Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

[Spartan Girl]

Not to belabor the point, but the thing is, I can understand why Diana held that torch for Steve for so long, and why the sudden opportunity to get another chance with him would blind her to everything else.

Yes, 70 years is a long time to hold a torch for somebody you knew for a month. But let’s not forget everything that happened in the first movie. She watched him get blown up. That in itself was very traumatic. And adding to the guilt of not saving him was the fact that before that happened, she blamed him for the village getting gassed because he stopped her from killing the general/Fake Ares. And after she did kill him, she was so jaded by the fact that the war didn’t magically end that she refused to help Steve out further. Their actual goodbye was so rushed she didn’t realize what he was going to do until it was too late; none of that got resolved. That along with “I wish we had more time” must have stayed with her. Add to the fact that she winds up outliving Etta and all her other friends and believing that she couldn’t go back to Themyscira, and it’s no wonder she had become a loner. A better script would have made this all clearer.

So when her wish comes true, even though the body issue was gross and she should have been more mindful of that, it makes sense she wouldn’t want to give up her one chance to have someone she loved back.

And while it is regressive to her character, this isn’t the only superhero movie where the lead spends most of their time pining for their lost love and willing to be selfish to regain them. I’m not talking about the Endgame shit. I’m talking about Nolan’s Batman and Rachel Dawes. Superman giving up his powers just to have sex with Lois Lane. Peter Parker and the Kirsten Dunst Imposter Mary Jane. None of those are that great storylines either (albeit not as problematic). They eventually sucked it up too, and for the record, aside from Lois Lane, none of those love interests were as great as Steve.

Again, a better script handling this issue would have made a difference. But let’s not give Diana grief for pining after a guy and finding it difficult to move on when there are tons of male superheroes pining after women.

[JessePinkman]

Dan Murrell did a deep dive into hows and whys the movie's review score dropped like a rock. Thought it was pretty interesting.

 

[VCRTracking]

Me when the trailer first appeared: Why was Diana in BVS and WW so obsessed on getting that one old photo of Steve from 1918? Didnt they take pictures of him when he returns in 1984?

Me now: Oh.

[moonorchid]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Not to belabor the point, but the thing is, I can understand why Diana held that torch for Steve for so long, and why the sudden opportunity to get another chance with him would blind her to everything else.

Yes, 70 years is a long time to hold a torch for somebody you knew for a month. But let’s not forget everything that happened in the first movie. She watched him get blown up. That in itself was very traumatic. And adding to the guilt of not saving him was the fact that before that happened, she blamed him for the village getting gassed because he stopped her from killing the general/Fake Ares. And after she did kill him, she was so jaded by the fact that the war didn’t magically end that she refused to help Steve out further. Their actual goodbye was so rushed she didn’t realize what he was going to do until it was too late; none of that got resolved. That along with “I wish we had more time” must have stayed with her. Add to the fact that she winds up outliving Etta and all her other friends and believing that she couldn’t go back to Themyscira, and it’s no wonder she had become a loner. A better script would have made this all clearer.

So when her wish comes true, even though the body issue was gross and she should have been more mindful of that, it makes sense she wouldn’t want to give up her one chance to have someone she loved back.

And while it is regressive to her character, this isn’t the only superhero movie where the lead spends most of their time pining for their lost love and willing to be selfish to regain them. I’m not talking about the Endgame shit. I’m talking about Nolan’s Batman and Rachel Dawes. Superman giving up his powers just to have sex with Lois Lane. Peter Parker and the Kirsten Dunst Imposter Mary Jane. None of those are that great storylines either (albeit not as problematic). They eventually sucked it up too, and for the record, aside from Lois Lane, none of those love interests were as great as Steve.

Again, a better script handling this issue would have made a difference. But let’s not give Diana grief for pining after a guy and finding it difficult to move on when there are tons of male superheroes pining after women.

I think this is why the body snatching plot, which is bad, didn’t bother me when I watched it. 

Male superheroes get this plot ALL THE TIME. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Not to belabor the point, but the thing is, I can understand why Diana held that torch for Steve for so long, and why the sudden opportunity to get another chance with him would blind her to everything else.

