Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

[slowpoked]

9 hours ago, Zonk said:

 

And you think a good solution would be to "kill them all"?

I don’t think that was @Slovenly Muse’s point at all. Her point was that the problem with vigilante justice is it doesn’t root out the system that produces such criminals. For every criminal killed by a vigilante, there will be a new one, and another one, until the system itself is fixed. Maybe we teach boys at a young age that no means no? Or that women are not their object possessions, so if they’re not interested, then leave them alone? Heck, that same scene of Barbara, how many catcalls did she get before running into that guy? She only took particular issue with that drunk guy because he already got his ass kicked prior for the same reason, but still, he never learns his lesson and does it again. 
 

5 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Personally, I think Shazam had a tighter storyline than this, but that is just me.

Hey, I enjoyed Shazam very much! It reminded me of old superhero movies in the 90s/early 2000s where a superhero movie can be enjoyed as a stand-alone movie without having to obsess how it relates to and/or affects the “universe”.

But the expectations for this WW movie is sky-high, considering the cultural impact (arguably) the first movie had. And the fact that WW is expected to anchor the future DC “universe” now that Superman and Batman is gone. This is just a big letdown from the first WW.

So with that said, I watched it again in case I missed something about the resolution because it confused me as heck the first time watching it. The 2nd viewing didn’t help, but I am even more amazed by Kristen Wiig. I think she’s a fantastic actress, and it’s too bad that that is mostly overshadowed by her SNL antics. I think she was a great addition and casting, and I hope she’s included in future DC movies/universe, whatever those may be. 

[VCRTracking]

I don't know why people are upset about the "Steve taking over a rando's body thing and the ethics. Clearly "Handsome Man"(as he's credited) is someone Diana was going to fall for anyway but needed closure with Steve to do so. That's why he shows up in the ending.

[Proclone]

1 minute ago, VCRTracking said:

I don't know why people are upset about the "Steve taking over a rando's body thing and the ethics. Clearly "Handsome Man"(as he's credited) is someone Diana was going to fall for anyway but needed closure with Steve to do so. That's why he shows up in the ending.

Because they hijacked his life.  He's a human being with thoughts feelings and desires.  His body shouldn't be used without consent.  I hesitated to use the word in my previous post, but they essentially raped him.  Would you be down for your body to be taken over and used without your permission? For some strangers to go through your clothes to sleep and have sex with your body in your bed and for you to have no memory of it?  It's awful and disgusting.  And I'm disappointed in Patty Jenkins for writing it

[Darlin]

I didn't like this movie. Many people have commented on things I agree with.  I will add that for me, I disliked that once again I had to see Diana and Steve part ways.  It was repetitive and unnecessary since a similar scene (yet under different circumstances) occurred in the first movie.

I also had a visceral reaction to Diana saying (in 1984) that the world "is already a beautiful place."  I was only 9 in 1984 but looking back things weren't that beautiful in the US or the world. I wish that line could have been re-worded altogether so that Diana could make her point.

[Slovenly Muse]

46 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

I don’t think that was @Slovenly Muse’s point at all. Her point was that the problem with vigilante justice is it doesn’t root out the system that produces such criminals. For every criminal killed by a vigilante, there will be a new one, and another one, until the system itself is fixed. Maybe we teach boys at a young age that no means no? Or that women are not their object possessions, so if they’re not interested, then leave them alone? Heck, that same scene of Barbara, how many catcalls did she get before running into that guy? She only took particular issue with that drunk guy because he already got his ass kicked prior for the same reason, but still, he never learns his lesson and does it again. 

Thanks, @slowpoked! Yeah, "Kill them all" is a rather unexpected interpretation of my comments, but in the interests of clarity, in case anyone else was misled, here we go:

It is a well-worn trope in movies and TV shows that the hero wants to "teach a lesson" to the rapist/sexual harasser/domestic abuser by beating the shit out of them, so they know "how it feels" to be a victim. It's a very trite, reductive, oversimplified solution to think that you can just beat someone up to "scare them straight" or whatever (or because "they deserve it" and that somehow stands in for actually solving the problem). The truth is, abusers typically feel powerless, emasculated, or self-loathing, and they take those feelings out on their victims. They feel powerful in relation to the women they're abusing, which is why they do it. So beating them up, making them feel even MORE powerless or emasculated, is only going to make them take it out on their victims even harder! It might feel satisfying to watch a rapist get his teeth kicked out, but ultimately it's only making the problem worse and is doing nothing to protect or prevent future victims. At a minimum, movies like this would typically leave the guy for the cops to deal with, so he'd be incarcerated and not an immediate threat to others, but WW didn't even do that.

A film that was actually interested in justice would have used WW's Lasso of Truth to make the guy see the dark cycle of misery that he was perpetuating within himself, and make him understand that he would never be a happy and fulfilled human being as long as he treated other people this way, and would show him a path out of his unhappiness through changing his life and trying to make restitution to his victims. But I get it, no one wants to see that on the big screen, when you've got a hero who can knock bad guys around like bowling pins and a budget for explosions.

