[FILM] Wonder Woman 84

[minteK917]

Not to derail, but what exactly was wrong with the Green Lantern film? Or was the superhero story itself just not plausible for a decent film? I'm not trying to defend it or agree, just curious.

Been a while, but i remember the CGI being rather ugly and also the bad guy being that yellow infected ugly guy with tumor on his face, it was mostly boring. It was like a movie that was a commercial for the real film coming next. Sinestro is in the film, but is not the bad guy... okay guys. Hey he put the yellow ring on in the credits! Make a fucking good film first. It was made at the beginning of that ERA where everything had to be a franchise. So it pretty much only existed to be a teaser for the second one.

[Nellise]

The shared credit for writing means she was brought in to fix it as best she could, given what seems to amount to shit to start with. Directors who don't usually write scripts but then get credit typically mean they were trying to fix something after shooting began, and it was going badly.

And she's not normally a writer/director, having only done it once (with Monster) and specifically not having done it for the first WW.

That's not how writing credits work for movies. I specifically noted she was listed first. The person listed first is the one who is considered to have written the most. There are rules dictated by the screenwriting guild for credits.

[cubby]

That's not how writing credits work for movies. I specifically noted she was listed first. The person listed first is the one who is considered to have written the most. There are rules dictated by the screenwriting guild for credits.

That sounds pretty specific. Can you link anything to confirm that particular rule?

Because something went wrong, and Jenkins is a known quantity for both directing and writing. WW84 got fucked six ways to Sunday, and a lot of that was in the script/plot.

- - - Updated - - -

Jenkins also had different Photography Directors and Film Editors from Wonder Woman, which could dramatically affect the finished product.

[topitopi]

I've heard it's awful, but I enjoyed the first one so I'll probably give it a chance.

It's really, really bad

[Mihalik]

Not her fault, either.

She is co-credited as a writer. So I don't know about that. Also directors get a lot of leeway with how they interpret the script.

I'm still think the movie was heavily recut for some reason.

[Maruka]

I give it a 6.7 out of ten, not great not terrible but nothing like the first one.

[cubby]

She is co-credited as a writer. So I don't know about that. Also directors get a lot of leeway with how they interpret the script.

I'm still think the movie was heavily recut for some reason.

I agree - something weird happened this time around. Her talent level doesn't equate to the final product. Different writers, different editors, etc. I'm not saying she's not to blame - but at the same time she is a known quantity while a lot of other things changed this time around.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really, really bad

No, Gigli is really, really bad. This just didn't measure up to the quality of the first one. Let's keep some perspective here.

[Ringthane]

thats cool granny,so how many women have you seen getting gang sexualy harased on mass by legions of horny dudebros everytime they dared exist their home?

Quite a few, actually, kiddo. I also say gay people disowned by their parents for telling them they were gay, and saw black people discriminated against just for being black, and people being harrassed and attacked just because they did or didn't believe in the same religious figure as other people did.

I was a teenager in the 80's, and I saw a lot of things you do not and will never know anything about.

- - - Updated - - -

So did I.

People still cat-call now.

I don't understand your point. Its a badly written scene like the majority of the film.

The point was people were saying "women never got harrassed like that in the 1980s." And I'm saying yes it did, and I saw it. What is so hard to understand about that? The way the film or scene is written matters about as much as the color clothes the writer had on when they wrote it. The point is that women have been harrassed like that since I've been alive, and I was alive in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 2000's, and 2010's.

[Grimbold21]

Akways amuses to find people that know so little about the social climate of the timeframe they complain about.
Sexism as you refer to it, was and still is a thing. Guys look at women...that this is news to you seems to indicate that you need to get out more.

Not trying to be dishonest here, but your sexism bit is followed by a remark on men looking at women.

Are you implying that looking at attractive people is sexist?

[qwerty123456]

That sounds pretty specific. Can you link anything to confirm that particular rule?

Because something went wrong, and Jenkins is a known quantity for both directing and writing. WW84 got fucked six ways to Sunday, and a lot of that was in the script/plot.

- - - Updated - - -

Jenkins also had different Photography Directors and Film Editors from Wonder Woman, which could dramatically affect the finished product.

Monster is a true story/based on a true story while Wonder Woman is not. " In June 2017, during an interview with Variety, comic book writer Geoff Johns revealed that he and Jenkins had started writing the treatment for a Wonder Woman sequel and that he had a "cool idea for the second one"." She's been in on it since the beginning.

[Nellise]

That sounds pretty specific. Can you link anything to confirm that particular rule?

This is the writer's guild manual: https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/cr...s_manual10.pdf

On page 25: "Generally, the most substantial contributor is entitled to first position credit."