Yes, 70 years is a long time to hold a torch for somebody you knew for a month. But let’s not forget everything that happened in the first movie. She watched him get blown up. That in itself was very traumatic. And adding to the guilt of not saving him was the fact that before that happened, she blamed him for the village getting gassed because he stopped her from killing the general/Fake Ares. And after she did kill him, she was so jaded by the fact that the war didn’t magically end that she refused to help Steve out further. Their actual goodbye was so rushed she didn’t realize what he was going to do until it was too late; none of that got resolved. That along with “I wish we had more time” must have stayed with her. Add to the fact that she winds up outliving Etta and all her other friends and believing that she couldn’t go back to Themyscira, and it’s no wonder she had become a loner. A better script would have made this all clearer.

So when her wish comes true, even though the body issue was gross and she should have been more mindful of that, it makes sense she wouldn’t want to give up her one chance to have someone she loved back.

And while it is regressive to her character, this isn’t the only superhero movie where the lead spends most of their time pining for their lost love and willing to be selfish to regain them. I’m not talking about the Endgame shit. I’m talking about Nolan’s Batman and Rachel Dawes. Superman giving up his powers just to have sex with Lois Lane. Peter Parker and the Kirsten Dunst Imposter Mary Jane. None of those are that great storylines either (albeit not as problematic). They eventually sucked it up too, and for the record, aside from Lois Lane, none of those love interests were as great as Steve.

Again, a better script handling this issue would have made a difference. But let’s not give Diana grief for pining after a guy and finding it difficult to move on when there are tons of male superheroes pining after women.

I understand your point but I can’t agree that Diana being blinded to her wish involving a person losing their body is reasonable. It makes a bad movie and it hurts Diana as a character. I don’t care if it’s done before and no one said a peep. There are actual articles and posts all over the internet asking is Diana is a rapist now. To me it doesn’t matter how great a love interest Steve is or how tragic their story is it crosses a line that is not ever acceptable.

What if Lord’s wish put his long lost love in Diana or Barbara’s body? Somehow I doubt there would be any rationalization. What if Steve had come back in the body of someone we knew like Bruce or Barry? What if we were watching Kris Polaha rather than Chris Pine in those scenes? Because that’s what actually happened in the movie. It easy to dismiss Handsome Man because the movie did not make him into a person and that’s part of the problem. The movie did a lot of shitty things to make this palatable to audiences and it’s exactly the type of crap done to real life victims. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Guest

[ICantDoThatDave]

1 hour ago, moonorchid said:

I think this is why the body snatching plot, which is bad, didn’t bother me when I watched it. 

Male superheroes get this plot ALL THE TIME. 

Can you name a couple of examples? I can't think of a single one.

[Mikay]

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

But let’s not give Diana grief for pining after a guy and finding it difficult to move on when there are tons of male superheroes pining after women.

To me the 70 years, not to mention what I believe is like her five thousand year lifespan made it a deeply unconvincing subplot. It’s true that male heroes are often obsessed with their first love. But those characters aren’t immortal, and their pining makes more sense because it’s happening over like a few years rather than multiple decades. Like Steve R. missing Peggy and maybe never fully moving on didn’t bother me. He woke up shell-shocked in the present, it wasn’t as if several decades passed with him holding a torch for this one person. Peter Parker? He was a teen/in his early twenties, longing for the affection of a friend. Once again, it wasn’t as if long decades had passed. Also, importantly for both, and really any male heroes, they are allowed to have other bonds. They have friends/allies/mentors, they have villains, and they have conflicts that are not solely based around their love interest. I believe that’s because their stories are ultimately about them, while I’m not sure that this film was really about Wonder Woman.

I didn’t hate WW84. It entertained me. Chris and Gal have a lovely warm chemistry, even if I think bringing him back in the direct sequel to the film where he gave a moving sacrifice sort of retroactively cheapens that moment. Pedro and Kristen Wiig had good moments as villains, though not enough screen time or focus to clarify their motives and ramp up enmity with Diana. The few fight scenes were thrilling, particularly the obstacle course at the beginning. But to me what was missing was Wonder Woman.