Like I said, I don't really expect movies like this to actually dive into the philosophical question of what it means to "do good." But if they were going to make "how do you deal with a rapist" an important question to assess someone's morality, I would have liked a more complex answer than just "apply as much violence as WW, but not as much as Cheetah."

Edited December 27, 2020 by Slovenly Muse
Being a stickler about wording.

[Mikay]

24 minutes ago, Slovenly Muse said:

A film that was actually interested in justice would have used WW's Lasso of Truth to make the guy see the dark cycle of misery that he was perpetuating within himself, and make him understand that he would never be a happy and fulfilled human being as long as he treated other people this way, and would show him a path out of his unhappiness through changing his life and trying to make restitution to his victims. But I get it, no one wants to see that on the big screen, when you've got a hero who can knock bad guys around like bowling pins and a budget for explosions.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. The short-term solution of violence to solve a problem is just that a short-term solution that leaves the larger systematic forces that shape toxic behavior like sexual harassment in place. To begin fixing said problem not just for this individual guy, but on a societal level would require bigger and more nuanced actions. But I want to add on to this something else that I feel is similarly unexplored, which is the psychological impact of living in the world as a woman where sexual harassment and assault are constant threats. Where assault or harassment can be reconfigured to be the result of your choices as a woman(what you were wearing, what you were drinking, where you were walking) and not the abuser's own monstrous conduct.

The drunk harasser stopped by a beating may stew in long-held feelings of powerlessness and emasculation, but what are the long term consequences to the women that he's victimizing? How does that constant helplessness, embarrassment and fear psychologically shape women? That was a thought I had when Barbara after subduing her tormentor continued to deliver deadly blows. There were in-story reasons why she couldn't stop(declining humanity as a consequence for her glammed-up look and confidence), but it did make me think briefly about real-world psychology and radicalization. Barbara had probably been putting up with men like nameless drunk guy forever, and now having powers similar to that of Demi-god Diana, she was finally in a position to do something about it. I took the drunk guy almost as a stand-in for many others, which led to extreme overkill. None of that justifies her attempted murder, but it was something that I thought about while watching. 

 

 

[VCRTracking]

1 hour ago, Proclone said:

Because they hijacked his life.  He's a human being with thoughts feelings and desires.  His body shouldn't be used without consent.  I hesitated to use the word in my previous post, but they essentially raped him.  Would you be down for your body to be taken over and used without your permission? For some strangers to go through your clothes to sleep and have sex with your body in your bed and for you to have no memory of it?  It's awful and disgusting.  And I'm disappointed in Patty Jenkins for writing it

I think Patty Jenkins must really like the Warren Beatty movie HEAVEN CAN WAIT. 

[TheOtherOne]

Flawed, but fun and exactly the bit of joy I was looking for. Yes, I could certainly nitpick many things, but I simply didn't care. I enjoyed it a lot. A key difference in the WW movies to me is that they feel more about the characters than a lot of superhero movies. In most superhero movies, it feels like the characters are cogs in the plot. These movies (overlong as they are) feel like the story is flowing from the characters, rather than the other way around. There are moments that let the characters breathe, and exist, independent of the plot. The fact that the climax was a big speech from Diana, one that reflects who she is as a person, rather than an action scene, was perfect and demonstrative of what I mean.

Probably not explaining that well. So be it. I really enjoyed it.

[Darlin]

Wonder Woman 3 being fast-tracked:  ‘Wonder Woman 3’ Is Happening; Patty Jenkins & Gal Gadot Returning – Deadline

ETA: Apparently I forgot how to post a link.  

Edited December 27, 2020 by Darlin

[Spartan Girl]

9 minutes ago, Darlin said:

Wonder Woman 3 being fast-tracked:  ‘Wonder Woman 3’ Is Happening; Patty Jenkins & Gal Gadot Returning – Deadline

ETA: Apparently I forgot how to post a link.  

Hopefully, this one will have a better story and more actual Wonder Woman. If nothing else, Diana has moved on from Steve so that won’t hold her back anymore.

Hopefully we’ll get to see this one at the theater.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[cambridgeguy]

Well, it's not like WW3 was dependent on WW84 being an unqualified success.  Thor 2 sucked, but there was never any doubt about Thor 3.  With Superman being in flux and Affleck ready to ditch the cowl they need WW to anchor the DC movies until they're sure all the lesser known heroes can be financially successful.  Then Gadot can be like RDJ and limit herself to ensemble movies while still cashing a giant paycheck.

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, Darlin said:

  I will add that for me, I disliked that once again I had to see Diana and Steve part ways.  It was repetitive and unnecessary since a similar scene (yet under different circumstances) occurred in the first movie.

I didn’t agree with the plot choice of bringing him back either, but I think the writers and TPTB seemed intent to give Diana closure re: Steve. The first time they parted, Steve’s last words to her were “I wish we had more time.” I bet that has haunted Diana ever since - what if they actually had more time together?! What could have been?

