Wonder Woman is about to come, will it be a hit?

[dvaz]

Um Diana also kills Erich Ludendorff (the irl German Supreme Commander), which is basically the equivalent of killing Eisenhower in WWII.

I dunno, I just found the movie eye-rollingly stupid - a parody of a war movie, with the film makers not even realizing that they're making a parody. Chick in stripperific costume running around WW1 using her thigh-high boots to kick the Allies to victory. The whole movie was autistic.

I loled hard in the movies when she climbed out of the trench full outfit in slow mo.

[Tackhisis]

In ex-USSR countries WW has brought in one half of what King Arthur did. What a brand awareness can do.

[matt4pack]

Um Diana also kills Erich Ludendorff (the irl German Supreme Commander), which is basically the equivalent of killing Eisenhower in WWII.

I dunno, I just found the movie eye-rollingly stupid - a parody of a war movie, with the film makers not even realizing that they're making a parody. Chick in stripperific costume running around WW1 using her thigh-high boots to kick the Allies to victory. The whole movie was autistic.

The only one that sounds autistic is you. It's a freaking movie based on a fictional character. Your whole argument could be made for every movie ever made that isn't a documentary.

[Berndorf]

If we beleve wiki the movie did cost $149 million, hence it need to make about $300 million to break even, and have pulled in $289 million (10 juni)

So it will break even, but it will not be a big economic succe. But DVD/merchandises will bost the ernings....so maybe a bit better then break even will be seen as good...

You also have to add in around $100m for marketing but it will likely end up breaking $700m worldwide and then have all the dvd/rental money after its release so WB will make plenty of profit off of it. Definitely going to get a WW trilogy.

[IIamaKing]

I guess Im alone with my wife then, I thought the movie was the most boring thing DC has put out. 15 min of action, a bunch of cliched and uninspired dialogue and mis cast lead. What am I missing, what was good about it. IT did manage to put me to sleep in the theatre, a feat not accomplished in the last 20 years.

[Hammerfest]

Personally, I thought it was outstanding. I was very impressed with the film. They made the characters likeable. They got the gritty misery of the First World War spot on. They avoided a lot of "low hanging fruit" that they could have easily grabbed. I'm looking forward to more of this.

[Svifnymr]

I guess Im alone with my wife then, I thought the movie was the most boring thing DC has put out. 15 min of action, a bunch of cliched and uninspired dialogue and mis cast lead. What am I missing, what was good about it. IT did manage to put me to sleep in the theatre, a feat not accomplished in the last 20 years.

I'm sure plenty of people didn't like it, that's fine, you're not alone by any means. You seem to have missed some action since I figure it was more than 15 minutes and you fell asleep, but hey, it happens. I didn't like GotG that much, no biggie, life goes on.

[Deleted]

You also have to add in around $100m for marketing but it will likely end up breaking $700m worldwide and then have all the dvd/rental money after its release so WB will make plenty of profit off of it. Definitely going to get a WW trilogy.

Acording to wiki its $587m now... so they should be in the profit zone now.

[IIamaKing]

I'm sure plenty of people didn't like it, that's fine, you're not alone by any means. You seem to have missed some action since I figure it was more than 15 minutes and you fell asleep, but hey, it happens. I didn't like GotG that much, no biggie, life goes on.

There was the beginning fight, the "NO MANS LAND" scene (have to say that was the only really heavy handed scene, which was nice) and the final showdown, aside from what a few small scenes of a quick fight (alley scene, Chris Pine stealing the notebook) did I miss something else major? Felt like the movie had 2 set piece action scenes "NO MANS LAND" and the final fight. For an almost 2 and a half hour long movie it seemed light on action. It wasn't BAD by any means, it at least the best of the DCCU.
And I still can't get over Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I don't mind her, in general, she is just too small and waifish. Her frame is wrong for the role, she is like Black Widow or Wasp or Catwoman frame. Gina Carano I think has a better Wonder Woman frame little short and I doubt she could carry the lead of a movie like this. Gal did as good as she could but I did find her small size to be almost distracting, the same way a shitty accent is, it breaks immersion.

[Deleted]

I did find her small size to be almost distracting, the same way a shitty accent is, it breaks immersion.

How silly are you? she is bigger then linda carter was.... silly people these days.
And ofc it looks like there where only 2 sets for you if you sleep through the film....come back when you seen the whole movie.