Even liking Steve as much as I do, I couldn’t help but feel that Wonder Woman, the character who in the comics(and in the first movie) is intimately connected to Greek mythology, has her own stable of allies and villains that are linked to her, had been diminished to this character whose whole story revolves around her love of one man. It’s to such an extreme that he’s still the only long-standing connection she has with anyone in the film, given the death of friends from WWI like Etta Candy years earlier and the souring of her burgeoning bond with Barbara. Where is her supporting cast? The 70 year pining maybe wouldn’t have bothered me if it didn’t feel like it was the only thing there was for her. 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Mikay said:

To me the 70 years, not to mention what I believe is like her five thousand year lifespan made it a deeply unconvincing subplot. It’s true that male heroes are often obsessed with their first love. But those characters aren’t immortal, and their pining makes more sense because it’s happening over like a few years rather than multiple decades. Like Steve R. missing Peggy and maybe never fully moving on didn’t bother me. He woke up shell-shocked in the present, it wasn’t as if several decades passed with him holding a torch for this one person. Peter Parker? He was a teen/in his early twenties, longing for the affection of a friend. Once again, it wasn’t as if long decades had passed. Also, importantly for both, and really any male heroes, they are allowed to have other bonds. They have friends/allies/mentors, they have villains, and they have conflicts that are not solely based around their love interest. I believe that’s because their stories are ultimately about them, while I’m not sure that this film was really about Wonder Woman.

I didn’t hate WW84. It entertained me. Chris and Gal have a lovely warm chemistry, even if I think bringing him back in the direct sequel to the film where he gave a moving sacrifice sort of retroactively cheapens that moment. Pedro and Kristen Wiig had good moments as villains, though not enough screen time or focus to clarify their motives and ramp up enmity with Diana. The few fight scenes were thrilling, particularly the obstacle course at the beginning. But to me what was missing was Wonder Woman.

Even liking Steve as much as I do, I couldn’t help but feel that Wonder Woman, the character who in the comics(and in the first movie) is intimately connected to Greek mythology, has her own stable of allies and villains that are linked to her, had been diminished to this character whose whole story revolves around her love of one man. It’s to such an extreme that he’s still the only long-standing connection she has with anyone in the film, given the death of friends from WWI like Etta Candy years earlier and the souring of her burgeoning bond with Barbara. Where is her supporting cast? The 70 year pining maybe wouldn’t have bothered me if it didn’t feel like it was the only thing there was for her. 

 

I feel the same way about the movie as you. Now I’m thinking that a sequel set in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s would have been amazing if they were so attached bringing back Steve. That way it would’ve have been so long and Etta could have been in the movie.

Or if this movie would have let Etta’s memory and loss be a bigger part of Diana’s story. A Diana who was slightly removed from people after having lost an entire generation of friends would have improved the movie dramatically. That is a really good plot for an immortal and Steve could have been a touchstone for Diana rather than her only real plot. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Guest

[slowpoked]

7 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

And while it is regressive to her character, this isn’t the only superhero movie where the lead spends most of their time pining for their lost love and willing to be selfish to regain them. I’m not talking about the Endgame shit. I’m talking about Nolan’s Batman and Rachel Dawes. Superman giving up his powers just to have sex with Lois Lane. Peter Parker and the Kirsten Dunst Imposter Mary Jane. None of those are that great storylines either (albeit not as problematic). They eventually sucked it up too, and for the record, aside from Lois Lane, none of those love interests were as great as Steve.

It's funny you mentioned Peter Parker - because that parting scene of Diana and Steve in WW84 reminded me of the last scenes of Spiderman 2 (still the best and my most favorite superhero movie ever, living proof that a superhero movie doesn't have to live in a universe to be epic), where when MJ finally learns who Spiderman is, Peter poignantly explains that that is the reason why they can't be together and why he has stayed away from her, because his enemies will come after her. 

Obviously it's not the same situation as Diana/Steve saying goodbye, again, for good, but it reminded me of how superheroes do have this specific ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. Diana wanted this little piece of happiness for herself, but she has to give it up for the greater good. Same for Peter, although in his situation, he also has to protect MJ in that sense. I really felt for Diana when she told Steve she's ready to give her life to the world (and she already does), but just want to have this tiny bit of slice of happiness for herself.

Edited December 29, 2020 by slowpoked

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, moonorchid said:

I think this is why the body snatching plot, which is bad, didn’t bother me when I watched it. 

Male superheroes get this plot ALL THE TIME. 

 

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Can you name a couple of examples? I can't think of a single one.

I believe they were referring to the “hero pining for a lost love” plot and not the actual body swapping.