This time, as tragic as it is that they have to part again, Steve tells her to let him go, that he’s had a great life, and that for the life of him, he cannot understand why Diana couldn’t and wouldn’t move on, considering she had the world in the palm of her hand. Maybe Diana just needed to hear those words, and then their story is finally closed.

So in light of that, I’m interested to see if they will delve into any new romance for her. Or if they will completely do away with that and just focus on the action, and “continuity” of the DC universe.

[Darlin]

1 hour ago, slowpoked said:

I didn’t agree with the plot choice of bringing him back either, but I think the writers and TPTB seemed intent to give Diana closure re: Steve. The first time they parted, Steve’s last words to her were “I wish we had more time.” I bet that has haunted Diana ever since - what if they actually had more time together?! What could have been?

This time, as tragic as it is that they have to part again, Steve tells her to let him go, that he’s had a great life, and that for the life of him, he cannot understand why Diana couldn’t and wouldn’t move on, considering she had the world in the palm of her hand. Maybe Diana just needed to hear those words, and then their story is finally closed.

So in light of that, I’m interested to see if they will delve into any new romance for her. Or if they will completely do away with that and just focus on the action, and “continuity” of the DC universe.

That actually makes a lot more sense!  She's now able to finally let go. I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Winston Wolfe]

11 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I think Patty Jenkins must really like the Warren Beatty movie HEAVEN CAN WAIT. 

Re: Patty Jenkins - Joe DiMaggio once said that he played hard every day because there might always be a kid seeing him for the very first time. To the best of my knowledge I have never seen a Patty Jenkins film, but from this point forward I'll be skeptical about anything I see her name on. Even if I see WW3 at all, watching it won't be a priority after this.

ETA - I didn't know that Jenkins was involved in the first movie, yikes. The two are so different that it felt like she just wondered in off the street.

19 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Personally, I think Shazam had a tighter storyline than this, but that is just me.

13 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Hey, I enjoyed Shazam very much! It reminded me of old superhero movies in the 90s/early 2000s where a superhero movie can be enjoyed as a stand-alone movie without having to obsess how it relates to and/or affects the “universe”.

I'm not much of a DC fan, but watched Shazam! on a lark.  Ended up being pleasantly surprised. It was a light, breezy, fun super-hero movie that brought back memories of reading the old comic books from the 70s. That was basically how WW I felt to me and where WW 1984 fell short.

Re: Barbara beating the crap out of her attempted rapist - moral implications aside, it was just lazy, predictable, uninspired writing. The viewer could see it coming from a mile away, a Hallmark of bad writing. Forcing an apology out of him and making him swear he'd never do it again (or else) would have resonated more with me.  

Edited December 28, 2020 by Winston Wolfe

[Proclone]

2 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I think Patty Jenkins must really like the Warren Beatty movie HEAVEN CAN WAIT. 

Honestly Heaven Can Wait is also creepy.  I remember thinking it was creepy as a kid when I first saw it  But at least, one it was made in the 70s when that kind of plot was more acceptable, and two the bodies Joe winds up in the owners had died.  It wasn't their body anymore and they don't get snapped back into them and forced to live the consequences of whatever happened while they were not in control.  For all we know the poor guy Steve and Diana hijacked, could have lost his job.  Could have had a significant other break up with him, could have had numerous consequences to basically disappearing from his life for however long Steve was there.  Not to mention, like I said could you imagine how traumatizing it would be to "wake up" standing behind a pillar, covered in bruises that you don't remember getting, while everyone is running around and the world in potentially ending.  And the last thing you remember is going to bed.  It's really screwed up when you give it the slightest amount of thought.

[qtpye]

14 minutes ago, Proclone said:

Honestly Heaven Can Wait is also creepy.  I remember thinking it was creepy as a kid when I first saw it  But at least, one it was made in the 70s when that kind of plot was more acceptable, and two the bodies Joe winds up in the owners had died.  It wasn't their body anymore and they don't get snapped back into them and forced to live the consequences of whatever happened while they were not in control.  For all we know the poor guy Steve and Diana hijacked, could have lost his job.  Could have had a significant other break up with him, could have had numerous consequences to basically disappearing from his life for however long Steve was there.  Not to mention, like I said could you imagine how traumatizing it would be to "wake up" standing behind a pillar, covered in bruises that you don't remember getting, while everyone is running around and the world in potentially ending.  And the last thing you remember is going to bed.  It's really screwed up when you give it the slightest amount of thought.

Again, I LOVED the first movie and was horribly disappointed by this one.

The body switching thing with Steve and when Barbara was first attacked in the park actually triggered me a little.

[Sakura12]

They could've had Steve in his own body, then had Diana meet that guy at the end showing us she might be ready to move on. The way they did it is creepy since she already had sex with his body without him knowing about it. That is horrible way to start a relationship.

[slowpoked]

22 hours ago, moonorchid said:

Never once does Diana deserve the vitriol Barbara throws at her, being that she was one of the few people who treated her with kindness. And Diana liked her as she was!

