if he knows the finished product will go straight to HBO Max while the theatre chains refuse to screen it? Will any of the top directors? It's going to be interesting seeing whether or not the revenue from WW84 justifies this strategy.

https://deadline.com/2020/12/movie-theater-stocks-bounce-back-friday-as-industry-absorbs-warner-bros-2021-plans-1234650642/

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  4 Dec  2020, 19:15Will a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan, who has always advocated the cinema-going experience, continue to work for Warner Bros if he knows the finished product will go straight to HBO Max while the theatre chains refuse to screen it? Will any of the top directors? It's going to be interesting seeing whether or not the revenue from WW84 justifies this strategy.

I've wondered the same thing. I've also wondered if this deal was originally intended to include Tenet and Nolan put his foot down.

It's an interesting question. WB, the filmmaker's studio, has been a good home for Nolan for a long time. His movies tend to be quite successful. But he's drawn lines in the sand. Shooting on film rather than digital HD, for example. And, as above, with a theatrical release for Tenet.

But Tenet probably lost money (or at best broke even) at the box office. There are valid reasons for why that happened... but it still happened at Nolan's insistence. WB took a bath that any nitwit could've foreseen. By itself, that might not be a huge problem. But rest assured, heads rolled at WB over Nolan standing his ground on that movie. And even all those things taken together might not be a showstopper.

But Tenet holds a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You and I can bemoan the perceived importance of RT in cinema but it still has that perceived importance. Nolan's reputation probably has taken multiple hits over this fiasco.

Nolan might have bad feelings toward WB. And I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a few people are miffed at him right now as well. In Hollywood, as you can probably guess, lots and lots of money has a funny way of papering over conflicts and disagreements. But there's not much money coming from Tenet.

It's kind of ludicrous to think that Nolan would up stakes and move his business somewhere else. But if he did, I think he might find other studios vying to be his patron. But, then again, he might not. Because he'd be facing the same essential problem with them as WB. No studio in the world can guarantee him a theatrical release right now. But at least at WB, he has a track record he can invoke any time.

For WB's part, AT&T is breathing down their collective neck. I imagine the pressure is on to deliver as much successful content as possible. The fact remains that Nolan is still one of the most bankable names in the business. Heads rolled over Tenet. But yet more heads might roll if Nolan is allowed to leave.

This is a difficult situation for all parties concerned. Utterly unprecedented.

As expected, Nolan's not happy:

Quote"Some of our industry's biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service," filmmaker Christopher Nolan, whose relationship with Warners dates back to Batman Begins in 2005, said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.

Nolan added: "Warner Bros. had an incredible machine for getting a filmmaker's work out everywhere, both in theaters and in the home, and they are dismantling it as we speak. They don't even understand what they're losing. Their decision makes no economic sense and even the most casual Wall Street investor can see the difference between disruption and dysfunction."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-nolan-rips-hbo-max-as-worst-streaming-service-denounces-warner-bros-plan


Variety reports that Dune director Denis Villeneuve is also very cross. Meanwhile The New York Times is reporting that agencies representing stars like Denzel Washington, Margot Robbie, Keanu Reeves, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith and Hugh Jackman have also expressed outrage, and that the Directors Guild of America is considering a boycott of WB.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  5 Dec  2020, 03:44
I've wondered the same thing. I've also wondered if this deal was originally intended to include Tenet and Nolan put his foot down.

It's an interesting question. WB, the filmmaker's studio, has been a good home for Nolan for a long time. His movies tend to be quite successful. But he's drawn lines in the sand. Shooting on film rather than digital HD, for example. And, as above, with a theatrical release for Tenet.

But Tenet probably lost money (or at best broke even) at the box office. There are valid reasons for why that happened... but it still happened at Nolan's insistence. WB took a bath that any nitwit could've foreseen. By itself, that might not be a huge problem. But rest assured, heads rolled at WB over Nolan standing his ground on that movie. And even all those things taken together might not be a showstopper.

But Tenet holds a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You and I can bemoan the perceived importance of RT in cinema but it still has that perceived importance. Nolan's reputation probably has taken multiple hits over this fiasco.

Nolan might have bad feelings toward WB. And I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a few people are miffed at him right now as well. In Hollywood, as you can probably guess, lots and lots of money has a funny way of papering over conflicts and disagreements. But there's not much money coming from Tenet.

It's kind of ludicrous to think that Nolan would up stakes and move his business somewhere else. But if he did, I think he might find other studios vying to be his patron. But, then again, he might not. Because he'd be facing the same essential problem with them as WB. No studio in the world can guarantee him a theatrical release right now. But at least at WB, he has a track record he can invoke any time.

For WB's part, AT&T is breathing down their collective neck. I imagine the pressure is on to deliver as much successful content as possible. The fact remains that Nolan is still one of the most bankable names in the business. Heads rolled over Tenet. But yet more heads might roll if Nolan is allowed to leave.

This is a difficult situation for all parties concerned. Utterly unprecedented.

Judging from this report below, HBO Max is beginning to see significant improvement in terms of growth.

https://blog.apptopia.com/hbo-max-is-now-the-fastest-growing-major-svod-service-in-the-us

As for Hollywood's reaction to WB's 2021 slate getting split between streaming and theaters? Look, the only thing I can empathise with the production studios is they weren't informed in advance - if at all - about what WB was going to do. Legendary Pictures weren't even notified nor consulted about the decision to release Godzilla vs. Kong on HBO Max and in cinemas, and only found out about the news half an hour earlier before it was announced. That is pretty unprofessional, but quite typical of Warner, judging by their unprofessional conduct within the last several years. It seems even with new management, WB still has a long go to repair its image.

But aside from that, Hollywood needs to get real. There's no end in sight to this pandemic, and as I said before, it could continue well into 2022 judging by the way things are going. And judging by the box office results this year, the majority of people don't seem to be willing to go to the theater because of the anxiety over the virus, so it makes sense to give the audience a safer alternative to watch the latest releases in the comfort of their home. For Nolan to say this doesn't make economic sense is completely tone-deaf, and makes him look out of touch with current events.

WB were wrong to not alert all parties affected by this decision. But I do believe the decision itself is the right call under the dire circumstances.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  8 Dec  2020, 12:04
As expected, Nolan's not happy:

Quote"Some of our industry's biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service," filmmaker Christopher Nolan, whose relationship with Warners dates back to Batman Begins in 2005, said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.

Nolan added: "Warner Bros. had an incredible machine for getting a filmmaker's work out everywhere, both in theaters and in the home, and they are dismantling it as we speak. They don't even understand what they're losing. Their decision makes no economic sense and even the most casual Wall Street investor can see the difference between disruption and dysfunction."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-nolan-rips-hbo-max-as-worst-streaming-service-denounces-warner-bros-plan

(https://static.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/31rep_opener_illo-H-2020-1607383180-928x523.jpg)

Variety reports that Dune director Denis Villeneuve is also very cross. Meanwhile The New York Times is reporting that agencies representing stars like Denzel Washington, Margot Robbie, Keanu Reeves, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith and Hugh Jackman have also expressed outrage, and that the Directors Guild of America is considering a boycott of WB.

If nothing else good comes out of all this, it's clear now that WB is no longer the captain of its own destiny. There has been a vocal contingent out there who seem to think WB is still part of the Hollywood cult and I hope it's clear now who's calling the shots. It's AT&T, fam.

For me, I see all this as a positive. I'm intensely introverted and can count on one hand how many truly enjoyable theatrical experiences I've ever had. Sending this stuff straight to streaming plays like gangbusters for me. I can make my own hot butter with a side of popcorn, pause whenever I need for bathroom breaks, etc. This decision stands only to benefit me.

However, I am not so vain as to think this doesn't impact anyone else. I expect that what we're seeing in that THR article only scratches the surface of all the seething resentment out there.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  8 Dec  2020, 13:32Judging from this report below, HBO Max is beginning to see significant improvement in terms of growth.

https://blog.apptopia.com/hbo-max-is-now-the-fastest-growing-major-svod-service-in-the-us

As for Hollywood's reaction to WB's 2021 slate getting split between streaming and theaters? Look, the only thing I can empathise with the production studios is they weren't informed in advance - if at all - about what WB was going to do. Legendary Pictures weren't even notified nor consulted about the decision to release Godzilla vs. Kong on HBO Max and in cinemas, and only found out about the news half an hour earlier before it was announced. That is pretty unprofessional, but quite typical of Warner, judging by their unprofessional conduct within the last several years. It seems even with new management, WB still has a long go to repair its image.

But aside from that, Hollywood needs to get real. There's no end in sight to this pandemic, and as I said before, it could continue well into 2022 judging by the way things are going. And judging by the box office results this year, the majority of people don't seem to be willing to go to the theater because of the anxiety over the virus, so it makes sense to give the audience a safer alternative to watch the latest releases in the comfort of their home. For Nolan to say this doesn't make economic sense is completely tone-deaf, and makes him look out of touch with current events.

WB were wrong to not alert all parties affected by this decision. But I do believe the decision itself is the right call under the dire circumstances.

True, yes. But there are other economic realities closer to home.

Namely, right now is a terrible time to be in the theatrical exhibition business. A year ago, nobody questioned the supremacy of AMC and Cinemark theaters. Today, their futures are very much in doubt. Riddle me this, what's the point of "saving" theatrical exhibition if the two biggest exhibitors are bankrupt? I can't speak intelligently about Cinemark's financial outlook but word 'round the campfire is AMC is entering a world of pain very soon. A year of forced closures combined, minimal new content and limits on attendance has taken its toll. It's ridiculous to think they can withstand much more of this.

So I think it's worth asking how Cinemark can possibly be in a radically better position.

To be fair, a phased transition would've probably been better. Q1 2021: A four week exclusive run in theaters followed immediately by streaming. Q2 2021: A three week exclusive run in theaters followed immediately by streaming. Q3 2021: A two week exclusive run in theaters followed immediately by streaming. Q4 2021: A one week exclusive run in theaters followed immediately by streaming. Then in 2022, maybe we start working out how to phase theatrical exhibition out entirely.

I'm pulling the above strategy out of my... hat. It could be anything. But the idea is a gradual transition away from the decades old three months in theaters and then other channels model. Even that's controversial but it probably would've torqued fewer people off all at once.

Nolan probably knows the entire industry better than I ever will. If he says this move makes no economic sense, I think it would be logical to accept his word over mine. Still, the questions above remain. The coof year has wreaked financial havoc on everybody, everyone always knew it would down come to streaming in the end and now it looks like the transition has to start earlier than anyone ever anticipated.

If you ask me, it's time for Hollywood's financial and creative partners to put on their big girl panties and get with the program.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  4 Dec  2020, 02:33
I like the theater experience, so I already know what I'm going with.

No doubt whatsoever.

I understand Nolan's frustration. Movies should be exclusively big screen entertainment.
I see through the plandemic and the dumb sheep public. That's the real fiasco.
But nonetheless, crippling lockdowns (thinking a virus can be eradicated) and film delays persist.

If films are going to be delayed indefinitely, just release the damned things on HBO Max. It's not what I'd prefer, but this is the situation we're in. If people are just too scared to enter a cinema for fear of a 99% survival rate flu, they can watch from their nursing home, and also preferably lose weight and stop smoking. But the film option is also there for people who want it. It will be curious to see how this all plays out long term.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 02:10Movies should be exclusively big screen entertainment.

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on this, old friend. But I hope you bear my restrictions in mind on this. I recognize that others can do things I don't enjoy. Specifically, sitting in a theater for hours on end.

With the acknowledgement that many of the people who aren't dying are going bankrupt, I must say that I have benefited greatly from the lockdown, the social distancing, etc. Right now, we live in an introvert's paradise.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 02:10I see through the plandemic and the dumb sheep public. That's the real fiasco.
But nonetheless, crippling lockdowns (thinking a virus can be eradicated) and film delays persist.

At the risk of dragging this thread into dangerously off-topic territory, I would like to say the utter lack of reliable information regarding the coof would normally be the thing that journalistic scandals are made of. But since we don't have legit news media in this country, this will go down as the most unreported scandal in history.