[shantown]

2 hours ago, Mikay said:

To me the 70 years, not to mention what I believe is like her five thousand year lifespan made it a deeply unconvincing subplot. It’s true that male heroes are often obsessed with their first love. But those characters aren’t immortal, and their pining makes more sense because it’s happening over like a few years rather than multiple decades.

Wouldn't 70 years in a 5000 year lifetime be the equivalent of several years to a normal person? Or less even, if you consider say, 5 years of pining in a 90 year lifespan (1.4% of her life for Diana vs 5.5% for a human superhero). Just to get math-y with it!

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, shantown said:

Wouldn't 70 years in a 5000 year lifetime be the equivalent of several years to a normal person? Or less even, if you consider say, 5 years of pining in a 90 year lifespan (1.4% of her life for Diana vs 5.5% for a human superhero). Just to get math-y with it!

Sure but if you put in relation to how long she knew him it is still ridiculous. It is the equivalent of just over a year for a human. Taking it one step further Diana spent .00167% of her life with Steve in the first movie (assuming one month but it’s probably much less than that). That is the equivalent to half a day for normal human. 
 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Guest

[Slovenly Muse]

I've been surprised, looking over reviews of the movie, that almost none (even the negative ones) mention the racist stereotyping of Egyptians/Muslims that bothered me throughout the film. Finally, Slate tackled the topic, and it turns out those portrayals are not only lazy and Islamophobic, but also REALLY inaccurate! Worth a read, for sure.

[Sakura12]

I watched the first Wonder Woman again and wow, this movie felt like it wasn't even a sequel to that movie. In WW we saw amazing warrior Diana with a sword and shield, making friends, learning about herself and humanity and falling in love. 

Where was warrior Diana in this movie? She seemed weaker before she started losing her powers. The best warrior action we really saw was from little Diana. 

I mean who thought it would be a good idea for the 3rd act to be a speech, delivered by Gadot who is not a strong actor and can't even lose her accent. That was a boring way to end a comic book movie. If they wanted to make Wonder Woman a talker they should've hired a better actress to play her. Someone who can put real feeling behind the words so we can feel it too.

I know Jenkins said she didn't want the fight in the 3rd act of the first movie, so that probably could've been better had they had a director that cared about making it look good. Having seen this movie, it makes the 3rd act better much better. At least something interesting was happening during it and we got to see Wonder Woman. 

[Spartan Girl]

As much as I adore Gal’s fashion sense, we’d better see more kickass Wonder Woman in full attire in the next movie.

So am I the only one that likes the third act of the first movie?

Edited December 30, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[ICantDoThatDave]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

Sure but if you put in relation to how long she knew him it is still ridiculous. It is the equivalent of just over a year for a human. Taking it one step further Diana spent .00167% of her life with Steve in the first movie (assuming one month but it’s probably much less than that). That is the equivalent to half a day for normal human. 
 

That's always been my problem with the Steve romance.  And sort of similarly the Thor-Natalie Portman romance.  They knew each other a few days/weeks at the most.  You can say that 60 years to an immortal is nothing, but then what is a few days or weeks?  Less than nothing.  To be consistent, it's barely even a one night stand.  It's a brief hookup in a club.  The idea that this blip on their immortal radar is *soooo* deep & meaningful is hard to buy into.  For me, at least.

[txhorns79]

11 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

They knew each other a few days/weeks at the most.  You can say that 60 years to an immortal is nothing, but then what is a few days or weeks?  Less than nothing.  To be consistent, it's barely even a one night stand.  It's a brief hookup in a club.  The idea that this blip on their immortal radar is *soooo* deep & meaningful is hard to buy into.  For me, at least.

I think for Diana, it was her first experience with a man, under very dramatic circumstances.  All her emotions were heightened, and instead of experiencing a normal relationship that could potentially change and/or fizzle out over time, he died.  She has nothing to compare that with, and few other people to lean on to help her move on.  And in a way, it is easier for her to treat Steve as her one true love, because it allows her to stay under the radar (as much as a gorgeous, brilliant Glamazon can) and not make herself vulnerable to anyone else. 

Quote

Superman giving up his powers just to have sex with Lois Lane.

Heck, Superman changes the timeline to make it so Lois doesn't die!  