I think Barbara hugely misinterpreted Diana’s concern over stopping Max Lord, by renouncing their wishes and/or killing him altogether. Understanding how physically powerful Diana really is, she probably thought Diana was just being selfish in not wanting her to be as strong as Diana.

 

2 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

  With Superman being in flux and Affleck ready to ditch the cowl they need WW to anchor the DC movies until they're sure all the lesser known heroes can be financially successful.  Then Gadot can be like RDJ and limit herself to ensemble movies while still cashing a giant paycheck.

I always thought WW should have been the one to have anchored Justice League instead of Batman. 

[Guest]

Now that the movies out I really want to know how WB was able to get those early rave reviews. The LA Times review actually said that the movie “...actively interrogates and dismantles rape culture. And casual sexism, too...” What movie were they watching? The double standard is revolting. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Guest

[qtpye]

24 minutes ago, Dani said:

Now that the movies out I really want to know how WB was able to get those early rave reviews. The LA Times review actually said that the movie “...actively interrogates and dismantles rape culture. And casual sexism, too...” What movie were they watching? The double standard is revolting. 

I have to say it was reviews like this that gave me high expectations that were immediately dashed. I loved that Wonder Woman was this awesome warrior and would have a legion of girls look up to her.

When I was young, it felt like until X-Men, female superheroes were just eye candy or lady versions of their male counterparts. The first WW movie was ground breaking and I expected the same quality.

The talent was there...the writing was horrible. 

It is rather stupid that I am so upset about this but I guess I just wanted this movie to succeed for so many reasons.

Edited December 28, 2020 by qtpye

[qtpye]

57 minutes ago, Dani said:

Now that the movies out I really want to know how WB was able to get those early rave reviews. The LA Times review actually said that the movie “...actively interrogates and dismantles rape culture. And casual sexism, too...” What movie were they watching? The double standard is revolting. 

I have not heard all of this review but he has a theory at the beginning to why the early reviews were so positive and then went down suddenly after the movie was released to the public. I think the movie dropped from 89 to 65 percent on rotten tomatoes and lost the certified fresh rating.

Edited December 28, 2020 by qtpye

[Lantern7]

I liked it. And now, I feel there might be something wrong with my brain. Maybe the disappointment isn't there because I've had HBO Max from the start, and therefore don't feel like I sacrificed anything to get it. Or that I was happy to see it at all. What would that mean? My fear: me liking a Black Widow movie that's thirty minutes of Natasha, sixty minutes of that big Red Guardian guy doing the "Hammer dance" in tight white briefs.

I mean, I get the criticisms, but I still had fun watching. Still thinking about it . . . . could it be that the movie was about action scenes AND the space between them? And maybe that blotted out the over-the-top sexism? Or the opening scene in Themyscira that wasn't really needed? Seriously, all that was needed was Diana learning about the consequences of taking shortcuts. I know that the traditional origins of Wonder Woman involved a tournament, but I felt that I was watching Amazon Ninja Warrior. Fitting since one of the stunt people was Jessie Graff, who is the top female name on that show, and Lil' Diana was so cute running with the adults, but was it neccesary?

And yes, Dr. Minerva becoming Cheetah felt tacked-on. "Okay, so Max had a little extra power, she decided to become an apex predator, and she just happened to become a cheetah-lady?!?" I will say that Barbara's wish was parallel to a TNG episode where Giordi asked the Holodeck to make a Holmes mystery that could stump Data, and they wound up with a Moriarty that almost took over the Enterprise because he was programmed with the capability to defeat a highly-advanced android. In one way or another, I'm thinking most of the people in Diana's orbit would wish to be as awesome as her. The hitch is that none of them know how awesome she really is. Does that make sense?

I'll stop now. Maxwell was a bit cringe, and the whole Steve thing was dicey. Also, seeing Barbara for the first time gave me flashback to Jamie Foxx's Max Dillon in Amazing Spider-Man 2. Thankfully, we got to see her evolve into an alpha, instead of getting cheetah blood dumped on her (or something dumber) within the first twenty minutes. Sadly, I still think of what I posted back in 2018:

On 2/28/2018 at 10:20 PM, Lantern7 said:

Wiig? Possibly as Cheetah? "Yeah, I was also born on Paradise Island, I was the best Amazon, the others were so jealous that they turned me into a cheetah. A cheetah is the fastest animal on land, so that makes me the fastest person in the world . . . " It's funnier if you imagine her in Cheetah makeup saying that.

PS: Here's hoping Lynda Carter stays healthy for a follow-up.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Lantern7

[Robert Lynch]

I think the 80s setting killed it! This movie could have taken place anytime and it would have still been bad.

[Chicago Redshirt]

10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I don't know why people are upset about the "Steve taking over a rando's body thing and the ethics. Clearly "Handsome Man"(as he's credited) is someone Diana was going to fall for anyway but needed closure with Steve to do so. That's why he shows up in the ending.

Even putting aside the moral dimension that people have already discussed, the question I have for you is: why do it?

Even if you accept for argument's sake that "Handsome Man" -- he doesn't even get a name in all this -- would be cool with taking a backseat to his own life, having someone else have sex with his body and risk his physical being without a say-so -- why structure the story this way?