Introvert's paradise or not, we live in miserable times. As you know.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 02:10It will be curious to see how this all plays out long term.

Are we speculating here? Very well.

I think there will be one studio who tries their luck at continuing with the old model. Disney seems obvious but, in the main, they're led by some fairly intelligent types. Cooler heads will eventually prevail at Disney, I imagine.

No, my money is on Sony. They lack any obvious exit strategy (i.e., the safety net of a streaming service) and their film division is operated by Hollywood cult True Believers. Bankruptcy might break them of their theatrical habit but I don't think much else will. They have a couple of franchises they probably believe they can use as gravy trains and my sense of their executives is that a plurality of them will see the overall lack of competition at the box office as an opportunity (or, God have mercy, a dare!) instead of a warning sign.

Based on their recent history of borderline incompetent management, my hunch is that Sony will make a very ill-advised play in 2021 to keep the theatrical distribution model alive. And I suspect they will pay dearly for it. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I had to guess, my bet is they're the ones who will tempt fate... and suffer the consequences.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 03:02
I'm afraid we will have to disagree on this, old friend. But I hope you bear my restrictions in mind on this. I recognize that others can do things I don't enjoy. Specifically, sitting in a theater for hours on end.

With the acknowledgement that many of the people who aren't dying are going bankrupt, I must say that I have benefited greatly from the lockdown, the social distancing, etc. Right now, we live in an introvert's paradise.

Believe me, I'm an introvert, or more specifically an INTJ. If someone is talking during a movie I feel like shattering their skull with a crowbar and severing their head with a hacksaw. But nonetheless, I ask this: what makes a movie a movie? What separates them from a dime a dozen TV production?

To me it's the experience, sans the annoying public. The darkness of the room, size of the screen, the sound...the immersion. I can't help but feel something will be lost if FILM studios become streamers. It's the question one has when watching a DVD at home, after seeing it on the big screen previously. How does the experience translate? I fear something special will become mundane.   

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 03:20Believe me, I'm an introvert, or more specifically an INTJ.

Same.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 03:20It's the question one has when watching a DVD at home, after seeing it on the big screen previously. How does the experience translate? I fear something special will become mundane.

There is a different perspective in the big screen vs. a TV. Or a computer monitor, in my case.

I suppose for me it's more of a cynical tradeoff. It's the exchange of an illusion I don't value (the specialness of a theatrical exhibition) in favor of a viewing method that plays to my preferences (not having to leave home).

It's not an issue of laziness. Rather, it's an indication of just how much I hate talking to/being around strangers.

I say bravo for this new poster getting the green light:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EovRK1KUUAEaZ30?format=jpg&name=large)

The sentiment I want to share is from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie but I can't remember which one, but he says something along the lines of "how about a sexy woman for a change?"

This is shamelessly like a magazine glamor shot, and I say good on them, especially in this day and age. If we're going to have women in lead roles, give me this and not Rachel Dawes, or even worse Girlbusters 2016.

Gal is the product and they know that, and her film career is only getting started. I'm wanting WW3, but the spy film she's signed on for, in the lead role, has real potential conceptually.

Gal radiates charm and goodness and that's important for Wonder Woman. If the film follows suit, it could be akin to a Spider-Man 2 type experience for the character – especially based on rumored plot points. 

Denis Villeneuve has written a very damning piece for Variety concerning the HBO Max situation:

QuoteI learned in the news that Warner Bros. has decided to release "Dune" on HBO Max at the same time as our theatrical release, using prominent images from our movie to promote their streaming service. With this decision AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though "Dune" is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max's launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.' entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience's attention.

Warner Bros.' sudden reversal from being a legacy home for filmmakers to the new era of complete disregard draws a clear line for me. Filmmaking is a collaboration, reliant on the mutual trust of team work and Warner Bros. has declared they are no longer on the same team.

Streaming services are a positive and powerful addition to the movie and TV ecosystems. But I want the audience to understand that streaming alone can't sustain the film industry as we knew it before COVID. Streaming can produce great content, but not movies of "Dune's" scope and scale. Warner Bros.' decision means "Dune" won't have the chance to perform financially in order to be viable and piracy will ultimately triumph. Warner Bros. might just have killed the "Dune" franchise. This one is for the fans. AT&T's John Stankey said that the streaming horse left the barn. In truth, the horse left the barn for the slaughterhouse.

Public safety comes first. Nobody argues with that. Which is why when it became apparent the winter would bring a second wave of the pandemic, I understood and supported the decision to delay "Dune's" opening by almost a year. The plan was that "Dune" would open in theaters in October 2021, when vaccinations will be advanced and, hopefully, the virus behind us. Science tells us that everything should be back to a new normal next fall.

"Dune" is by far the best movie I've ever made. My team and I devoted more than three years of our lives to make it a unique big screen experience. Our movie's image and sound were meticulously designed to be seen in theaters.

I'm speaking on my own behalf, though I stand in solidarity with the sixteen other filmmakers who now face the same fate. Please know I am with you and that together we are strong. The artists are the ones who create movies and series.

I strongly believe the future of cinema will be on the big screen, no matter what any Wall Street dilettante says. Since the dawn of time, humans have deeply needed communal storytelling experiences. Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it's one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings.

Once the pandemic is over, theaters will be filled again with film lovers.

That is my strong belief.  Not because the movie industry needs it, but because we humans need cinema, as a collective experience.

So, just as I have both a fiduciary and creative responsibility to fulfill as the filmmaker, I call on AT&T to act swiftly with the same responsibility, respect and regard to protect this vital cultural medium. Economic impact to stakeholders is only one aspect of corporate social responsibility. Finding ways to enhance culture is another. The moviegoing experience is like no other. In those darkened theaters films capture our history, educate us, fuel our imagination and lift and inspire our collective spirit. It is our legacy.

Long live theatrical cinema!

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/dune-denis-villeneuve-blasts-warner-bros-1234851270/

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 11 Dec  2020, 16:38
Denis Villeneuve has written a very damning piece for Variety concerning the HBO Max situation:

QuoteI learned in the news that Warner Bros. has decided to release "Dune" on HBO Max at the same time as our theatrical release, using prominent images from our movie to promote their streaming service. With this decision AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though "Dune" is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max's launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.' entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience's attention.

Warner Bros.' sudden reversal from being a legacy home for filmmakers to the new era of complete disregard draws a clear line for me. Filmmaking is a collaboration, reliant on the mutual trust of team work and Warner Bros. has declared they are no longer on the same team.

Streaming services are a positive and powerful addition to the movie and TV ecosystems. But I want the audience to understand that streaming alone can't sustain the film industry as we knew it before COVID. Streaming can produce great content, but not movies of "Dune's" scope and scale. Warner Bros.' decision means "Dune" won't have the chance to perform financially in order to be viable and piracy will ultimately triumph. Warner Bros. might just have killed the "Dune" franchise. This one is for the fans. AT&T's John Stankey said that the streaming horse left the barn. In truth, the horse left the barn for the slaughterhouse.

Public safety comes first. Nobody argues with that. Which is why when it became apparent the winter would bring a second wave of the pandemic, I understood and supported the decision to delay "Dune's" opening by almost a year. The plan was that "Dune" would open in theaters in October 2021, when vaccinations will be advanced and, hopefully, the virus behind us. Science tells us that everything should be back to a new normal next fall.

"Dune" is by far the best movie I've ever made. My team and I devoted more than three years of our lives to make it a unique big screen experience. Our movie's image and sound were meticulously designed to be seen in theaters.

I'm speaking on my own behalf, though I stand in solidarity with the sixteen other filmmakers who now face the same fate. Please know I am with you and that together we are strong. The artists are the ones who create movies and series.

I strongly believe the future of cinema will be on the big screen, no matter what any Wall Street dilettante says. Since the dawn of time, humans have deeply needed communal storytelling experiences. Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it's one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings.

Once the pandemic is over, theaters will be filled again with film lovers.

That is my strong belief.  Not because the movie industry needs it, but because we humans need cinema, as a collective experience.

So, just as I have both a fiduciary and creative responsibility to fulfill as the filmmaker, I call on AT&T to act swiftly with the same responsibility, respect and regard to protect this vital cultural medium. Economic impact to stakeholders is only one aspect of corporate social responsibility. Finding ways to enhance culture is another. The moviegoing experience is like no other. In those darkened theaters films capture our history, educate us, fuel our imagination and lift and inspire our collective spirit. It is our legacy.

Long live theatrical cinema!

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/dune-denis-villeneuve-blasts-warner-bros-1234851270/

It's hard to know where to start with sorting out the politics here. In the business world (or "Wall Street" as per the above indictment), people who speak out of turn, as Villeneuve has, are considered a-holes who may find themselves hobbled at the knees in the future.

Same for anybody who helps them, as Variety has.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Dec  2020, 19:38
It's hard to know where to start with sorting out the politics here. In the business world (or "Wall Street" as per the above indictment), people who speak out of turn, as Villeneuve has, are considered a-holes who may find themselves hobbled at the knees in the future.

Same for anybody who helps them, as Variety has.

I wonder if Villeneuve and all these other Hollywood people have the same level of disgust over Disney for moving its own share of new releases onto its streaming platform? I doubt it since it doesn't affect their pockets. And hey, I don't necessarily blame them for that. If I were a director and found out my film was going to be released digitally and theatrically without being notified beforehand, and potentially lose additional income because of it, I'd be pissed off too. But don't bullsh*t us about the "theatrical experience" when other studios will slowly look to do the same. Especially during a time where most of these venues are forced to close and hit by a limited capacity for admissions. His claim that scientists predict things will regain some normalcy next year is looking rather grim at the moment in the Northern Hemisphere. You'd hope so, but who knows where things may end up?

Besides, Dune might even benefit if it's released via streaming for a wider audience. Let's face it, as great as Blade Runner 2049 was, it wasn't exactly a box office success. In hindsight, one can say Villeneuve is privileged to get another chance at a big-budget project after his previous work was such a financial flop. For all we know, a more accessible platform in HBO Max could bring his films towards greater success than they might never have gotten in the traditional cinema market. We'll see.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Dec  2020, 10:50
I wonder if Villeneuve and all these other Hollywood people have the same level of disgust over Disney for moving its own share of new releases onto its streaming platform? I doubt it since it doesn't affect their pockets. And hey, I don't necessarily blame them for that. If I were a director and found out my film was going to be released digitally and theatrically without being notified beforehand, and potentially lose additional income because of it, I'd be pissed off too. But don't bullsh*t us about the "theatrical experience" when other studios will slowly look to do the same. Especially during a time where most of these venues are forced to close and hit by a limited capacity for admissions. His claim that scientists predict things will regain some normalcy next year is looking rather grim at the moment in the Northern Hemisphere. You'd hope so, but who knows where things may end up?

Besides, Dune might even benefit if it's released via streaming for a wider audience. Let's face it, as great as Blade Runner 2049 was, it wasn't exactly a box office success. In hindsight, one can say Villeneuve is privileged to get another chance at a big-budget project after his previous work was such a financial flop. For all we know, a more accessible platform in HBO Max could bring his films towards greater success than they might never have gotten in the traditional cinema market. We'll see.

I think the celebrities who have spoken out against this are using WB as their line in the sand. They're fighting back because if they can stop WB right now, other studios might be reluctant to dump their entire 2021 slate onto streaming. But if they "lose" with WB, they'll lose with everybody else too. I'm starting to think this isn't WB for most of them (Nolan is an obvious exception) so much as it is about sustaining the business model they know and understand.

The fact is that without theatrical distribution, mega budget blockbusters are a thing of the past. If they lose this battle now, they lose. I think that's probably the real driver here.