[Racj82]

This movie is flat out bad. Just not good at all. And it all felt like a step down from the first movie. I didn't even love the first movie. I thought it was pretty good with some really high points and chemistry with the leads. But this shit? No. Above all else, how do you do a 2 and a half hour movie and make things feel so rushed? It's mind boggling.

My only issue with the Diana/Steve dilemma is why bring him back in someone else's body? Why? 

I get bringing Steve back just from a marketing decision because he turned out to be so important to that movie and brought the best out of Gal. But, not this way.

This movie felt so dodgy. I get trying to make it feel like the superhero movies of old but the action shouldn't look as cheesy too.

[ApathyMonger]

This video reminded me how much I loved the action in the first movie:

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by ApathyMonger

[Athena]

Reminder that politics is off-topic and not allowed on the forums. It is only allowed in the context of the movie and TV show and even then should be used discussed sparingly. Posts have been hidden. Thank you. 

[aghst]

Just finished watching.  Was a slog.

I think the whole point of her pining for one man for decades is so that when she renounces her wish, it's suppose to be a big sacrifice.

Ridiculous premise.  Diana is too smart to be letting all that time go.  Of course she's immortal so she's not losing her looks or anything.

But she's suppose to have the wisdom of the ages yet she has a little shrine to Steve in her apt. like some awkward teen?

There are some embarrassing lines of dialog spoken, including Diana's words to make the world renounce their wishes.

The armor suit, also embarrassing.  If that allowed her to fly, it would be one thing, but she can fly just because of Steve's advice.

Um, that might work when you're flying an airplane but Diana isn't aerodynamic!  Then again, in the first movie, she went through all those fights and explosions and there wasn't a hair out of place.

But in the first movie we learned Diana is an immortal goddess herself so why not just add flying to her powers?  After all, wishes and renouncing of wishes made nuclear missiles appear and disappear.  So the gods can do anything..

Anyways, this is the DC universe so you'd think Superman and Batman might have done something when the world was in chaos with everyone fighting each other and US and the USSR (they said Russia for some reason) on the brink of all-out nuclear war?

Other things seemed off too.  There is high crime rate in Washington DC but that is in certain poor neighborhoods.  I don't think there were drunks around those big marble govt. buildings waiting to pounce on women walking by were there?  Barbara would be going from the Smithsonian so that would be the Mall?

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, aghst said:

Anyways, this is the DC universe so you'd think Superman and Batman might have done something when the world was in chaos with everyone fighting each other and US and the USSR (they said Russia for some reason) on the brink of all-out nuclear war?

They would both be too young to do anything in 1984. 

57 minutes ago, aghst said:

Other things seemed off too.  There is high crime rate in Washington DC but that is in certain poor neighborhoods.  I don't think there were drunks around those big marble govt. buildings waiting to pounce on women walking by were there?  Barbara would be going from the Smithsonian so that would be the Mall?

I think these movies have some latitude in areas like these because DC uses a mix of real and fictional cities. 

[Sakura12]

Clark and Bruce would be children in 1984. So they wouldn't be Superman or Batman yet.

I didn't get the point of the armor either, it didn't seem to do anything. Cheetah was ripping through it easily. It looks she wore it just to wear it. This movie wasn't thought out that well.

I really hope they are not letting Jenkins write the 3rd one. Shes not a writer. 

 

[Shannon L.]

30 minutes ago, Sakura12 said:

I didn't get the point of the armor either, it didn't seem to do anything. Cheetah was ripping through it easily. It looks she wore it just to wear it.

I think it was symbolic for her.  The warrior who wore it previously had done what.....saved the world, I think?  Diana had said goodbye to Steve and this was a way to show that she was serious about winning.  It would have been cool, though, if it had given her some sort of boost.  I liked the moment she popped off the wings-something about it was reminiscent of the first movie. Too bad that feeling wasn't there throughout the movie.

[Racj82]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:37 AM, aghst said:

Just finished watching.  Was a slog.

I think the whole point of her pining for one man for decades is so that when she renounces her wish, it's suppose to be a big sacrifice.

Ridiculous premise.  Diana is too smart to be letting all that time go.  Of course she's immortal so she's not losing her looks or anything.

But she's suppose to have the wisdom of the ages yet she has a little shrine to Steve in her apt. like some awkward teen?

There are some embarrassing lines of dialog spoken, including Diana's words to make the world renounce their wishes.

The armor suit, also embarrassing.  If that allowed her to fly, it would be one thing, but she can fly just because of Steve's advice.