As for the pros, I guess, is you have the scene where Diana at first sees "Handsome Man" and doesn't realize it's really Steve and he convinces her it's him. But IMO it wasn't that touching a scene.

Like I guess if there was a point where they weren't sure that they were going to be able to re-sign Chris Pine for the second movie, maybe it was a vestige of uncertainty if they were going to have to have this rando dude be Steve Trevor.  But it seems clear that they got Chris Pine signed on so they don't have to go in that direction.

And if you wanted to try to use it to show "the Dreamstone will screw you with your wish," it might work, but since Diana does not feel at all screwed by it being Steve Trevor in Handsome Man's body, that's a fail too. 

When you have a movie that is already running long, why add running time and possible confusion to the mix?

[Chicago Redshirt]

9 hours ago, Darlin said:

Wonder Woman 3 being fast-tracked:  ‘Wonder Woman 3’ Is Happening; Patty Jenkins & Gal Gadot Returning – Deadline

ETA: Apparently I forgot how to post a link.  

Here's a link to Variety:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/wonder-woman-3-gal-gadot-patty-jenkins-1234875194/

[Cotypubby]

Hmm, you know, I didn’t even give a second thought when watching the film about Steve taking over random guy’s body. It never even occurred to me that that could be creepy, it was just “Everyone else sees *this guy* but Diana sees him as Chris Pine.” But now that people have mentioned it here, yeah I do wonder if he just woke up not knowing what had happened.

[Proclone]

1 hour ago, Cotypubby said:

Hmm, you know, I didn’t even give a second thought when watching the film about Steve taking over random guy’s body. It never even occurred to me that that could be creepy, it was just “Everyone else sees *this guy* but Diana sees him as Chris Pine.” But now that people have mentioned it here, yeah I do wonder if he just woke up not knowing what had happened.

I honestly wonder if it wasn't originally a more significant plot point that linked back to not being able to lie your way to happiness.  Steve was living a life that was not his, so it was a lie. But then while they were editing they realized how creepy it was and while they couldn't quite manage to cut it completely they tried to downplay it and hope people wouldn't think about it too much.  But that actually makes it worse in some ways.  If Diana and Steve admitted it was screwed up that would have been something, but having them just take this guys body for a joyride without ever considering him is much worse imo.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Proclone said:

I honestly wonder if it wasn't originally a more significant plot point that linked back to not being able to lie your way to happiness.  Steve was living a life that was not his, so it was a lie. But then while they were editing they realized how creepy it was and while they couldn't quite manage to cut it completely they tried to downplay it and hope people wouldn't think about it too much.  But that actually makes it worse in some ways.  If Diana and Steve admitted it was screwed up that would have been something, but having them just take this guys body for a joyride without ever considering him is much worse imo.

Maybe but if they wanted to downplay it they really should have cut the scene in “Handsome Man’s” apartment where they comment in his looks and lifestyle. In a movie this long they easily could have cut it entirely or minimized it a lot more. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Guest

[cambridgeguy]

19 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I don't know why people are upset about the "Steve taking over a rando's body thing and the ethics. Clearly "Handsome Man"(as he's credited) is someone Diana was going to fall for anyway but needed closure with Steve to do so. That's why he shows up in the ending.

Flip the genders on this. Let's say a Superman story set in the future has Clark accidentally wishing a deceased Lois's spirit into some random woman's body.  Lois and Clark realize she's in some random woman's body but don't care for most of the movie, but at the end they realize he has to move on and we see her spirit leave and the random woman wakes up with a confused look on her face.  People would be PISSED about this and outright denounce everyone involved as turning Supes into a rapist and Lois being complicit.

Edited December 28, 2020 by cambridgeguy

[krankydoodle]

Interesting, thoughtful article on the topic: Questions of Male Consent, and Lack Thereof, That Unexpectedly Puncture Both Fantasies of ‘Bridgerton’ and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ (includes spoilers for the Netflix series Bridgerton).

I was bothered by the way they brought Steve back when I first watched the movie, but the more I think about it, the more I'm baffled/annoyed by other choices in the movie. Like I get that they were in a difficult position when it came to explaining what Diana was doing in the time between WW and Batman v Superman, but panning over a photo in her apartment showing her helping liberate a concentration camp with Chief and Etta Candy was kind of clumsy. I did like the pic of her and a much older Etta together, though. And at least the movie ended on a good note with the Lynda Carter cameo.

[Spartan Girl]

Honestly, the Steve plot is more like the novel The Lovely Bones, in which the ghost of a murdered girl briefly hijacks the body of her crush’s current girlfriend so they can have sex. Yeah, that actually happens, and it’s basically shrugged off like it isn’t a big deal. The filmmakers were wise to leave that out of the movie version.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the writers just went ahead with this story without thinking it through, forgetting that more viewers are paying attention to this sort of thing now.