For me, I'm fed up with a gigantic blockbusters anyway. I'd much rather watch stuff like Mank, The Irishman, The Highwaymen, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood or something else based on true stories, are period pieces and which can be done for fairly cheap. That's just more interesting to me right now... and it's very doable in our coof-infected, streaming-dependent world.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  8 Dec  2020, 12:04https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-nolan-rips-hbo-max-as-worst-streaming-service-denounces-warner-bros-plan

(https://static.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/31rep_opener_illo-H-2020-1607383180-928x523.jpg)

Quote from: Juicy pull-quoteMany in Hollywood think WarnerMedia opted for this drastic move to play to streaming-infatuated Wall Street and redo the botched launch of HBO Max, which has netted a dismal 8.6 million "activated" subscribers so far. But one prominent agent notes that the top executives at WarnerMedia and its parent — AT&T CEO John Stankey, WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar and, of course, Sarnoff — "don't understand the movie business, and they don't understand talent relations."

While Kilar pays what is seen as lip service to movies, industry veterans say Warners is sacrificing the huge profit that comes from selling movies in multiple formats and on multiple platforms around the world.

Even before Warners made its play, there was grumbling among agents that Sarnoff, who has been on the job for more than a year, had yet to get acquainted with key players on the film side or make much of an impression at all. That's why many are focusing their wrath on Emmerich. "Toby's passion is only about managing up," says one agent who represents major Warners talent.

I'm coming back to this.

I've made a pain in the ass of myself around here by constantly repeating that AT&T is in business. Specifically, the business of making money. And Hollywood -- in spite of anything you may have ever believed to the contrary -- is not.

AT&T isn't part of the Hollywood cult and they don't want to be. They want to make obscene amounts of money and they bought a media empire to make it happen.

The filmmaking community in Hollywood is not a business in the traditional sense of the world. They're more like a cartel, a loose confederation of theoretically separate agencies, studios, production houses, etc. all dedicated to making movies on certain terms. The reason people say "There's no business like show business" is because it's not really a business at all, in many ways.

The Hollywood community is pushing back against AT&T because they're introducing some dangerous variables into this equation. If just one other studio breaks ranks and releases their 2021 slate to streaming, it's curtains for Hollywood as we knew it.

Obviously, Hollywood doesn't want that. And they're fighting back. Their way.

Word 'round the campfire is that Hollywood unions and guilds will begin boycotting WB. If that happens, it truly is war.

And since we're going out on a limb here already, I think it's a war AT&T can win. Not easily but it is winnable.

If the guilds blacklist AT&T, AT&T should blacklist the guilds. Anybody with memberships in the guilds is invited not to work at WB. Rather, WB will recruit talent from the independent world. Don't kid yourself, that's entirely possible. The Hollywood guilds have the best people locked up already. Right now. But the future belongs to whoever gets there first. The independent world was already a feeder into Hollywood.

And Hollywood is pretty exclusive.

Might the independents be inclined to work for a non-union AT&T? They might if WB offers better money than Hollywood currently offers. And since Hollywood has a self-imposed distribution problem, I think it's reasonable to suggest that working for WB (and, thus, AT&T) might be very attractive to independents. At least WB has a pipeline for releasing content.

Can Sony Pictures say the same?

If established talent want to come work for WB, of course they're welcome to. But the price they must pay is cancelling all Hollywood union and/or guild memberships.

Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But without question, this is the biggest and most dangerous threat that the Hollywood cartel has ever faced.

Whoever wins, survives. That's it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 02:24
I say bravo for this new poster getting the green light:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EovRK1KUUAEaZ30?format=jpg&name=large)

The sentiment I want to share is from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie but I can't remember which one, but he says something along the lines of "how about a sexy woman for a change?"

This is shamelessly like a magazine glamor shot, and I say good on them, especially in this day and age. If we're going to have women in lead roles, give me this and not Rachel Dawes, or even worse Girlbusters 2016.

Gal is the product and they know that, and her film career is only getting started. I'm wanting WW3, but the spy film she's signed on for, in the lead role, has real potential conceptually.

Gal radiates charm and goodness and that's important for Wonder Woman. If the film follows suit, it could be akin to a Spider-Man 2 type experience for the character – especially based on rumored plot points.

She makes a great picture, but that's about it. Her accent is a detriment to her acting. Schwarzenegger tried for years to shake off his accent but never could and it resulted in mostly doing comedic work. Gadot is headed down the same path.

Sooooo, yeah, this movie was bad.

Oh, boy, this was a bad one!

It was just about a year ago that it was reported that this movie had a terrible test screening and you'd think they'd take a lot of those criticisms to heart, but judging from that initial plot leak, they didn't do anything besides maybe change the ending so that it could coincide with the holiday season it ended up being released in.

The initial positive reviews got me interested in watching this on HBO Max release day, but within the first 10 minutes of the movie, I was ready to shut it off. I wish I had because this got worse and worse as it went on. I think everyone who got to see it early were paid off to write decent reviews. Everyone is a state of denial over how bad this movie really is, but after all is said and done, this is easily going to be one of the worst comic book movies ever.

Thank Athena the original TV series is on HBO Max now in HD! It's the perfect remedy to this god awful movie.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 26 Dec  2020, 14:53
Sooooo, yeah, this movie was bad.

I trust your opinion on a variety of matters, so I'd say you're right. I've had a look through some reviews and can definitely see various areas of concern. I'll probably still see the movie next week though, and give my two cents worth of feedback.

Things are reaching a point where #RTSC Twitter is openly questioning how much credit Jenkins actually deserves for the first Wonder Woman. Snyder had ambiguous involvement with it and most people seem to enjoy it. He had basically zero involvement with WW84 and... yeah...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Dec  2020, 00:20
Things are reaching a point where #RTSC Twitter is openly questioning how much credit Jenkins actually deserves for the first Wonder Woman. Snyder had ambiguous involvement with it and most people seem to enjoy it. He had basically zero involvement with WW84 and... yeah...

I won't say anything about WW84 because I'm not planning to see it, it doesn't interest me. But I will say this, the style of the first WW film resembles more of a Snyder film than his own DCEU films. From what I've heard, Jenkins used Snyder's stunt team to pull off the action in the first film, but for whatever reason, she decided not to hire them in the second film.

What's even more fascinating is Snyder was given an award by the American Film Institute for his contribution in bringing Wonder Woman to life a few years ago.

(https://i-cdn.embed.ly/1/display?key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads.disquscdn.com%2Fimages%2Ff673bcc97c2658c13df6777b41d45e90432bfd6cc51108b84d105c09cb124160.jpg)

I'm not eager to take away any recognition from Jenkins and her directing in the first film. But it does remind me that people should never underestimate the contributions that Snyder made to help bring the character to life. He did cast Gal Gadot in the role, after all.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Dec  2020, 00:20
Things are reaching a point where #RTSC Twitter is openly questioning how much credit Jenkins actually deserves for the first Wonder Woman. Snyder had ambiguous involvement with it and most people seem to enjoy it. He had basically zero involvement with WW84 and... yeah...

Snyder still has one of those Tim Burton Batman Forever producer credits for Wonder Woman 1984, but it's pretty painfully obvious that the loss of him made this movie suffer. It doesn't help that Gal Gadot has a producer credit as well. What qualifications does she have to contribute besides her acting services? All of this was done once Snyder was kicked out of the DC films and Jenkins decided the sequel wasn't going to follow what Snyder previously setup. It's now especially confusing now that Snyder's Justice League is the next big release.

SPOILER REVIEW

Well, I checked this out, and WW84 reminds me of my thoughts after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and/or Batman Forever as a child. Being that, when it works, it's good. But when it doesn't, it's absolutely glaring.

On one hand, I can't fault those involved for not necessarily wanting to do the same thing twice. I get that. However, WW84 implements a blatantly weirder, much more fragmented story line than what the general audiences were initially exposed to with the first film. And this kind of the problem - the movie pulls itself in several different directions from the very start and instead of course correcting at some point, it just keeps on pulling. Although, in the movie's defense, I wouldn't say that the film's use of humor was overly deflationary, or overtly quippy like the majority of Disney's MCU movies tend to be. So there's that.

In comparing the two films, my opinion is that the overall fundamental difference (story wise) between them, is that the original was about defiance, Diana was finding her place in the world despite everyone telling her she couldn't. The No Man's Land scene is so powerful in part because it's the moment when Diana definitely rejects the limitations others are placing on her to become the hero she can be.

In WW84, the central theme is different. WW84 isn't about defiance, it's about acceptance instead. Under the 1984 year setting, it's conveyed that Wonder Woman hasn't moved forward since WW1, at least in terms of letting go of her grief and engaging with the world again. We see pictures of her friends displayed in her apartment, with one photo featuring Diana with a much older Etta Candy (which was a nice nod). Also displayed is a photo of Diana at "Trevors Ranch" which is presumably owned by Steve's relatives, and the watch he hands her as he said goodbye near the end of the first film. In the grand scheme of things, tt's not until she's able to reject her wish, painfully lets Steve go by accepting his death, that she regains her strength and grows beyond it.

Make no mistake, WW84 is primarily a Wonder Woman film, she is the star, but Steve is not just a spare part, he's a man. A man out of time, but by no means just a love interest that's constantly need saving. Much like the first film, Steve's allowed to pull his weight, and does so. That might sound obvious, sure, but there is a pattern of female led and directed films recently. I also found having Steve fly the invisible jet to be fitting overall.

Very similar to the relationship between Peter and Gwen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, what works best in WW84 is the story line between Diana and Steve. It's pretty much the biggest highlight of the film to be perfectly honest. I actually really do like that Diana is both fundamentally compassionate and fundamentally protective. But going back to Wonder Woman's relationship with Steve, it's well done and their devotion to one another is conveyed very well. Especially so during the scene where they are saying their "goodbyes" and Diana proclaiming she would never love anyone again with Steve responding, "that's unhealthy, you deserve to find love again." As Steve knew that Diana grieving over him for as long as she did ( close to 70 years if my math's correct), was not healthy and she being aloof as a recluse was not good for her.

The subsequent learning to fly scene, I felt, was very well done. Actually, I would say that scene following directly after Diana saying her goodbye to Steve, was basically the equivalent of the NML scene, or even the first flight scene from MOS. As I think the use of John Murphy - Adagio In D Minor perfectly heightened the overall effect as Wonder Woman begins recalling Steve's dialogue as a pilot about his love of flight which gives her inspiration to do it.

As far as the villains go, I found Max Lord to be entertaining, even though I am just not personally ever been all that interested in him. His "powers" in the film, are very different from the comics. As, in the movie, he is powered by a dream stone that acts essentially like a monkey's paw. But as far as his characterization goes, the leaked spoilers from months back are correct. Max is ultimately a sympathetic 'villain', and not just a cartoonishly evil political parody. Actually, the "political satire" isn't all that heavy handed. So no, we don't have characters saying "Boy, sure is awful how this Max Lord guy likes putting his name on everything! At least he'll never be president! WINK! WINK!" To me, Max as seen in this, could very well be considered as a cross of Jimmy Swaggert, Tony Robbins and JR Ewing...all pretty notable influential men in the 80's, just as the President. Speaking of Presidents, the actor who portrays the President during 1984, while sort of resembling Regan, the film doesn't really hit you over the head with it. It's not heavy handed. As I don't recall seeing any of the classic signifiers like a big jar of jelly beans on his desk, no jokes about him being a former actor, etc. Which is a good thing if you're concerned with Hollywood politically satirizing to a heavy handed degree. Which was a understandable concern going into this.

Max's caring for his son is highlighted upon several times during the film, in addition to near the end of the film itself. Personally, I expected Max to be preying on people's greed throughout the film. But rather, Max spent most of the movie just fooling people to make "I wish" statements, often just casually, without the victims having any understanding or expectation that they'd be granted. Interesting way to go about it....

They seemed to be going with the idea that the cost was something vitally important to you, rather than something actually related to the wish itself. Like, all of these "wishes" are fundamentally selfish and unwholesome, they're fantasies without consequence, and as they progress the entire pace of the film starts collapsing into a fever-dream sort of discordant progression and that's entirely the point. Now, if you are only interested in analyzing the theme, it's twofold. First, the implementation of the dream stone is that you need to be sure getting what you want is worth the price. And often it simply isn't. Secondly, that just wishing for things to magically reset and get better won't help. The world gets better because people put in the hard work to make it better. You can't count on something falling out of the sky to save you. Cause at the end of the day you need to be prepared to put in the work to save yourself.