Was an awesome WW movie.

[Shadowferal]

I guess some people just wanted to see a big bust.


Take that as you will...*chuckles*

[IIamaKing]

How silly are you? she is bigger then linda carter was.... silly people these days.
And ofc it looks like there where only 2 sets for you if you sleep through the film....come back when you seen the whole movie.

Was an awesome WW movie.

She is an inch taller yes, but her overall frame is smaller, no hips no thighs, I also have no great attachment to Carter's WW either. She was likewise a bit on the small size for my image of an Amazon.

I didn't say two SETS, I said 2 action set PIECES. Aside from No man's Land and the final fight, was there another Large scale, minutes long action sequence. I don't quite count the beach scene at the beginig, it was only like 2 minutes long. Not a proper action scene.

[Hammerfest]

Personally, I don't think the DC Movie Universe needs Superman to resurrect at this point. Wonder Woman is an acceptable surrogate.

[Lucetia]

I guess Im alone with my wife then, I thought the movie was the most boring thing DC has put out. 15 min of action, a bunch of cliched and uninspired dialogue and mis cast lead. What am I missing, what was good about it. IT did manage to put me to sleep in the theatre, a feat not accomplished in the last 20 years.

While I'm not saying it was super freaking amazing it was a decent movie itself. Especially when you look at the others that DC released, Batman V Superman, Man of Steel. Both were done so poorly, imo, that you couldn't get much worse. Even Justice League looks completely terrible, but out of all them Wonder Woman was definitely miles and miles better. So far it's the only DC movie I'm considering picking up on BluRay when it comes out.

[IIamaKing]

While I'm not saying it was super freaking amazing it was a decent movie itself. Especially when you look at the others that DC released, Batman V Superman, Man of Steel. Both were done so poorly, imo, that you couldn't get much worse. Even Justice League looks completely terrible, but out of all them Wonder Woman was definitely miles and miles better. So far it's the only DC movie I'm considering picking up on BluRay when it comes out.

Yeh, I dont think its bad, but I was expect more based off the general buzz.

[Svifnymr]

There was the beginning fight, the "NO MANS LAND" scene (have to say that was the only really heavy handed scene, which was nice) and the final showdown, aside from what a few small scenes of a quick fight (alley scene, Chris Pine stealing the notebook) did I miss something else major?

The nomansland/ town assault was a pretty lengthy scene, since we're both estimating times though (and it ultimately doesn't matter really), hard to say without getting a little TOO pedantic for the discussion.

It doesn't surprise me that some folks didn't like it, it just hit the notes I wanted it to hit.

And I still can't get over Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I don't mind her, in general, she is just too small and waifish. Her frame is wrong for the role, she is like Black Widow or Wasp or Catwoman frame. Gina Carano I think has a better Wonder Woman frame little short and I doubt she could carry the lead of a movie like this. Gal did as good as she could but I did find her small size to be almost distracting, the same way a shitty accent is, it breaks immersion.

She definitely isn't the same size as comic WW, but I had no issues with her being an amazon warrior demigod. The other Amazons were similar size and had a good enough look and feel. Batman has been played by a wide variety of body types, and it really never mattered for the role. Superman always has to be muscular I suppose, but I've not seen anything really varied.

[Tackhisis]

6/10
-2 for the general idiocy, goofiness and military ignorance, and uninspired dialogs. Also black Amazons.
-1 for Gal Gadot. Amazon with such a nose is a joke, and woody acting from all participants.
-1 for bad, claustrophobic FX.

I understand the rather constraining budget of $150M, but still that enough to act better. Scenario could've also been better.

There is just maybe two good moments in the entire 3 hours. MEH.

[Hammerfest]

Wonder Woman has had lots of different looks and builds over the years on the comics. That being the case, I thought Gal Gadot looked outstanding as Wonder Woman.

[Tackhisis]

I thought Gal Gadot looked outstanding as Wonder Woman.

If she was... why they avoided shooting her profile?

[cyberglum]

If she was... why they avoided shooting her profile?

Weird, I actually notice while watching an abundance of profile shots of her. Not sure what you're talking about.

Besides, beauty is subjective. not really sure what you're point is. No one else should have enjoyed it more than you because you don't like her profile?