But again, at least this movie made it clear that the wish had CONSEQUENCES that Diana and Steve both realized they couldn’t pay. It really does seem OOC that Diana, whose main concern is to help everyone and for no one innocent to get hurt, wouldn’t consider this initially, but love is blind. She does the right thing eventually though.

16 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I didn’t agree with the plot choice of bringing him back either, but I think the writers and TPTB seemed intent to give Diana closure re: Steve. The first time they parted, Steve’s last words to her were “I wish we had more time.” I bet that has haunted Diana ever since - what if they actually had more time together?! What could have been?

This time, as tragic as it is that they have to part again, Steve tells her to let him go, that he’s had a great life, and that for the life of him, he cannot understand why Diana couldn’t and wouldn’t move on, considering she had the world in the palm of her hand. Maybe Diana just needed to hear those words, and then their story is finally closed.

So in light of that, I’m interested to see if they will delve into any new romance for her. Or if they will completely do away with that and just focus on the action, and “continuity” of the DC universe.

This is exactly why despite the problematic nature of the storyline, I’ll still take it over Avengers Endgame and why I don’t consider Diana initially longing for Steve to be a big deal. Diana needed the closure. It could have been easily done with him being brought back in his body, but whatever. Captain America, on the other hand, had PLENTY of closure; Peggy lived a long happy life and told him he ought to live his own life and find happiness. Which makes what he did really regressive and stupid and selfish...but I digress. 

[Shannon L.]

I didn't think anything of how they brought Steve back until I read it here and, you're right--it was really creepy and uncalled for.  This is a fantasy land with Gods and miracles and evil spells--they could have brought him back any way they wanted, but instead, they went the easy, and really bothersome route. 

[Sakura12]

If they needed to go with that storyline (still not sure why they needed to) they should've had Steve say he woke up in the hospital and go with the guy just died. That way they wouldn't be taking over a person's life, he didn't need his body anymore. 

Because they never even talked about giving that guy his life back. It was about Diana letting go of Steve. 

Another thing I thought of, was in the first movie they made fun of the trope that putting glasses on a woman suddenly makes her unattractive. Then in this one they had Barbara in frumpy clothes and glasses going with she's unattractive. When she's clearly not. You went backwards Jenkins that's not good either. 

[JessePinkman]

The whole movie was regressive. From the non-consent of the body that Steve took over to Diana and Barbara's wishes boiling down to "I want my boyfriend back" and "Make me hot like my friend" (Barbara didn't become more confident, she just dressed better and then she went crazy).

[Luckylyn]

I really enjoyed the movie despite some flaws.  I appreciate that Wonder Woman isn’t gloomy for the sake of it like other hero movies.  She’s striving to inspire the best in people.  This is the vibe I wished the current Superman had.           Batman can be cynical and gothic but Wonder Woman and Superman should be more positive.   Wonder Woman shows that good and hopeful does not have to make a character boring.  I need a hero who doesn’t just wallow in misery.  I say this as someone who loves Batman.  There’s room for darker heroes and lighter ones.

The only thing I didn’t like was Steve in another man’s body.  It was totally unnecessary and it was wrong for Steve and Diana to have sex with him in someone else’s body.  Also wouldn’t this guy have an employer, friends, and family who would wonder what was happening to him as Steve took this man’s body all over the place?   I kept waiting for the body takeover to have a point but it never did.  They could have easily just brought Steve back as himself.  
 

One thing I learned from a lot is fantasy shows and movies is that too many script writers don’t understand that having sex with a body that someone has taken over is rape.  I stopped watching Stargate Universe because the writers refused to get stuff like that.

[VCRTracking]

So maybe this is a Quantum Leap scenario, where it IS Steve's body but everyone else including himself sees the other guy. Diana is like "Al" and sees the person who took over. Like on Quantum Leap Sam Beckett doesnt jump into another person's body, he switches places with someone and they're off in a waiting room in the future and returns when Sam "leaps" out.

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by VCRTracking

[Sakura12]

They didn't explain anything, so I can't just go with what another show did. All we saw was Steve take over the body of another person and not care about him at all. 

[VCRTracking]

Or they could have said the guy was born with Steve's soul and just now regained his memory of his past life!

[GHScorpiosRule]

58 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

So maybe this is a Quantum Leap scenario, where it IS Steve's body but everyone else including himself sees the other guy. Diana is like "Al" and sees the person who took over. Like on Quantum Leap Sam Beckett doesnt jump into another person's body, he switches places with someone and they're off in a waiting room in the future and returns when Sam "leaps" out.

 

That’s reaching. There was no quantum time leaping machine as part of this plot.

Steve came back as a result of magic. And so he should have just returned in his own body.

The movie had “Handsome Guy” spouting words that Steve had said before and it was only by touching that his face changed to Steve in Diana’s eyes.

If you’re using the Quantum Leap reason, Diana shouldn’t have been able to touch Steve, let alone having sex with the body he was in.

The writers clearly just weren’t thinking when they wrote how Steve came back.

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by GHScorpiosRule

[Luckylyn]

The body theft added a totally unnecessary problematic plot.  They made something that should have been simple (wish brought Steve back in his own body) complicated (Steve possesses random stranger) for no apparent reason.