Max's entire arc is like the apotheosis of the Prosperity Gospel, a frenzied pursuit of more, more, more, and ultimately, it's killing him and everyone else. It doesn't form neatly plotted sequences of events because his powers mean it literally doesn't have to. I guess that's both a positive and negative for the film itself.

I was also kind of confused at the whole diet supplement thing with Max Lord that got dropped fairly early on. I thought there would be some sort of a reveal that he was dying or something, but I guess it was just a general signal of poor health, so that the demands of being the living dream stone were wearing on him, I was a bit surprised he didn't take people's health until the end--he was talking about doing so but getting in rougher shape as the movie progressed, so I was thinking that maybe it would turn out he *couldn't* and would die from his obsessive actions.

Once Max walked into the energy field thing near the end, during the mass-wish granting genie session, to which I got some Riddler/Batman Forever vibes from (which is ironic since "Beautiful Lie" from BvS is played briefly during this scene as well), he begins saying things like, "I take *your* health, and *your* vitality!" but it doesn't seem like this actually requires the large numbers. The best impression I took away is that he could have taken someone's health before but was apparently too obsessed/manic with reaching his goal thru the film with working his way up to actually do so until he got to the end game. And speaking of which, WW1984 implements a very unconventional way to defeating Max. Rather than there being a big battle (ala Wonder Woman vs Ares), Max basically sees the error of his ways and takes back his wish of being the literal host of the dream stone just so he can go reunite with his son who's calling for him. This sort of reasoning with the baddie, may or may not work for people watching this, but I think it does harken back to the golden age concept of Wonder Woman genuinely wanting to rehabilitate her villains, rather than the trope of defeating them over and over again.

And remember, renouncing the wishes didn't just magically retcon all that happened. There are mementos of all the chaos. I mean, with what happened in WW84 being such a massive event in human DCEU history, it's kinda odd to think that the mass 1984 wishing event actually predates the events of MOS/BvS if we're looking at this literally. Unless maybe, the act of Max rescinding his wish actually affected the whole world and everything from the point of his initial wish on was eventually undone, where the world rewove the tapestry of time to get back to the way it had been. Which would be a very silver age way of handling the outcome. For better or worse, superhero comics have consistently been sketchy when it comes to the aftermaths of huge world-shaking events .... Course, I'm overthinking this.

Max rescinding his wish affected the whole world and pretty much everything from the point of his initial wish on was undone--not instantly, but the world rewove the tapestry of time to get back to the way it had been.

Admittedly, I did dig the shout out that the dream stone was created by the Duke of Deception. A golden age WW villain that, surprisingly, hasn't been used all that much since the Golden Age with Marston. Although he does appear as the primary villain in the recent "Legend of Wonder Woman" limited series. Come to think of it, I still recall thinking DC was going to bring him back in continuity in a big way as a way to explain Wonder Woman's New52 continuity being revealed as a "lie" during the onset of Rebirth, which seemed like a prime opportunity to do so, but oh well. Going back to the dream stone, there is a line where Barbara/Cheetah comments that the Stone is citrine, "commonly used in fakes" or some such. Which is amusing. What better for a stone created by the Duke of Deception? Also, it's perfectly in keeping with his Golden Age portrayal, as I could easily see him laying traps like the dream stone out of pure malice. Simply just to watch the chaos.

With Cheetah, once again, the character is decidedly different from the comic book versions. In the comics, Barbra Minerva starts off as an heiress/archaeologist/fortune hunter, and becomes an avatar for the Cheetah god, and covets Wonder Woman's golden lasso as an artifact. Which isn't at all what's going on with her origin in WW84. Actually, the characterization of Barbara Minerva has more similarities with Selina Kyle/Catwoman from the Batman Returns. Both started out as women who have a very low self esteem and are unrecognized by most people. Then they go through a massive transformation that makes them strong confident women but also very damaged. Within the context of the film, her actual wish was to "be like Diana, strong, sexy, etc." She got superpowers and everyone's attention, in the most superficial way, but at a cost. Essentially, its a compressed metaphor for giving up your ideals for power, or more generally ignoring the means in favor of the ends.

Being that Cheetah is probably the most recognized villain from Wonder Woman's rogues gallery, it's kinda wild to think that she basically gets the short end of the stick in this movie, as she is very much a secondary villain compared to Max Lord. It's kinda like having the Joker playing second banana to Rupert Thorne in a Batman movie. Bizarre. Ideally, they really should have just excluded Cheetah from the entire film to be perfectly honest.

I guess even though both character's are decidedly different from their comic book counterparts, I did think that both antagonists being presented with sympathetic motivations even though you can't agree with them or their methods or their goals you can at least feel sorry for their predicaments and empathize with that to a certain extent. A villain like Ares, as presented in the first Wonder Woman film, is more of a force of nature that has to be overcome as opposed to a fully fleshed out character (the closest Ares got was something of a amalgam of his Greek origins and Lucifer from christianity. Especially so with his pure disgust of humans and their being imperfect added with the proclivity for war.) In that sense, both Barbara and Maxwell come off fairly ok within the context of the film, even though liberties are absolutely taken from their comic counterparts, and Babs/Cheetah is the weakest link out of all the main characters in this. Which is, again, unfortunate considering her standing within Wondy's rogues gallery as a top tier villain.

I see there's a lot of 'rape' comments being thrown around with the whole Steve inadvertently possesses another guy's body, and later having sex with Wonder Woman. I can't help but think it's 2006 again with Superman Returns with Lois being unaware she slept with Superman, and even had his child! Course, this actually goes as far back as 1980 with Superman 2. But hey, with Zeus being Diana's daddy now thanks to the New52 and the 2017 film, this kinda situation isn't exactly completely unheard of. Thanks, Azarello. 

Also, I was sorta/kinda surprised there wasn't a rockin' 80s soundtrack to this. Especially with the use of a remixed "Blue Monday" that was played for the trailers, but no. 80s music is used at an absolute minimum here. Which was disappointing to me, and speaking of disappointing, I believe the overall action sequences thru the entire film just don't feel no where near as polished as the action sequences in the first film.

Liked the Lynda Carter cameo at the end, as brief as it was. Being that Asteria was thought to have sacrificed herself for the Amazons, as told in WW1984, I kinda got a sequel idea in mind that involves Asteria and Circe, but that's neither here nor there.

All in all, my overall assessment is that WW1984 is like Iron Man 2 following up on Iron Man (Disney's MCU has plenty of other examples, but we'll just go with Iron man right now). Some of it is well done, and other parts are just cheesy, and mediocre at best (like the opening mall scene ... I didn't get anything out of that). It's an uneven film for sure (and the opening credits literally has Geoff Johns' name all over the place ... to which I couldn't help but think of TLF over here on the forums haha), especially so when compared to the first one which was more of a worthwhile film, in addition to being more focused in it's storytelling. The Donner influence is blatantly there, but I've never been one to hark back to that style of storytelling, so that approach didn't do anything for me either. Again, it's a mixed bag for sure, but thanks to the Diana/Steve scenes (their goodbyes being poignant), with the unconventional use of sympathetic entertaining antagonist (and I meant "antagonist" as Cheetah barely registered for me personally), along with of course, the Lynda Carter cameo at the end (about damn time she showed up!), saves it from being an absolutely wreck. Ultimately, I found WW1984 as a 'pales in comparison to the first film' sequel that's been a consistent trait with superhero sequels for over a number of years now. This is just another example.

If viewing this thru the lens as a Silver Age Wonder Woman story, it's alright.

Preferably, WW1984 would have been a straight up followup to the established Snyderverse canon. Which, I don't think any DCEU film has really tried to do since, well, Wonder Woman (2017).

We'll see what happens Post-ZSJL.

That's quite a novel you wrote there! Good review!

It's funny to think that if the movie was released in the summer as it was intended to be, it would've already been out on video by now. I've gotten over the initial anger over how bad this movie turned out to be and now I've moved into the frustrated realm just thinking of simple ways they could have fixed their problems.

For one, they could have avoided this whole rape conversation if they had made it a big reveal how Steve came back instead of Diana knowing right away he was Quantum Leaping. They could have taken photographs of themselves and realized it was another person she was with when they started to flip through them after they got them from the photo developer, keeping with the time period, which most of the time felt very contemporary.

Another gripe I have is how the immortality of Diana is handled. They clumsily tried to establish that everyone she associated with in the first one seems to have passed on. She seems very stuck up and snobbish not having any friends and turning down a chance to share a taxi, which seems like a waste of money when you're a superhero they can easily transport from place to place without being seen. If Gadot could actually act, maybe they could have given her an appearance like Selina Kyle and Vicki Vale had in Burton's films when they were working. Kim Basinger honestly looks like another woman with their hair in a ponytail and wearing glasses. They should've had enough sense to make her somewhat different in appearance from her Wonder Woman persona, perhaps having a slight British accent she could've picked up while she lived in Europe and hung around who I'm assuming was her only friend, Etta Candy.

Wiig's gawky performance was very uninspired since we've already seen this done with both Michelle Pfeiffer and Jim Carrey. I honestly wish that they would've gone with Kate McKinnon in the role as someone very personable that craves more ambition that drives her to becoming a formidable foe and a more terrifying transformation than just Wiig beating up a man who tried to assault her but was unexpectedly saved by Diana. There was no threat which is hard to take seriously when Wiig's reaching back into her Bridesmaids routines. Of course, there is doubt McKinnon probably couldn't take on the role any seriously than Wiig, who does have the chops, as long as she's not distracted by all of the girly antics she and Gadot had on the set.

We also desperately needed to see more consequences of actions taken. You completely and utterly lose me when you show Wonder Woman take a falling tumble roll with two children gripping onto her breaking her fall and expect me to believe she saved both of them without any injuries. Maybe show one of them die or at least be hurt enough so that she can feel guilt. We need to see her hurt more than just a gash on her arm or blubbering over the lost of her flyboy toy. Would have been a better payoff to her having the armor at the end too instead of just being in there for the sake of merchandising.

It's just a shame that they can't quite find the middle ground between Zack Snyder's darker approach to the DC Universe and this more lighthearted take that should be striving to be better than the 80's & 90's attempts at superhero movies instead of emulating them. You definitely can tell now Snyder had a lot of influence on the first one and was sorely missed.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  1 Jan  2021, 22:32
That's quite a novel you wrote there! Good review!

Thanks.

QuoteFor one, they could have avoided this whole rape conversation if they had made it a big reveal how Steve came back instead of Diana knowing right away he was Quantum Leaping. They could have taken photographs of themselves and realized it was another person she was with when they started to flip through them after they got them from the photo developer, keeping with the time period, which most of the time felt very contemporary.

Well, the thing is is that Wonder Woman is aware Steve is in someone else's body pretty much from the get go. But she's been longing for Steve for so long, she's convinced herself that there has to be some way in restoring the guy's body back to him, along with Steve being able to remain with her. Eventually, Steve has to gently tell her this isn't possible, and that's where Diana breaks down emotionally.

QuoteAnother gripe I have is how the immortality of Diana is handled. They clumsily tried to establish that everyone she associated with in the first one seems to have passed on. She seems very stuck up and snobbish not having any friends and turning down a chance to share a taxi, which seems like a waste of money when you're a superhero they can easily transport from place to place without being seen. If Gadot could actually act, maybe they could have given her an appearance like Selina Kyle and Vicki Vale had in Burton's films when they were working. Kim Basinger honestly looks like another woman with their hair in a ponytail and wearing glasses. They should've had enough sense to make her somewhat different in appearance from her Wonder Woman persona, perhaps having a slight British accent she could've picked up while she lived in Europe and hung around who I'm assuming was her only friend, Etta Candy.