There are circumstances where that may not be true, but it wouldn't be for a film someone is proud of.

[Shadowferal]

Not to derail, but what exactly was wrong with the Green Lantern film? Or was the superhero story itself just not plausible for a decent film? I'm not trying to defend it or agree, just curious.

I didn't think it was a bad movie myself.

Not trying to be dishonest here, but your sexism bit is followed by a remark on men looking at women.
Are you implying that looking at attractive people is sexist?

No.
That's what I took from whom I was responding to.

[Winter Blossom]

The body snatching thing is kinda... questionable. Only because Diana is a superhero and you’d think she would be against that sorta thing. Add in the fact that she only renounced her wish to ‘save the world’, not because she thought the guy should have rights to his body. She seemed perfectly happy to go along with living a life with Steve, not ever considering that the guy who’s body he took had no choice in the matter.

We’re just all supposed to be okay with him being taken over by someone else and no longer existing because... what? He’s a single bachelor? He has no family?

Nah. That is kinda fucked up.

[Shadowferal]

Jenkins needs to learn what Nolan knew..or let happen; the big bad in a sequel needs to steal the show.
in the comics, Diana killed Maxwell Lord, and I expected that to happen in the movie. Disappointed.

[deenman]

Quite a few, actually, kiddo. I also say gay people disowned by their parents for telling them they were gay, and saw black people discriminated against just for being black, and people being harrassed and attacked just because they did or didn't believe in the same religious figure as other people did.

I was a teenager in the 80's, and I saw a lot of things you do not and will never know anything about.

- - - Updated - - -



The point was people were saying "women never got harrassed like that in the 1980s." And I'm saying yes it did, and I saw it. What is so hard to understand about that? The way the film or scene is written matters about as much as the color clothes the writer had on when they wrote it. The point is that women have been harrassed like that since I've been alive, and I was alive in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 2000's, and 2010's.

what the heck does any of that random drivel have to do with what i said?yeah,gay people,black people etc faced and still face that,so you saying i will never know it is pure bullshit,im 30 btw so dont worry i have seen plenty of discrimination also against women....but thats not what i said

also,sorry for not taking you seriously when you say you have seen HORDES OF LEGIONS OF MEN harasing women on mass

[Pvt Hudson]

[cubby]

Monster is a true story/based on a true story while Wonder Woman is not. " In June 2017, during an interview with Variety, comic book writer Geoff Johns revealed that he and Jenkins had started writing the treatment for a Wonder Woman sequel and that he had a "cool idea for the second one"." She's been in on it since the beginning.

Good find, thanks for clarifying that. I guess it was hers from the beginning. Too bad, that script was pretty awful.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the writer's guild manual: https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/cr...s_manual10.pdf

On page 25: "Generally, the most substantial contributor is entitled to first position credit."

There are circumstances where that may not be true, but it wouldn't be for a film someone is proud of.

Thanks for finding and posting that. I guess she was in on it from the start, AND contributed the most. Damn. I was hoping you'd be wrong, but for good reasons, not that so I would be right - if that makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't think it was a bad movie myself.

Same. Thought Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong did a good job.

[Yayeet]

I expected so much from the trailer, then in reality it just fell short in every angle, they had so much extra time and it still felt like some part were way too long and then the last parts were way too rushed.

- - - Updated - - -

She is co-credited as a writer. So I don't know about that. Also directors get a lot of leeway with how they interpret the script.

I'm still think the movie was heavily recut for some reason.

It was definitely recut, and it's obvious that some tiny moments from the trailer, weren't even in the movie. Really odd.

[Fencers]

The body snatching thing is kinda... questionable. Only because Diana is a superhero and you’d think she would be against that sorta thing. Add in the fact that she only renounced her wish to ‘save the world’, not because she thought the guy should have rights to his body. She seemed perfectly happy to go along with living a life with Steve, not ever considering that the guy who’s body he took had no choice in the matter.

We’re just all supposed to be okay with him being taken over by someone else and no longer existing because... what? He’s a single bachelor? He has no family?

Nah. That is kinda fucked up.

Plus she sleeps with him; the actual guy having no say-so in the matter.

I can't even believe WB let that pass, especially considering that it was the actual guy. Shots of Trevor as Pine are the audience's perspective on how Diana sees the actual guy. But if you popped in the window, she's fucking a stranger without his knowing.

Surely, even Gal Gadot can't get away with non-consensual sex.

Hated that whole concept.

[Swnem]

Pretty sure they show her digging out the armor (at least the helmet).

Yes, there is a scene where she rips something out from it and then walks away. It is very confusing. But, i guess that means she grabbed it. She still ran off from the city and flew off and then went back to pick it up. It's pretty silly.