[Spartan Girl]

3 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

The body theft added a totally unnecessary problematic plot.  They made something that should have been simple (wish brought Steve back in his own body) complicated (Steve possesses random stranger) for no apparent reason.

Seriously, because then I could enjoy the beautiful, fluffy, and ultimately heartbreaking scenes  of Steve and Diana in peace. I mean, Gal and Chris really sold the reunion and goodbye.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

But again, at least this movie made it clear that the wish had CONSEQUENCES that Diana and Steve both realized they couldn’t pay. It really does seem OOC that Diana, whose main concern is to help everyone and for no one innocent to get hurt, wouldn’t consider this initially, but love is blind. She does the right thing eventually though.

But the consequences had nothing to do with the body stealing. She did the right thing because the loss of her powers was too big of a consequence. Neither Steve or Diana gave a shit about the body Steve was using beyond commenting on his messiness or trying on his clothes. He was completely expendable to them. 

2 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

So maybe this is a Quantum Leap scenario, where it IS Steve's body but everyone else including himself sees the other guy. Diana is like "Al" and sees the person who took over. Like on Quantum Leap Sam Beckett doesnt jump into another person's body, he switches places with someone and they're off in a waiting room in the future and returns when Sam "leaps" out.

They make it clear Diana does see the other guy. The went with some crap about her love for Steve transcending the physical so she really “sees” Steve. Just to be clear some Quantum Leap scenario wouldn’t make it okay. 

5 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

The whole movie was regressive. From the non-consent of the body that Steve took over to Diana and Barbara's wishes boiling down to "I want my boyfriend back" and "Make me hot like my friend" (Barbara didn't become more confident, she just dressed better and then she went crazy).

Exactly. It’s such a waste because they so easily could have fixed it with very little changes. Having Steve just reappear would have made almost no change to the plot. There was no reason why Barbara’s wish had to change her physical appearance. Diana’s wish should have been more of a wistful, what if type of thing that she chooses to let go in the end rather than being pushed into it. Those last two changes could have added some nuance that the movie was sorely lacking.

I really hope at some point it comes out how this happened because at the moment it is tainting my opinion of Patty Jenkins. It feels like they had to make Wonder Woman appear less “woke” to appease parts of the fandom. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Guest

[Sakura12]

5 minutes ago, Dani said:

But the consequences had nothing to do with the body stealing. She did the right thing because the loss of her powers was too big of a consequence. Neither Steve or Diana gave a shit about the body Steve was using beyond commenting on his messiness or trying on his clothes. He was completely expendable to them. 

Also considering that guy woke up hiding behind a pillar in the middle of the world ending with no idea what was happening. He was probably all bruised and cut up from being in a high speed convoy chase. 

It was at least a few days since they went to Egypt and back. Did his job wonder where he was, did his family check up on him. Both Diana and Steve didn't think about that guy at all. I know they probably don't want us to think about since the writers didn't. 

[Bruinsfan]

On 12/26/2020 at 7:11 AM, krankydoodle said:

I laughed when they abruptly ended their conversation with him saying, "Well, see you around." It really was weird. I'd love to know the reasoning for bringing Steve back in someone else's body.

Initially I thought part of the dreamstone's schtick was that it had to take whatever it was using to grant wishes from somewhere else—Diana wishes for Steve back, so his life is traded for some random Joe's; Barbara wishes for strength and confidence like Diana's, so Diana's is being drained away to give it to her. But then the wishes Max granted were making huge border walls and nuclear arsenals appear out of nowhere. It wasn't well thought out or internally consistent, which fits Geoff Johns being the co-writer instead of Allan Heinberg.

When the body hijacking victim pretty much ignored Diana's attention and offhandedly wandered away at the end, I thought "hopefully he'll soon find a boyfriend who can give him better fashion advice."

[Peace 47]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Seriously, because then I could enjoy the beautiful, fluffy, and ultimately heartbreaking scenes  of Steve and Diana in peace. I mean, Gal and Chris really sold the reunion and goodbye.

I agree.  Their chemistry is so, so lovely, although I have to say that even setting aside the body swap issue, I personally was even a little on the fence of having to say goodbye to Steve yet again.  I completely understand what posters are saying upthread about how this goodbye is different than the first movie because it afforded her the time to actually say it, as opposed to last time when she was concussed and confused.  And this gives us all a chance to put Steve behind us for future movies.

But it’s such a bummer, and they basically just had a few more hours/ couple of days together in this movie, right?  So sad.  I know most comic movies end on a tragic sacrifice of some sort these days (like Tony dying and not getting to see his kid grow up in the Marvel movies), but life is so depressing as-is, you sometimes just want an unqualified happy ending in a movie like this.  I mean, a Diana/ Steve love story is always going to end somewhat tragically because she will almost certainly outlive him.  But give them a couple or a few decades to have some kind of life.  He could still have been well dead by the time of Batman v. Superman, if maintaining continuity is important to them (I don’t personally care).  