I guess I took it a little differently. My interpretation wasn't that Diana was being stuck up, but remaining aloof and distant for years in the idea that refraining from relationships would spare her from the emotional devastation of eventually losing them down the line. As she is the immortal, and they are not. It's also worth noting she's distant with both males, and females in the movie as well. As Diana even acts aloof with Barbara. One could also say that this is a form of 'survivors guilt' as well. I guess it's up to the viewer on how well this is conveyed, but that's interpretation I got. I get the disguise argument though.

QuoteWiig's gawky performance was very uninspired since we've already seen this done with both Michelle Pfeiffer and Jim Carrey. I honestly wish that they would've gone with Kate McKinnon in the role as someone very personable that craves more ambition that drives her to becoming a formidable foe and a more terrifying transformation than just Wiig beating up a man who tried to assault her but was unexpectedly saved by Diana. There was no threat which is hard to take seriously when Wiig's reaching back into her Bridesmaids routines. Of course, there is doubt McKinnon probably couldn't take on the role any seriously than Wiig, who does have the chops, as long as she's not distracted by all of the girly antics she and Gadot had on the set.

Wiig as Cheetah just didn't do it for me. The portrayal, nor the movie version of the character. I think I would have just saved Cheetah for the third film, and have Eva Green play her. But beggars can't be choosers.  :D

QuoteWe also desperately needed to see more consequences of actions taken. You completely and utterly lose me when you show Wonder Woman take a falling tumble roll with two children gripping onto her breaking her fall and expect me to believe she saved both of them without any injuries. Maybe show one of them die or at least be hurt enough so that she can feel guilt. We need to see her hurt more than just a gash on her arm or blubbering over the lost of her flyboy toy. Would have been a better payoff to her having the armor at the end too instead of just being in there for the sake of merchandising.

Consequences would have worked, and definitely so under a more Snyder-esque vision, but I think since this film was wanting to lighten things up for the MCU crowd, along with clearly being influenced by the Donner Superman films, having a child die would have made this film more uneven than it already is. The golden armor has never really had much substance in the comics, and I think it was originally conceived for Elseworlds' Kingdom Come miniseries that eventually bled over into the main continuity. WW1984 tried to give it a bit more of a significant context, but it's brief appearance, and instantly getting torn apart wasn't no big loss.

QuoteIt's just a shame that they can't quite find the middle ground between Zack Snyder's darker approach to the DC Universe and this more lighthearted take that should be striving to be better than the 80's & 90's attempts at superhero movies instead of emulating them. You definitely can tell now Snyder had a lot of influence on the first one and was sorely missed.

True. Agreed.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  1 Jan  2021, 22:32
It's just a shame that they can't quite find the middle ground between Zack Snyder's darker approach to the DC Universe and this more lighthearted take that should be striving to be better than the 80's & 90's attempts at superhero movies instead of emulating them. You definitely can tell now Snyder had a lot of influence on the first one and was sorely missed.

I think they should just embrace the darker tone. That's when DC is at its strongest, as shown with JOKER. The lighter stuff feels like pandering, and when it doesn't work that hurts even more.

I haven't seen the film, and I'm not in a rush. But from what I've read, my gripes would be:

No flying - save that for after JL. Diana's leap into combat during BvS seemed to be a definitive statement about her current abilities.
Cut the lasso swinging way down.
No body transfer for Steve. Just have him wished back into existence. Problem solved.
Turning the jet invisible with the touch of Diana's hand. Huh?
I would've wiped humanity's knowledge of the film's events at the end. A much cleaner resolution for continuity.

"It's alright" is what I get from your overall sentiments, Joker. Seems like it's a missed opportunity, tonally and narratively.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 01:08
"It's alright" is what I get from your overall sentiments, Joker. Seems like it's a missed opportunity, tonally and narratively.

Pretty much, TDK. WW1984 just simply isn't on par with the first film. Which, unfortunately, seems to be more the norm, than the exception, when it comes to sequels in this "cinematic universe" era we are in. Truthfully, it felt like the film was more focused on emulating Richard Donner and to some extent, the MCU, than it was being a 'true' followup to the 2017 Wonder Woman movie. The '80's setting is just perplexing, as there really isn't any big story reason on why it had to be set in the 1980's to be perfectly honest. Course, WW1984 was green lit under the time frame where Stranger Things and the 80's setting was a big deal, so that's probably the major reasoning behind it.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 01:55
The '80's setting is just perplexing, as there really isn't any big story reason on why it had to be set in the 1980's to be perfectly honest. Course, WW1984 was green lit under the time frame where Stranger Things and the 80's setting was a big deal, so that's probably the major reasoning behind it.

There's a desire to fill in the timeline, and usually I would be supportive of that. But not here. The original intention of WonderGal was this:

"A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind; from a century of horrors."

That statement is cut and dried, but it was deviated from because it's not 'heroic'. I am not interested in pure heroism. I am interested in the struggle people endure while they're on the path of the hero. The whole point of BvS and ZSJL is that Superman woke them all up with his sacrifice. Whether or not they wanted to emerge, the situation demanded it. Superman was not the first hero (that was Diana), but he was the most important. BvS is the true starting point for the DCEU. It's the modern day. It's the grand reveal of not just Wonder Woman, but all the other superpowered beings that followed her.

WW84 may have some decent aspects to it, but the basis for the movie is counterproductive in the context of an established shared universe. The BvS comment of walking away from mankind should have been left alone. What is 100 years for someone who barely ages? If the lack of heroism aspect was too much to swallow, they could've had Diana return to Themyscira during that time.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 01:55
Truthfully, it felt like the film was more focused on emulating Richard Donner and to some extent, the MCU, than it was being a 'true' followup to the 2017 Wonder Woman movie.

If that is the mentality of Jenkins, I'd rather she be cut loose. Snyder has the right approach to the characters in the modern context, as Matt Reeves seem to.

QuoteWell, the thing is is that Wonder Woman is aware Steve is in someone else's body pretty much from the get go. But she's been longing for Steve for so long, she's convinced herself that there has to be some way in restoring the guy's body back to him, along with Steve being able to remain with her. Eventually, Steve has to gently tell her this isn't possible, and that's where Diana breaks down emotionally.

Could have achieved the same outcome with the reveal pushed later. How it played off came off too creepy and selfish that they were violating someone else's body and life being in perilous situations. It's not ridiculous to think that man's face went on the most wanted list, but I guess it's all for nothing since they had everyone renounce their wish.

QuoteI guess I took it a little differently. My interpretation wasn't that Diana was being stuck up, but remaining aloof and distant for years in the idea that refraining from relationships would spare her from the emotional devastation of eventually losing them down the line. As she is the immortal, and they are not. It's also worth noting she's distant with both males, and females in the movie as well. As Diana even acts aloof with Barbara. One could also say that this is a form of 'survivors guilt' as well. I guess it's up to the viewer on how well this is conveyed, but that's interpretation I got. I get the disguise argument though.

Would have required little effort on the filmmakers to establish that Diana relates more to older people than she does people who appear her own age, but that seems out of Gadot's acting range. At no point does she ever seem like an "old soul." That taxi scene could have as simple as someone not holding the door for her when she goes to work to give her the sense that chivalry is dead. Instead, she comes off very snobbish and stuck up. She even tried to blow off Barbara at first saying she was busy. Maybe establish that Etta and her constantly had dinner together and now that she's gone, it's a huge void to fill and recognizes Barbara has some of her old friend's qualities to pay off the fact that she enjoys her company at lunch.

QuoteWiig as Cheetah just didn't do it for me. The portrayal, nor the movie version of the character. I think I would have just saved Cheetah for the third film, and have Eva Green play her. But beggars can't be choosers.

OH, MY GOD. You made me picture Eva Green as Wonder Woman. That would have been pitch perfect in my mind's eye. She's got the right look and chops to do it. Gadot just has looks.

QuoteConsequences would have worked, and definitely so under a more Snyder-esque vision, but I think since this film was wanting to lighten things up for the MCU crowd, along with clearly being influenced by the Donner Superman films, having a child die would have made this film more uneven than it already is. The golden armor has never really had much substance in the comics, and I think it was originally conceived for Elseworlds' Kingdom Come miniseries that eventually bled over into the main continuity. WW1984 tried to give it a bit more of a significant context, but it's brief appearance, and instantly getting torn apart wasn't no big loss.

Taking the approach that no one can get hurt when things like that happen severely lowers the steaks in an action movie like this. One of the very subtle things that I liked in the first film was how Diana marveled at the side of a child in a carriage and then later sees one crying in the arms of a mother later. When everything is happy go lucky where shoplifters almost recklessly kill someone without being reprimanded for it makes this an uneventful and unfulfilling experience. This was more like Richard Lester's Superman than Richard Donner's Superman.

The worst thing about this whole film is that it was reported a year ago that this movie had very bad test screening and it appears that they did nothing to correct them. The only thing I could definitely tell they re-shot was tacked on Christmas setting ending.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  1 Jan  2021, 21:07
It's an uneven film for sure (and the opening credits literally has Geoff Johns' name all over the place ... to which I couldn't help but think of TLF over here on the forums haha)

Hahaha.

As I said before, I don't have much interest in WW84, and the fact you mentioned that Donner was an influence is not surprising because Johns and Jenkins are both huge fans of the Reeve Superman era. I've no doubt in my mind that the Williams theme that had a cameo in Josstice League was ordered by Johns, because he was one of the producers.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 00:28
Consequences would have worked, and definitely so under a more Snyder-esque vision, but I think since this film was wanting to lighten things up for the MCU crowd, along with clearly being influenced by the Donner Superman films, having a child die would have made this film more uneven than it already is.

Anyone who expected such consequences in a DC film that was tailored to meet mass audience appeal is kidding themselves. After the overblown backlash people raged for MOS and BvS, and how WB butchered JL in an attempt to satisfy current popular tastes, there was no way WB would dare show kids in danger in a Wonder Woman film that was made to be "fun".

But then again, who really knows what mainstream audiences want? They bitched about Batman and Superman killing villains, but never made a single peep when Diana did the same in her first solo outing. We heard of media narratives that the DCEU needs to brighten up to "catch up to the MCU", but WW84 doesn't appear to satisfy that many people, nor did Josstice League before. And the films that did well critically didn't do that great at the box office.

There's no point in trying to satisfy naysayers and mainstream bloggers.

As far as DCEU continuity is concerned, the whole thing is a mess now. The best thing for WarnerMedia/AT&T to do now is putting their money where their mouth is and commit to a multiverse, where the likes of Zack Snyder and so on are allowed to continue their own continuity, and let others have theirs.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 02:47
There's a desire to fill in the timeline, and usually I would be supportive of that. But not here. The original intention of WonderGal was this:

"A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind; from a century of horrors."

That statement is cut and dried, but it was deviated from because it's not 'heroic'. I am not interested in pure heroism. I am interested in the struggle people endure while they're on the path of the hero. The whole point of BvS and ZSJL is that Superman woke them all up with his sacrifice. Whether or not they wanted to emerge, the situation demanded it. Superman was not the first hero (that was Diana), but he was the most important. BvS is the true starting point for the DCEU. It's the modern day. It's the grand reveal of not just Wonder Woman, but all the other superpowered beings that followed her.

WW84 may have some decent aspects to it, but the basis for the movie is counterproductive in the context of an established shared universe. The BvS comment of walking away from mankind should have been left alone. What is 100 years for someone who barely ages? If the lack of heroism aspect was too much to swallow, they could've had Diana return to Themyscira during that time.

Ideally, I agree 110%.

By going with the 'it's year 1984' route, it's "cheap" in the sense that it means we have a story without real consequences except that our main characters were affected by their experiences, but when you're going about slotting a prequel in somewhere, any consequences are likely to be thoroughly minimal.

I think the film attempted to have it both ways, with Diana remaining on as Wonder Woman in a incognito sense, but remaining emotionally detached/distant/uninvolved for decades with the majority of people she came into contact with (apparently her only close friends being the rag tag group she fought with during WW1). I can go with the aspect of a emotionally detached Diana (because it kinda/sorta aligns with her statement in BvS), but unfortunately, the fact that Diana worked incognito as Wonder Woman thru the decades (assumingly) still contradicts her presentation from BvS. Again, it's a case of the movie pulling itself in several different directions, and without any attempt at course correcting.