Um, that might work when you're flying an airplane but Diana isn't aerodynamic!  Then again, in the first movie, she went through all those fights and explosions and there wasn't a hair out of place.

But in the first movie we learned Diana is an immortal goddess herself so why not just add flying to her powers?  After all, wishes and renouncing of wishes made nuclear missiles appear and disappear.  So the gods can do anything..

Anyways, this is the DC universe so you'd think Superman and Batman might have done something when the world was in chaos with everyone fighting each other and US and the USSR (they said Russia for some reason) on the brink of all-out nuclear war?

Other things seemed off too.  There is high crime rate in Washington DC but that is in certain poor neighborhoods.  I don't think there were drunks around those big marble govt. buildings waiting to pounce on women walking by were there?  Barbara would be going from the Smithsonian so that would be the Mall?

Besides the obvious of why Bruce and Clark weren't there, this really can't keep being a thing every time a hero has a solo movie. This is her story. Wonder Woman and the characters surrounding her are the people that will solve this. The league or the avengers will not swoop in every time something crazy is going on in the world. This falls under the many complaints people have that if they actually did what you are pointing out, the movie would be shorter than a hour long drama and there would be no character arcs. I'm never ever concerned with what other heroes are doing during solo movies.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Racj82

[aghst]

2 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

Clark and Bruce would be children in 1984. So they wouldn't be Superman or Batman yet.

I didn't get the point of the armor either, it didn't seem to do anything. Cheetah was ripping through it easily. It looks she wore it just to wear it. This movie wasn't thought out that well.

I really hope they are not letting Jenkins write the 3rd one. Shes not a writer. 

 

Huh?  Weren’t Superman and Batman comics around for decades before 1984?
 

The Batman series with Adam West was in the 60s and the old black and white Superman series even older.

 

Whatcha talkin about Willis?

[Bruinsfan]

I have no problem with the daughter of Zeus figuring out how to fly once she puts her mind to it (certainly it was in both her father's and brother's portfolios of divine power, and in the comics she's had that gift since 1986). But I'd like to have seen at least a cursory attempt to explain why she's forgotten how by the time Batman v. Superman rolled around. Something like that might have come in handy when engaging Doomsday or Steppenwolf in pitched battles.

[Sakura12]

21 minutes ago, aghst said:

Huh?  Weren’t Superman and Batman comics around for decades before 1984?
 

The Batman series with Adam West was in the 60s and the old black and white Superman series even older.

 

Whatcha talkin about Willis?

You were wondering why Batman and Superman didn't help Wonder Woman. In this movie universe Batman and Superman are kids in 1984. They won't meet Wonder Woman until 2016 in Batman v Superman. 

[Spartan Girl]

I’d argue that we DID see Diana taking off in the air in the final scene of the first movie, and in Batman vs Superman she might have flown in when she landed in front of Batfleck to save his sorry ass. But if you’re wondering why she wasn’t flying in Justice League, may I remind you guys that the movie was directed by Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon. Whedon was obviously more interested in using Diana for the male gaze.

The flying scene in this movie really was beautiful. Almost reminded me of Christopher Reeve’s Superman flying. Heck, you can argue this movie’s cheesier tone was inspired from that franchise, especially the mall fight.

[PepSinger]

On 12/29/2020 at 8:57 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So am I the only one that likes the third act of the first movie?

No, you're not the only one. I've never understood the hate the third act of the first movie receives. Effects could use some work, but it's more climatic than WW84.

[MarkHB]

My personal bottom line is, I enjoyed the film. I do, however, think that someone owes the CW Supergirl show royalties for having Diana save the world with an impassioned speech; that's Kara's annual springtime schtick.

On 12/29/2020 at 9:57 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So am I the only one that likes the third act of the first movie?

I liked it.  I don't generally have a problem with "hero has huge fight with giant monster" endings, whether the monster is human-ish or CGI.

[Luckylyn]

WW 1984 and Issues with Consent and Bodily Autonomy 

 

[Shannon L.]

On 12/29/2020 at 6:57 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So am I the only one that likes the third act of the first movie?

I didn't think it held up to the rest of the movie, but I didn't mind it.  I didn't get the hate for it--it wasn't that bad. 