I will freely admit that I’m a silly romantic, though:  one reason I love Superman is that he can have and do anything, and what he wants is Lois Lane, an extraordinary person, but just a person at the end of the day.  When I saw that beat repeated in the first Wonder Woman movie, it activated in me whatever it is that I like about that theme.  So the scene in this movie was so sad when Diana said that she just wanted this little slice of happiness for herself; that she gladly gives everything else to the world (which would probably make more sense if she was “out” as a superhero, but I digress).  And as I said upthread, I cried real, ugly tears when she said her final goodbye to Steve.

[slowpoked]

8 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

The whole movie was regressive. From the non-consent of the body that Steve took over to Diana and Barbara's wishes boiling down to "I want my boyfriend back" and "Make me hot like my friend" (Barbara didn't become more confident, she just dressed better and then she went crazy).

Well, to be fair though, Barbara wished to be as "strong and sexy" as Diana, and I think it's not too far-fetched to conclude that includes having Diana's confidence as well. Diana looks the way she does because she is confident. Fashion as a symbolism of confidence has been a tried-and-true trope in Hollywood - all those makeover Pygmalion/Taming of the Shrew movie types have all been predicated on the lead character's improving on her fashion sense (My Fair Lady, She's All That, The Devil Wears Prada, Ten Things I Hate About You, etc.). 

Besides, I don't know of anything else visual enough that would be able to convey that significant uptick in confidence in movies other than dressing more "confidently".

Also, when Barbara wished to be more like Diana, she didn't exactly know the full extent of what she was wishing for. She only saw her physical beauty, she's not aware of her Amazonian physical strength, immortality, etc., among her other powers.

[Starfish35]

I was thinking about signing up for HBOMax just to watch this, but now I’m glad I didn’t, based on what I’m reading.  I absolutely loved the first movie, and I’m so disappointed that this one turned out this way.  And I’m discouraged that so many of the reviews seem to have no problem at all with the issue of Steve and Diana hijacking this unknown man’s body.  It’s just disturbing, and as others have pointed out, seems to have been completely unnecessary for the plot.  😕  It’s also really damaged my faith in Patty Jenkins.  I’ll definitely be approaching WW3 with caution.  

[Guest]

5 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Well, to be fair though, Barbara wished to be as "strong and sexy" as Diana, and I think it's not too far-fetched to conclude that includes having Diana's confidence as well. Diana looks the way she does because she is confident. Fashion as a symbolism of confidence has been a tried-and-true trope in Hollywood - all those makeover Pygmalion/Taming of the Shrew movie types have all been predicated on the lead character's improving on her fashion sense (My Fair Lady, She's All That, The Devil Wears Prada, Ten Things I Hate About You, etc.). 

Besides, I don't know of anything else visual enough that would be able to convey that significant uptick in confidence in movies other than dressing more "confidently".

Being a tried and true trope doesn’t stop it from being sexist. They could have written an intelligent take on the trope. One of the better moments was when Barbara first woke up and took of the frumpy skirt and walked out it leggings and and oversized shirt. That showed her increased confidence perfectly. From there the botched it by giving Barbara zero character development.

You have a good point. My first instinct is to point at the transformation as the problem but the bigger problem may be from before the transformation. Barbara was treated like shit for not being strong and sexy when she was really an attractive woman even if she’s not an Amazon. The writing could have shown subtle ways women who are deemed less attractive are judged but instead they made everyone reject Barbara in less than a week for absolutely no reason other than her looks and slight awkwardness. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Guest

[legaleagle53]

On 9/27/2020 at 8:55 PM, MarkHB said:

I've been kicking this idea around for something they COULD have done in this film.  When Diana got back to London at the end of the first film, who did she know? Steve was dead, the Oddfellows were likely scattered... the only person we know she knew, and we see this in the Trafalgar Square scene at the end of the film, is Etta. So my idea is this: she stayed friends with Etta, who eventually married, and Etta's family knew her "secret".  By the time we get to 1984, Etta of course has passed away, but her granddaughter or great-granddaughter (also played by Lucy Davis but without the fat suit) is still Diana's extended family if you will... and she has a tween daughter named Julia.  Get to the third film, Julia has grown up, has a daughter of her own named Vanessa... and we tell the Silver Swan story.  Gets us a nice arc and also drives home the idea of Diana being immortal while her friends age around her.

The problem with that is you have to get around the fact that Julia and Vanessa are both full-blooded Greeks (Julia is from Cephalonia and was born to native Greek parents and her native language is Greek, which is why she was able to pick up Diana's native Themiscyran so easily, and Vanessa's father David Kapatelis was also a full-blooded native Greek).

Edited December 29, 2020 by legaleagle53

[Grammaeryn]

This movie is so bad, Hans Zimmer started using other movie’s music about 2/3 of the way through! I recognized John Murphy’s Adagio from Sunshine immediately.

Fun fact, Handsome Man played Baze on “Life Unexpected”. I was all excited for him making the big screen but no character name and walking meat puppet - YIKES!