I would love for that Snyder approach/tonal mood to return in a big way for the DCEU, Post-ZSJL, but I guess we'll see. Apparently whoever handles AT&T's twitter handle is a big fan.  ;D

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 01:55
If that is the mentality of Jenkins, I'd rather she be cut loose. Snyder has the right approach to the characters in the modern context, as Matt Reeves seem to.

Jenkins has been questionable as of late. With the recent reveal that she wanted Thewlis to be revealed as Ares, but remaining in a 3 piece suit the entire time for the concluding confrontation between Wonder Woman and Ares. Nah. No thanks. I am actually glad the studio stepped in on that one. The George Perez take on a armored up Ares was not only outstanding, but a great visual. I prefer there being an attempt/version to have Ares represent how he appears in the comics, rather than going the route of subverting expectations.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:17
Could have achieved the same outcome with the reveal pushed later. How it played off came off too creepy and selfish that they were violating someone else's body and life being in perilous situations. It's not ridiculous to think that man's face went on the most wanted list, but I guess it's all for nothing since they had everyone renounce their wish.

I think Diana still wanting desperately to find a way for Steve to remain with her would have stood. Even if this body borrowing was played out differently. She's been 'wishing' for him to come back to her for nearly 70 years at this stage.

Quote
Would have required little effort on the filmmakers to establish that Diana relates more to older people than she does people who appear her own age, but that seems out of Gadot's acting range. At no point does she ever seem like an "old soul." That taxi scene could have as simple as someone not holding the door for her when she goes to work to give her the sense that chivalry is dead. Instead, she comes off very snobbish and stuck up. She even tried to blow off Barbara at first saying she was busy. Maybe establish that Etta and her constantly had dinner together and now that she's gone, it's a huge void to fill and recognizes Barbara has some of her old friend's qualities to pay off the fact that she enjoys her company at lunch.

I think what they were trying to convey, is that Diana is choosing to self isolate. Choosing to remain distant. Choosing to be aloof. Choosing to be brief with people. ect. It's like her only 'joy' is when she's working incognito as Wonder Woman for brief periods of time. Course this changes when Steve magically returns to her, but there's a catch as always. And in this case, more ways than one.

Can't say I'm going to monday morning quarterback this. It's not executed to a completely satisfactory level, but I see what they were trying to attempt with this.

QuoteOH, MY GOD. You made me picture Eva Green as Wonder Woman. That would have been pitch perfect in my mind's eye. She's got the right look and chops to do it. Gadot just has looks.

I don't mind Gal as Wonder Woman. She's an attractive woman. I just wanted an attractive Cheetah and Wigg/McKinnon just ain't it. Attractiveness is subjective, sure. I just dig it when Eva Green plays a villainess (especially with those eyes!). Plus her hair color is more in line with Barbara Minerva. Blonde is traditionally more Priscilla Rich.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:36
There's no point in trying to satisfy naysayers and mainstream bloggers.

It's like chasing a crowd, who simply isn't there. Comics has been doing this for years and years, and it hasn't worked out well for them at all.

QuoteAs far as DCEU continuity is concerned, the whole thing is a mess now. The best thing for WarnerMedia/AT&T to do now is putting their money where their mouth is and commit to a multiverse, where the likes of Zack Snyder and so on are allowed to continue their own continuity, and let others have theirs.

I think with this embracing of the multiverse concept, getting multiple versions of the same character running at the same time is going to be a thing. If that's a negative or positive is up to the viewer, but any remaining notions that multiple versions is going to be confusing for the masses is pretty much null and void.

WB/AT&T may as well just go nuts with the concept.

QuoteI think Diana still wanting desperately to find a way for Steve to remain with her would have stood. Even if this body borrowing was played out differently. She's been 'wishing' for him to come back to her for nearly 70 years at this stage.

Guess she never heard of this obvious Monkey's Paw plot, especially how it was right in her face from the beginning.

QuoteI think what they were trying to convey, is that Diana is choosing to self isolate. Choosing to remain distant. Choosing to be aloof. Choosing to be brief with people. ect. It's like her only 'joy' is when she's working incognito as Wonder Woman for brief periods of time. Course this changes when Steve magically returns to her, but there's a catch as always. And in this case, more ways than one.

Too much assumption that the audience will pick up on that. Shame that they bared no mind that they were dealing with a character who's been though seven decades of changes in the world. Diana just came off contemporary and not at all timeless.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 04:25
Guess she never heard of this obvious Monkey's Paw plot, especially how it was right in her face from the beginning.

I think Steve mentions directly the Monkey's Paw story if I am not mistaken. I don't think it was a case of her being oblivious to what the dream stone represented, but more of a desperate 'we can find a out on this/fix this' due to her reluctance in death separating her from her soul mate once again (and apparently souls exist in the DCEU as Steve does mention about being in a "good place" following his actual death). Kinda surprised they didn't go full on MCU after that statement with some good ol' humor about Steve vaguely remembering seeing a ghostly figure with a green cloak or something.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:46
By going with the 'it's year 1984' route, it's "cheap" in the sense that it means we have a story without real consequences except that our main characters were affected by their experiences, but when you're going about slotting a prequel in somewhere, any consequences are likely to be thoroughly minimal.

I believe the real reason for the 80s setting is the studio's reluctance to move the timeline forward past JL right now. Having a film set in the modern day opens up questions about Batman, Superman and the others' whereabouts. For example, it's clear to me WB are reluctant to use Cavill for anything.

Having a Wonder Woman solo film set in the past remedies that from their point of view, even if it opens up continuity problems. The political undercurrents of WW84 had me concerned from the start. The appeal of Gal in the suit again motivated me to take more of an interest despite that. If the movie ended with the world forgetting all that transpired, it would've gone a long way in addressing some of the continuity concerns - even though WonderGal obviously didn't walk away from mankind. Such an easy out, and it's not taken.

I'm glad Michael Keaton looks set to return as Batman, because it's what we've been wanting for years. But it's telling that the next DCEU film will be Flashpoint, which will serve to change course and tidy things up for them. Notice that only after Flashpoint would WonderGal move into a modern setting.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:46
I would love for that Snyder approach/tonal mood to return in a big way for the DCEU, Post-ZSJL, but I guess we'll see. Apparently whoever handles AT&T's twitter handle is a big fan.  ;D

The real continuity for me is Wonder Woman, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (UE), ZSJL and Suicide Squad (Ayer Cut). Anything outside of that isn't strict enough and was made under a different mindset. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the studio saw ZSJL as a one-off. We can only support the film in a big way and hope for the best.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 01:55
Jenkins has been questionable as of late. With the recent reveal that she wanted Thewlis to be revealed as Ares, but remaining in a 3 piece suit the entire time for the concluding confrontation between Wonder Woman and Ares. Nah. No thanks. I am actually glad the studio stepped in on that one. The George Perez take on a armored up Ares was not only outstanding, but a great visual. I prefer there being an attempt/version to have Ares represent how he appears in the comics, rather than going the route of subverting expectations.

The Donner worship is nauseating, and I loathe the arrogance that 'this is the template to make a successful superhero movie'. Push that to the side and make something contemporary. I get the impression Jenkins believes the hype that was generated about her after the first WW film. And so do studios. She's now helming a Star Wars movie and Cleopatra. She had one good movie, and WW84 now represents a bump in the road. I wouldn't be putting all my faith into her. Sustained success is how talent is truly judged.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Jan  2021, 00:53
I believe the real reason for the 80s setting is the studio's reluctance to move the timeline forward past JL right now. Having a film set in the modern day opens up questions about Batman, Superman and the others' whereabouts. For example, it's clear to me WB are reluctant to use Cavill for anything.

Having a Wonder Woman solo film set in the past remedies that from their point of view, even if it opens up continuity problems.

I really didn't think Warners was all that reluctant in having DCEU films taking place post-JL, TDK, being that both Aquaman, and Shazam are examples of films taking place in a post-JL DCEU world (I can't remember if BOP was stated to take place after or not). I think a WW sequel set in present day was possible, but ideally it would have been a more restrained, personal story, and a much smaller film. Unfortunately, when the 1st movie is a eight hundred million dollar summer blockbuster success, scaling back just isn't in the studio cards. To me, it just came across as a, "well, let's hit on that '80's nostalgia that's popular right now.", along with the studio mindset at the time of wanting to blatantly push away from Snyder's vision. Which, as we've discussed, would cause immediate continuity problems/contradictions right from the jump with how Wondy was introduced in BvS. Just her being active at all, in any capacity, following the events of the 1st film up to BvS, could be seen as a contradiction to her introductory presentation.

I guess the same thing is about to happen with the "Obi Wan Kenobi" prequel series, right?

Having said all that, and since the clear disregard towards the Snyderverse continuity was intentional, Warners/Jenkins/Johns, ideally, may have just well did a "Wonder Woman 197-something" film to be perfectly honest. Especially with the heavy influence of Donner's Superman, and Lynda Carter making an appearance. The 1970's setting would be appropriate, the same plot could be achieved, the obvious fashion gags, and Steve could have remained the man out of time. Course '70's nostalgia in movies doesn't seem to be as prevalent these days, as it was in, say, the 1990's.

QuoteThe political undercurrents of WW84 had me concerned from the start. The appeal of Gal in the suit again motivated me to take more of an interest despite that. If the movie ended with the world forgetting all that transpired, it would've gone a long way in addressing some of the continuity concerns - even though WonderGal obviously didn't walk away from mankind. Such an easy out, and it's not taken.

The political concerns were well taken, but I found the handling of that to be rather gentle though not altogether absent. I had the same concern with this, and JOKER, but both, to me, were not heavy handed SNL dreck.

QuoteI'm glad Michael Keaton looks set to return as Batman, because it's what we've been wanting for years. But it's telling that the next DCEU film will be Flashpoint, which will serve to change course and tidy things up for them. Notice that only after Flashpoint would WonderGal move into a modern setting.

With Flashpoint, it will be fascinating to see if ZSJL is regarded/confirmed as canon within the DCEU. Either by dialogue, or flashback scenes involving Snyder's cut. And if ZSJL is actually addressed and confirmed as having taken place in Flashpoint (which would be notable development), what implications does that shift bring about in the DCEU's path moving forward?

QuoteThe real continuity for me is Wonder Woman, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (UE), ZSJL and Suicide Squad (Ayer Cut). Anything outside of that isn't strict enough and was made under a different mindset. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the studio saw ZSJL as a one-off. We can only support the film in a big way and hope for the best.

Agreed, and I'm with you on hoping for nothing but the best with ZSJL. 

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  3 Jan  2021, 06:03
I really didn't think Warners was all that reluctant in having DCEU films taking place post-JL, TDK, being that both Aquaman, and Shazam are examples of films taking place in a post-JL DCEU world (I can't remember if BOP was stated to take place after or not). I think a WW sequel set in present day was possible, but ideally it would have been a more restrained, personal story, and a much smaller film.

You're right about that. However from what I remember of Shazam it's more or less a self-contained origin story. There are references to Batman and Superman but the actors themselves were never going to be used, and Cavill wasn't. We had a stand-in actor with his head chopped off.

BOP is much the same self-contained thing, and not strutting its shared universe stuff to the fullest potential. A deleted scene had an obscured stand-in for Leto's Joker tossing Harley's belongings outside a second storey window, because, again, they had no intention of using the real actor even if the character was going to feature. Just like what they did with Cavill in Shazam. Margot Robbie said Leto's absence was "intentional."

So we're dealing with modern day DCEU films with limitations due to the studio not being 'all in'. It makes sense to me, if the studio is dancing around characters/actors, to go way back in time and avoid that.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  3 Jan  2021, 06:03
Agreed, and I'm with you on hoping for nothing but the best with ZSJL.

