[FILM] Wonder Woman 84

[Xath]

WW 1 was universally liked (especially when put against Cpt Marvel), so was Shazam. Aquaman was above average, Joker was universally acclaimed. Batman is looking decent. So no, I don't think DC is coming back to it's "true form". Although WW 2 is just bad. Eh and there was HQ movie, so maybeeee...

Batman looks interesting largely because of the Se7en angle depending on how that is executed it could flop or be amazing. Part of the issue of emphasizing the 80s angle is people were expecting something fun like guardians and this just isn't that. Also have some serious issues with the whole steve plotline and how it was executed comic book ww would not be okay with it.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

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.

I thought her raping someone was just a meme but I looked it up and it actually fucking happens. A superhero rapes someone in their own movie. Wtf

[Spaceboytg]

but ofc the people who wrote this movie are the same people who think a dude asking you for coffe in an elevator is equivalent to sexual assault (no joke look it up)

She said "Guys don't do this, it's creepy". That was the end of it. Nothing about sexual assault or anything, just a bit of advice to make life smoother for women AND men. Until people like you blew it all out of proportion and got your asses hurt that a woman would dare to not want you to hit on her at YOUR convenience rather than hers.

The fact that people like you are still being dishonest about "Elevatorgate" this many years later speaks to how tenuous your argument has always been.

[cyberglum]

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.

No, people arn't saying that. People, or at least I'm saying, its a terribly written scene, much like the rest of the movie. People cat-call in every decade, its not some thing that ONLY happened in the 80's and therefore, at least in my eyes, isn't a trope of the 80's. Fine, have 1 guy harass her to make a point, but every guy she passes in that scene is lecherous towards her, it happens 3 or 4 times in a row. Its ham-fisted story telling and incredibly sexist.

But I guess some people are fine with that.

[Thelxi]

There were a couple of moments where I was genuinely confused about the story. Like when they were in the guy's apartment who apparently was an expert on the artifact, or something. Like how, why, when? whatever.

It was pretty decent overall imo. I've seen recent superhero movies with worse writing, like Dark Phoenix. The one thing I think they could've done better is the CGI. It claims to have been working with a 200m budget, but I'm not convinced. What's the point of these commercial titans if not the awesome CGI.

[deenman]

She said "Guys don't do this, it's creepy". That was the end of it. Nothing about sexual assault or anything, just a bit of advice to make life smoother for women AND men. Until people like you blew it all out of proportion and got your asses hurt that a woman would dare to not want you to hit on her at YOUR convenience rather than hers.

The fact that people like you are still being dishonest about "Elevatorgate" this many years later speaks to how tenuous your argument has always been.

the bias is amazing here,meanwile guys literaly get sexualy harased by women in bars every day and its suposed to be seen as socialy acceptable,but a dude casualy and politely asking for COFEE,not even an in your face ''hiting on'',is seen as EVIL HARASER,get over yourself

[Shadowferal]

the bias is amazing here,meanwile guys literaly get sexualy harased by women in bars every day and its suposed to be seen as socialy acceptable,but a dude casualy and politely asking for COFEE,not even an in your face ''hiting on'',is seen as EVIL HARASER,get over yourself

I think we've already established that you know very little about the social reality in the US...not just as it is today, but as it was 4 decades earlier.

But it goes both ways. I can't imagine a country you live in.

[deenman]

I think we've already established that you know very little about the social reality in the US...not just as it is today, but as it was 4 decades earlier.

But it goes both ways. I can't imagine a country you live in.

I literaly need to know nothing to know that there arent gangs of dudes runing around on mass sexualy harasing women on the street everytime they dare leave their homes

and either way,usa is better overall in that department as where i live wile women are respected,its in a very old fashioned gender norm way,so its not rly that good

[Svifnymr]

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.

It ties back to my "why did they?" thing. There is no in-plot reason for the body snatching, but there is also no call backs to it aside from that one time in the apartment when he looks at the mirror. It could have been random people bumping into them and asking Jim where's he's been or his job calling to see where he is. Then they could have tied it to her realizing "hey, this guy is somebody". But they don't do any of that, so why is it a thing? If they didn't get Chris Pines and needed to sub in another face, they could have woven it into the plot like that, but they got Chris Pines, and they used him throughout, so what sense does it make?


Plus, she meets the guy at the end and compliments his suit, and he doesn't remark "I don't remember the last week of my life!" or anything. Plus of course, this is the guy that was beating up secret service, right?

One of the big issues with the movies is that it doesn't actually address the canceling of the wishes in any way. So you wanted extra nukes, then they launched nukes so now you launched nukes, but you undo your wish so now your extra nukes disappear. What about your original nukes and all their nukes? Diana renounces her wish, but her wish still happened for that time period, so that means there was a giant wall around an Egyptian city for a while, then it went away? Everyone remembers the wishes and remembers they had a farm or porsche or whatever and remembers renouncing the wishes? I had figured maybe Max renouncing his wish would invalidate all of the wishes he granted, so reversing history, but nope! Everyone still will remember Max Lord broadcasting on a secret american base and forget alllll about it by Justice League, so all Batman can find is a photo from WW1, not someone remembering the 80's...

Basically, the real theme of the movie seems to be that there are no consequences for anything, ever?

- - - Updated - - -

It was pretty decent overall imo. I've seen recent superhero movies with worse writing, like Dark Phoenix. The one thing I think they could've done better is the CGI. It claims to have been working with a 200m budget, but I'm not convinced. What's the point of these commercial titans if not the awesome CGI.

One thing I liked was that it was nice and bright through most of the movie, but that did just bring attention to when it wasn't bright and you had a blurry cheetah, but it was nice to have a superhero movie set in the day. I liked Dark Phoenix just fine, but that's a movie that definitely got butchered in post, and probably didn't have a very solid footing to start with.

For myself, I don't recall when the original release date was, but the movie should have been mostly done by COVID, and if anything it should have had extra polish time. It's just odd for such a big movie for DC, with a good budget and extra time, to just be so half baked.

[Xlightning]

7/10

Some cringe and forced moments but entertaining enough.

[Gelannerai]

I’m very disappointed. One of the major issues I have with recent DC movies (see also anything Snyder touches) is that they seemingly don’t have a problem with character assassination (I haven’t seen Aquaman or Shazam so I can’t comment on those). Batman and Superman are both major victims of this in cinematic abortions like BvS and Justice League, but Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman was a shining exception to this. Her take on Diana was great IMO, far better than Larson’s Carol Danvers (even though Capt. Marvel is generally the superior movie, I still enjoyed the first WW). Then they have Diana and Steve knowingly and willfully do shit like this. Fucking gross.

Even aside from that the movie is pretty bad. The MacGuffin-based plot is not even internally consistent, the visual effects are atrocious (something else that Warner is unfortunately infamous for) and the supporting cast is mediocre at best. I have high hopes for The Batman, but I will admit that a talent like Jenkins being connected with something like this definitely makes me worried.

[Shadowferal]

I suppose I was more disappointed with Jenkins than anything else.

[Fencers]

I suppose I was more disappointed with Jenkins than anything else.

Rightly so. This film is badly directed.

- - - Updated - - -

*drunk critic video*

Wow, that is really something. I can't take much issue with him... lol.

[Amarys]

7/10

Some cringe and forced moments but entertaining enough.

I'd even give it 8/10. It was just entertaining to watch even though I agree with some criticism, like using that guys body to do.. things. But then again I never got bored and that's what really counts.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I have to chime in and agree with the entire body-snatch plot, I was literally looking around to see if others were as sceptic about it as myself, but it's difficult to gauge. My brothers and dad hadn't reacted to it as anything odd though, not until I brought it up after the viewing was over...

Bah, humbug. It's at times like those that I wish we could decide to pay after the movie. Would only work if people were inherently honest, but still...

Maybe in 4 years time they'll release a "DiReCtOrS CuT LoL!". Not that something like that would save this movie.

[Masser]

@Gelannerai
Anything that Snyder touches turns to Gold.

[~Valen~]

5/10 - very bad compared to the first, VERY cheesy, not good enough CGI, moderately entertaining nonetheless. Meh.

[SavoirFaire]

I suppose I was more disappointed with Jenkins than anything else.

I’d read Star Wars fans were trying to get her pulled from Rogue Squadron. A few hours ago I would have told you that was absurd. Now? I can’t say I blame them. This film was a mess. I’m now putting her in the same category as Snyder: keep them away from things I like.

[PACOX]

I’d read Star Wars fans were trying to get her pulled from Rogue Squadron. A few hours ago I would have told you that was absurd. Now? I can’t say I blame them. This film was a mess. I’m now putting her in the same category as Snyder: keep them away from things I like.

SW fans are insane. The small percentage of rabid ones at least. She has what? Same director made the critically acclaimed WW1 and Monster. WW84 is ass but people need to relax as if Filoni and Fav don't also have duds.

[Egomaniac]

I thought her raping someone was just a meme but I looked it up and it actually fucking happens. A superhero rapes someone in their own movie. Wtf

It's more complicated (and much worse) than just that. The sex isn't the actual "rape". I mean, technically, the current occupant of the body was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse. The "rape" happens when Steve takes control of another man's body. And the real problem is Diana never seems to think twice that an innocent person was erased from existence to bring her boyfriend back from the dead.

It's a completely unforced error too. There was no plot reason why Steve had to possess another man's body. The Dreamstone could simply have re-created Steve in his original body...or, if they really wanted it, given him a brand new body created just for him. Had they done it that way...it would have changed absolutely nothing about how the movie plays out. Diana would still have had to renounce her wish and Steve would have to die again. The only difference would be is that our "Heroes" wouldn't be guilty of murdering an innocent man just so they could be together. If Diana had managed to secure the Dreamstone before Lord got a hold of it... there's no indication at all that she would have ever renounced her wish. There isn't even a moment where she actually acknowledges that an innocent man has been erased from existence just so she can have her man back.

I mean, the very least they could have done was to portray the dude like a complete fucking piece of shit that the world was better off without...and even then it would still be murder. But, for as much as we get to see about the dude in question, he seems like a decent enough human being.