ZSJL is the real deal in terms of Snyder continuity purity. I just hope Matt Reeves' film is good and really does remain separate from the DCEU stuff.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:36Anyone who expected such consequences in a DC film that was tailored to meet mass audience appeal is kidding themselves. After the overblown backlash people raged for MOS and BvS, and how WB butchered JL in an attempt to satisfy current popular tastes, there was no way WB would dare show kids in danger in a Wonder Woman film that was made to be "fun".

Weren't kids shown to be have danger towards them in Justice League? And doesn't WW84 show a nuclear strike about hit with a kid standing in the middle of it?

QuoteBut then again, who really knows what mainstream audiences want? They bitched about Batman and Superman killing villains, but never made a single peep when Diana did the same in her first solo outing. We heard of media narratives that the DCEU needs to brighten up to "catch up to the MCU", but WW84 doesn't appear to satisfy that many people, nor did Josstice League before. And the films that did well critically didn't do that great at the box office.

Why can't some have different tastes for different characters, in different contexts, that they may think are developed differently?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 02:47There's a desire to fill in the timeline, and usually I would be supportive of that. But not here. The original intention of WonderGal was this:

"A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind; from a century of horrors."

That statement is cut and dried, but it was deviated from because it's not 'heroic'. I am not interested in pure heroism. I am interested in the struggle people endure while they're on the path of the hero. The whole point of BvS and ZSJL is that Superman woke them all up with his sacrifice. Whether or not they wanted to emerge, the situation demanded it. Superman was not the first hero (that was Diana), but he was the most important. BvS is the true starting point for the DCEU. It's the modern day. It's the grand reveal of not just Wonder Woman, but all the other superpowered beings that followed her.

WW84 may have some decent aspects to it, but the basis for the movie is counterproductive in the context of an established shared universe. The BvS comment of walking away from mankind should have been left alone. What is 100 years for someone who barely ages? If the lack of heroism aspect was too much to swallow, they could've had Diana return to Themyscira during that time.

Why does struggling in the path of a hero have to mean giving up for a hundred years? It may not be a lot for her, but it can be for others. Why should I care about a character who doesn't care about humanity, because her boyfriend died and she doesn't like that humans do bad things, as if she has the right to judge us?

I think Superman waking them up with his sacrifice is dumb and nonsense. People die in acts of protection of others all the time. What's the difference between Superman doing it and anyone else doing it? Superman's not more important or special than other normal humans. Also, Diana jumped back into the fight, before Superman "died" in that movie. So, I don't think his sacrifice is a big wake up for her, if she's willing to help before that.

Maybe they could've, but none of the movies, Snyder's included, has had that written in them, as far as I think was presented on screen, so far.

QuoteIf that is the mentality of Jenkins, I'd rather she be cut loose. Snyder has the right approach to the characters in the modern context, as Matt Reeves seem to.

Who says she should be cut loose and who decides who has the right approach?

This is well done, to say the very least!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q-wiSq0FjM

Posts like this one sometimes make me wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose. Nevertheless, I'll presume good faith intentions for now.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 13 Jan  2021, 13:57Why does struggling in the path of a hero have to mean giving up for a hundred years? It may not be a lot for her, but it can be for others. Why should I care about a character who doesn't care about humanity, because her boyfriend died and she doesn't like that humans do bad things, as if she has the right to judge us?

That's the point. It isn't a lot for her. But Diana lost more than just a boyfriend in World War I. A lot of people did. Even many of the survivors came home from the war with injuries, PTSD and so forth. Diana's experiences were intense enough to cause her to give up for quite a while. She came back to fight Doomsday because she was needed.

She stuck around because, as TDK says, "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild. We can do better."

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 13 Jan  2021, 13:57I think Superman waking them up with his sacrifice is dumb and nonsense. People die in acts of protection of others all the time. What's the difference between Superman doing it and anyone else doing it?

People lose their souls all the time; what's the difference between Michael Corleone doing it and anyone else doing it? People reluctantly put their personal feelings aside to do the right thing all the time; what's the difference between Rick Blaine doing it and anyone else doing it? People marry their childhood sweethearts all the time; what's the difference between Forrest Gump doing it and anyone else doing it? People survive attempted murder all the time; what's the difference between Laurie Strode doing it and anyone else doing it? People go on revenge-fueled killing sprees all the time; what's the difference between Paul Kersey doing it and anyone else doing it?

The difference in each case is its those characters' stories. Their victories, failures, strengths and weaknesses are what define their character arcs and their stories. This is all about as basic as it can possibly get. Your seeming inability to grasp this simple concept of a main character having a story to play out his character arc just makes people wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 13 Jan  2021, 13:57Who says she should be cut loose and who decides who has the right approach?

Fish, for one. One director's work appeals to him while another director's work seems to be losing his appeal to him. You do understand the idea of expressing a preference for one thing over another, yes?

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 04:10

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  2 Jan  2021, 03:36
There's no point in trying to satisfy naysayers and mainstream bloggers.

It's like chasing a crowd, who simply isn't there. Comics has been doing this for years and years, and it hasn't worked out well for them at all.

Agreed. There is no better example of trying to appease a crowd that doesn't exist than this tweet below, from a critic who is delighted that WW84 is now labelled "Rotten".

https://www.twitter.com/rkylesmith/status/1353010976937943044

Movie studios have got to stop trying to appease these types of people. All it does is give them this grandiose sense of influence. WB may hate to admit it, but they'd be doing themselves a huge disservice if they don't embrace the fans' demand for ZSJL. Critics be damned, they've already written their negative reviews for it, but they're not the target audience who are willing to pay for this material.

The sooner that WB puts their egos aside and get on board with AT&T's enthusiasm for ZSJL and any possible continuation for the Snyderverse, the better off they will be.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 25 Jan  2021, 05:35Movie studios have got to stop trying to appease these types of people. All it does is give them this grandiose sense of influence. WB may hate to admit it, but they'd be doing themselves a huge disservice if they don't embrace the fans' demand for ZSJL. Critics be damned, they've already written their negative reviews for it, but they're not the target audience who are willing to pay for this material.

The sooner that WB puts their egos aside and get on board with AT&T's enthusiasm for ZSJL and any possible continuation for the Snyderverse, the better off they will be.

In the case of JL, the critics were key foot soldiers in executing WB's collective will. Snyder was the victim of Hollywood politics. WB came to dislike Snyder and his vision and they found willing allies among critics.

When it comes to Snyder, WB would not only have to be willing to ignore the critics (which AT&T would probably force them to do anyway) but they'd also have to publicly (even if implicitly) acknowledge that they were wrong to oppose and undermine Snyder (which AT&T is already forcing them to do because the Snyder cut is coming).

The point remains. Most film studio execs and movie critics are fellow travelers in terms of ideology and policy preferences, if you know what I mean. The studios know damn good and well what they have to do to win back their audience. But WB is the only doing something about it... and that, only because AT&T is forcing them to. Otherwise, rest assured, WB would be only too happy to allow ZSJL to stay buried forever.

Don't believe the hype. Hollywood politics is what drives the American film industry. Profit probably isn't even in the top five most important things in Hollywood.

The potential of another entity throwing their weight around is exciting, but I'd like to know how much influence AT&T are really going to have. If they want something strongly enough will they get it? How hard do they need to push, and is their want going to be substantial?

The real proof will be what happens after the Snyder cut. Word went around from WB that it's a dead end after the release period. But if the film is a big success and other merchandise sells, what are AT&T going to do? Just accept what WB says?

I've seen rumblings about Cavill possibly appearing in the Flashpoint movie, and perhaps other cameo appearances down the line. I'd take those crumbs over Cavill getting nothing at all, but I'm wondering - is that all AT&T could muster? 

I guess at the end of the day, a lot hinges of the popularity of the Snyder cut. If it's a successful venture, those questions I posed become a lot more relevant, and can be properly answered because AT&T would have data on their side if they want to push for more. In the shorter term it could lead to the Ayer cut.

I have to wonder that there are budgetary considerations to be made. At this moment, the #1 grossing in America this past weekend is The Marksman... which grossed a whoppin' $2,028,944.

If I've got my history right, these are 1970's numbers. Puny. Far too puny to justify massive nine figure production budgets.

Since billion dollar worldwide takes may very well be a thing of the past, studios have to take a hard look at what they can afford to produce. For openers, that means films with less CGI to confuse the eye and confound the understanding.

I'm on the record for predicting the demise of the comic book cinema trend from even before the coof came along. But now that we're nearly a full year into this thing, it's time to start asking what the future actually looks like. Comic book movies are expensive and, in today's market, the gold standard of risky. It's only good business rn to begin offering alternatives.

It may be that ZSJL is the swan song for many things besides just the Snyderverse.

I didn't see this. The Cultured Nerd keep banging the Batfleck HBO Max drum.

https://theculturednerd.org/2021/01/updates-on-batfleck-series-ayercut-and-status-of-green-lantern-in-zack-snyders-justice-league/

They claim:

A Batfleck series will consist of eight episodes.
It will feature Joker, show Robin's death, Bruce's divorce and Wayne Manor's decay.
There's a backstory for Deathstroke and his deal with Lex is explored, with Jesse coming back.
They are scouting locations and looking for a Robin actor.
Shooting would commence after Flashpoint.

The Cultured Nerd also say the Ayer cut will be announced if ZSJL is a hit.

Big funkin' claims to make.

Having a self contained Batfleck series set before BvS and after ZSJL would allow Flashpoint's ending for Batfleck to be an ending, or at least not interfere or contradict anything. Who knows what the future holds. We live in hope, and again...let's make ZSJL a monster success. Screw the pre-written reviews: money talks.

Apparently, from what has been disclosed, HBO and HBO Max, combined, had 38.0 million U.S. subscribers at the end of September, and increased that number to 41.5 million U.S. subscribers by the end of 2020.

Pretty solid numbers. As a company, and for investors, that's a nice increase in a relative short amount of time. To which, no doubt about it, the controversial decision to release a high profile movie like WW1984 both digitally and in theaters on the same day, played a factor in.

Money talks and you know the rest.

Which, as a strategy, is only going to continue on in their film slate in 2021. With Godzilla vs. Kong getting bumped up from a May release, to March. We'll see what happens with Mr. Batfleck, but as a company like AT&T, their primary long term goal is for obtaining viral attention/interest for their projects from the masses, and securing subscribers to their HBO Max platform. In all honesty, I can't imagine a Batfleck series/movie not delivering for them on both fronts. Money talks ....

Seeing the increase in subs for HBO Max from Sept 2020 to the end of the year was pretty interesting. Seeing the numbers after March following the double whammy of ZSJL, and GvK should be even more interesting.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 29 Jan  2021, 09:03Apparently, from what has been disclosed, HBO and HBO Max, combined, had 38.0 million U.S. subscribers at the end of September, and increased that number to 41.5 million U.S. subscribers by the end of 2020.

Interesting growth. Are we attributing that to WW84?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 29 Jan  2021, 12:53
Interesting growth. Are we attributing that to WW84?

The whole enchilada? Or are we going with WW1984 playing a factor with the increase?

I know I am only repeating myself, but let's go with the latter rather than the former.

I don't mind giving the film credit for the prospect of increasing subs for HBO Max in the final seven days in the month of Dec, even if I wasn't overly enthusiastic about the final product, but let's be modest with the attribution here. If not realistic.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 22 Jan  2021, 13:21That's the point. It isn't a lot for her. But Diana lost more than just a boyfriend in World War I. A lot of people did. Even many of the survivors came home from the war with injuries, PTSD and so forth. Diana's experiences were intense enough to cause her to give up for quite a while. She came back to fight Doomsday because she was needed.

She stuck around because, as TDK says, "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild. We can do better."

Nothing in any of the movies showcases PTSD or losing anything more than Steve, really, I think.

That statement is wrong. And it shouldn't matter.

QuotePeople lose their souls all the time; what's the difference between Michael Corleone doing it and anyone else doing it? People reluctantly put their personal feelings aside to do the right thing all the time; what's the difference between Rick Blaine doing it and anyone else doing it? People marry their childhood sweethearts all the time; what's the difference between Forrest Gump doing it and anyone else doing it? People survive attempted murder all the time; what's the difference between Laurie Strode doing it and anyone else doing it? People go on revenge-fueled killing sprees all the time; what's the difference between Paul Kersey doing it and anyone else doing it?

The difference in each case is its those characters' stories. Their victories, failures, strengths and weaknesses are what define their character arcs and their stories. This is all about as basic as it can possibly get. Your seeming inability to grasp this simple concept of a main character having a story to play out his character arc just makes people wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose.

I don't think this connects to what I said. This doesn't mean people in the fictional world of the movies would care that he died anymore than they care about anyone else.

QuoteFish, for one. One director's work appeals to him while another director's work seems to be losing his appeal to him. You do understand the idea of expressing a preference for one thing over another, yes?

Isn't that more a taste or opinion based issue? Not a decider of who should go?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Feb  2021, 13:20

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 22 Jan  2021, 13:21That's the point. It isn't a lot for her. But Diana lost more than just a boyfriend in World War I. A lot of people did. Even many of the survivors came home from the war with injuries, PTSD and so forth. Diana's experiences were intense enough to cause her to give up for quite a while. She came back to fight Doomsday because she was needed.

She stuck around because, as TDK says, "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild. We can do better."

Nothing in any of the movies showcases PTSD or losing anything more than Steve, really, I think.

That statement is wrong. And it shouldn't matter.

My comment wasn't restricted to the movie. Did you know there was a real war called World War I? And in that real war, many survivors came home with injuries and/or PTSD? It's crazy, I know, but that rly happened. The movie doesn't exist in a vacuum. Everything the movie shows us about World War I as well as everything the movie doesn't show us about World War I can be assumed to be part of Diana's larger awareness of and experience with the war. And it would've shaped her decisions in the future.

The rest of your post, I just can't even...

Despite the incessant complaints about WW84 being a setback for the character and a downgrade compared to the first movie, I heard Patty Jenkins has confirmed her intention to return for the sequel.

RIP to the compassionate warrior we saw in BvS and ZSJL.

If Patty, and Warners, can get their head out of settling for Disney MCU-lite safe mode, and move past the 'humorous' Silver Age approach that WW84 exhibited, then it's got a shot at being something more worthwhile like the 2017 origin movie than just simply alright/ok. Patty's not a director lacking in talent, so going back to the appeal that really brought back Wonder Woman to the dance for modern audiences (BvS, WW2017, and more recently ZSJL) would be the preferred and logical choice.

Audiences have decisively spoken. Just listen to them ...


In other news, Wondy's 80th anniversary is today. Here's Gal marking the occasion.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCQVa7LX0AEieuk?format=jpg)

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 04:01
Audiences have decisively spoken. Just listen to them ...

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I got the memo awhile ago that Warner doesn't give a sh*t about what the fans want. Hell, they don't even care about the welfare of their own directors and actors. These unfit people only care about protecting their pathetic fragile egos, which is why they must be fired.

Jenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 15:48
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I got the memo awhile ago that Warner doesn't give a sh*t about what the fans want. Hell, they don't even care about the welfare of their own directors and actors. These unfit people only care about protecting their pathetic fragile egos, which is why they must be fired.

Well they are the masters of tone deafness after all ...

QuoteJenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I mean, you'd think it would be common sense to get someone to tell Patty, "Hey, you know that first Wonder Woman movie that was well received by audiences, and made the studio a lot of money? Make another one of those, please."

But I know, I know. It's a absolute funny farm over at Warners.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 23 Oct  2021, 07:27

QuoteJenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I can somewhat buy into her viewpoint tho. Yes, Diana is a warrior. But she's also been equally an ambassador. A diplomat, you might even say. Considering that Wonder Woman as warrior was covered quite well in Snyder's movies, I can see the logic she might've had in wanting to show a different side to her character.

We can all see how that turned out, of course. I'm just saying that her rationale does add up.

In the final analysis, fans and critics need to start considering the likelihood that most of what made the first Wonder Woman movie great came from Snyder whereas most of what made the second Wonder Woman movie such a disappointment came from Jenkins.

Those are the facts.

I am not exactly sure just how well Patty was versed with WW lore before coming on to direct the 2017 WW film, but it's no secret that Geoff Johns' name was all over the opening credit sequence with WW1984, and whom has never been shy about his love for Silver Age DC (and evidently thirsting to be the Warners/DC equivalent of Kevin Feige). Throw in the fact that Warners was very much openly and publicly yearning to move on from Sndyerverse continuity and tone, it's no wonder we got a film that was much more reflective of the Silver/Bronze Age than what was previously established.

I'm sure if Patty had any lingering doubts about veering too far away from the tonality set with the 2017, they were probably quickly and gently squashed in favor for more of a Disney Marvel formulaic approach. Thinking it will be even more successful since Wondy is already established and the origin movie is out of the way.

Patty Jenkins' Star Wars movie, Rogue Squadron, has been put on hold due to creative issues. It's no coincidence to see the third WW sequel is being discussed in the media, with Lynda Carter returning.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13722802/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 23 Oct  2021, 07:27
Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I mean, you'd think it would be common sense to get someone to tell Patty, "Hey, you know that first Wonder Woman movie that was well received by audiences, and made the studio a lot of money? Make another one of those, please."

But I know, I know. It's a absolute funny farm over at Warners.

The more distaste that Jenkins expresses for a violent, action-packed Wonder Woman, the more she's disassociating herself from the 2017 movie. I think it's utterly stupid of her to do that. Yes, I know Snyder and Heinberg were instrumental to that movie's success, but it still remains Jenkins' biggest recognition as a film director since Monster. Diana is compassionate and loving and all, but audiences don't want to see that badass side of her get thrown in the bin. It's those very same traits why WW2017 and ZSJL were popular among general audiences. In ZSJL, the scene wehre Diana comforts a young schoolgirl and encourages her to be whatever she wants to be growing up, right after saving all the hostages in explosive fashion, is an example why people enjoy her character. From what I've read of WW84, it is a setback when it comes to portraying Diana as a feminist icon, compared to her defiantly telling Steppenwolf she belongs to no one.

It's weird. When WW2017 came out, it was used to run a narrative against Snyder's vision, mostly because of Geoff Johns had a hand in doing uncredited rewrites for the third act. But the studio were in on it, make no mistake. Even Henry Cavill, as much as I enjoy him as Superman, was opportunistic in hailing WW2017 as a "step in the right direction", while implying Snyder's style for DC on film was a "mistake"...despite the fact WW2017 is looks more like a Snyder-directed film than either MOS or BvS, and does many things those films get criticised for.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171101200425/https://www.moviefone.com/2017/10/31/henry-cavill-wonder-woman-first-step-correcting-dceu-mistakes/

But now, if Jenkins gets her way, Wonder Woman as a franchise will continue to steer away from the very first movie that made it successful. At this stage, it sounds as if ZSJL will be the closest thing to a true WW sequel we will get. As baffling as it is, it's yet another example of gross incompetence and mismanagement affecting the studio to this very day.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 16 Nov  2021, 12:59
The more distaste that Jenkins expresses for a violent, action-packed Wonder Woman, the more she's disassociating herself from the 2017 movie. I think it's utterly stupid of her to do that. Yes, I know Snyder and Heinberg were instrumental to that movie's success, but it still remains Jenkins' biggest recognition as a film director since Monster. Diana is compassionate and loving and all, but audiences don't want to see that badass side of her get thrown in the bin. It's those very same traits why WW2017 and ZSJL were popular among general audiences. In ZSJL, the scene wehre Diana comforts a young schoolgirl and encourages her to be whatever she wants to be growing up, right after saving all the hostages in explosive fashion, is an example why people enjoy her character. From what I've read of WW84, it is a setback when it comes to portraying Diana as a feminist icon, compared to her defiantly telling Steppenwolf she belongs to no one.

It's weird. When WW2017 came out, it was used to run a narrative against Snyder's vision, mostly because of Geoff Johns had a hand in doing uncredited rewrites for the third act. But the studio were in on it, make no mistake. Even Henry Cavill, as much as I enjoy him as Superman, was opportunistic in hailing WW2017 as a "step in the right direction", while implying Snyder's style for DC on film was a "mistake"...despite the fact WW2017 is looks more like a Snyder-directed film than either MOS or BvS, and does many things those films get criticised for.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171101200425/https://www.moviefone.com/2017/10/31/henry-cavill-wonder-woman-first-step-correcting-dceu-mistakes/

But now, if Jenkins gets her way, Wonder Woman as a franchise will continue to steer away from the very first movie that made it successful. At this stage, it sounds as if ZSJL will be the closest thing to a true WW sequel we will get. As baffling as it is, it's yet another example of gross incompetence and mismanagement affecting the studio to this very day.

It's interesting, but I believe it's become abundantly clear that Warners' view of Wonder Woman is in a very unique predicament going forward. In that what Warners prefers to go with, is not necessarily what has been warmly received by today's audiences. Good business sense would naturally dictate to not go against the grain, and develop something more along the lines of Wondy's depiction in BvS, WW2017, and ZSJL, but evidently this hasn't seeped in yet. For some bizarre reason.

Unfortunately, I think this will likely result in Wonder Woman being considered radioactive by Warners, thru no fault of the character, but due to brazen mismanagement. This is already the case with Superman, and it's shaping up where Wondy will be joining him sooner rather than later. In Superman's case, for all intents and purposes, it appeared as if Warners were very open to a fresh and new cinematic take on the character during the late '90's to mid 2000's. Bryan Singer decided he wanted in, and WB rolled out the red carpet for him. Thus, resulting in the over infatuated with the Donnerverse movie that was "Superman Returns". Flash forward a few years, and Warners decided to give the green light to a more Post-Crisis interpretation of Superman with Snyder's "Man of Steel". Now there appears to be two different "Black Superman" projects, "Evil Superman" appearing in animation and in video games, but if you're looking for something new that appeals to fans of a more classic Superman .... well ... you're SOL right now. It's not even what's being pushed in the comics themselves at this point. With this "New Superman"'s politics, and sexuality being emphasized above all.

With Wonder Woman as a cinematic franchise, it pretty much boils down to Warners (and Patty), wanting to stick their heads in the sand, and ignore the determined warrior depiction that has been apart of the character's history for decades now, and to which played a part in Gal being warmly received, and ultimately becoming the true heir apparent to Lynda. Especially so in the public's estimation.

So if WW1984 Part Deux fails, and because Warners inexplicably considers Wondy depicted as a warrior absolutely off limits, she could very well share that same fate as Superman. Where WB will throw up their arms, and consider the character radioactive. Surmising that they "tried", but the character is no longer viable for current audiences.

To which they would be absolutely wrong, but hey, it's classic clusterF Warners thinking. I'm sure another reboot, only with Nubia, will be in the cards at that point. Certainly.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 18 Nov  2021, 05:54
With Wonder Woman as a cinematic franchise, it pretty much boils down to Warners (and Patty), wanting to stick their heads in the sand, and ignore the determined warrior depiction that has been apart of the character's history for decades now, and to which played a part in Gal being warmly received, and ultimately becoming the true heir apparent to Lynda. Especially so in the public's estimation.

Come to think of it, I remember hearing a rumour claiming Gal Gadot shares Jenkins' sentiment about the character as well. While she owes Snyder for her big break and she did express her gratitude publicly, Gadot is alleged to be very loyal to Jenkins. So much to the point that it was rumoured the next sequel will be her last film as Diana. But I have heard another rumour saying she is keen to stay on.

Regardless, there's one thing for certain: Gadot going public to state Jenkins and her disagreed with the idea of Diana walking away from mankind back in 2017 wasn't just a studio mandate. That's what the two genuinely thought. Don't be surprised if Gadot agrees with Jenkins' anti-warrior stance as well.

Sadly, that would mean Warner, Jenkins AND Gadot appear to be sticking their heads in the sand. After all the fiasco surrounding the Snyderverse over these last four years, not even I would've thought the studio and Jenkins would be willing to turn their backs on the one movie that was hailed as "the only good DC movie". The egos of these people...I can't comprehend.