[Sakura12]

For me the 3rd act looked shoddily put together. And learning that Patty Jenkins didn't want to do it kind of shows she rushed through it. Of course they let her do what she wanted for this movie and it turned out far worse. 

If she wanted to make Wonder Woman a talker, she should've hired a better actress. A good actor can monologue and really have every word resonate, make you feel what they are feeling. Gadot is not that good of an actor. 

[Racj82]

5 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I didn't think it held up to the rest of the movie, but I didn't mind it.  I didn't get the hate for it--it wasn't that bad. 

I didn't hate it. I think a lot of people at a certain point started having issues with the staples of comic book movies. One staple being there must be a battle at the end. Also, whatever nuance was created earlier in the movie was pushed to the side for a lazy smash up ending. 

It's like iron man 1 for me. I loved Tony's arc. It was a story about a hero trying to right his wrongs and find his place as a hero. In the third act Stain becomes a mustache twirling villain with his own suit, etc etc. What was creative and freeing in the movie was gone and what we got was a battle I don't think anyone remembers vividly at all. 

It's not bad but it's lackluster.

WW84 tried to have a fight in the end mixed with a talky talky words solve the problem ending and both were lackluster and unconvincing.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Racj82

[Winston Wolfe]

On 12/31/2020 at 9:19 PM, MarkHB said:

My personal bottom line is, I enjoyed the film. I do, however, think that someone owes the CW Supergirl show royalties for having Diana save the world with an impassioned speech; that's Kara's annual springtime schtick.

While I am among the many who didn't enjoy WW 1984, that same thought crossed my mind too. And the trope almost seems kind of sexist. With all their powers, it still seems important to highlight Diana and Kara as females that inspire hope. DC doesn't seem to go that way with Superman.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Winston Wolfe said:

While I am among the many who didn't enjoy WW 1984, that same thought crossed my mind too. And the trope almost seems kind of sexist. With all their powers, it still seems important to highlight Diana and Kara as females that inspire hope. DC doesn't seem to go that way with Superman.

You mean your not expecting The Batman to end with a world saving speech?🤣

In defense of the CW shows Barry Allen is no stranger to the hope inspiring speech and I expect Superman to make a few in his new show.

17 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I didn't think it held up to the rest of the movie, but I didn't mind it.  I didn't get the hate for it--it wasn't that bad. 

I think that when the quality drops in the third act it gets judged more harshly because it’s a let down. Watching a great movie fizzle in the end is more disappointing than watching a good movie all the way through. Logically, I know WW’s ending isn’t that bad but I still can’t get excited about rewatching the movie. 

[Racj82]

15 hours ago, Winston Wolfe said:

While I am among the many who didn't enjoy WW 1984, that same thought crossed my mind too. And the trope almost seems kind of sexist. With all their powers, it still seems important to highlight Diana and Kara as females that inspire hope. DC doesn't seem to go that way with Superman.

I don't think it has anything to do with being sexist. I do think it's a reaction to 1. Patty having a battle end part 1 when she didn't want that. 2. A critique on the formulaic nature of superhero movie endings. Most superhero movies tend to have men at the lead so...here we are. I can almost guarantee you Patty would have had at least one her movies end this way if she was in charge of Superman or someone other male hero.

[Kel Varnsen]

Watched it today with my kids and mostly liked it although there were some weird parts. I liked the idea of how Barbara became a villain completely by accident. And there were some amazing action scenes, especially the chance scene in Egypt.

But the ending was strange. Like after Max renounced his wish did the stone just appear on his desk? And did he and Barbara go to jail? For that matter why did the electricity knock out Barbara in the water if her wish gave her Diana's powers? 

And even if I ignore Diana holding on to Steve's memory for so long the fact that she seemed to have no friends was super sad. Especially the super confident centre of attention in any room she is in Diana that Barbara wanted to be? How does that woman have no friends? And was the mall one of the first times she used her powers, since she seemed like a mystery woman that no one had ever seen. Then again I still don't understand why she can't go home. Like what would happen if she showed up?

Also one little thing that bugged, when Diana showed Steve the 80"s and all the amazing things one of the things that impressed him was the Subway. But he was in London during the War and by that point the London Tube had been a thing for decades.

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Especially the super confident centre of attention in any room she is in Diana that Barbara wanted to be? How does that woman have no friends?

Because she doesn’t want friends. She initially rejected Barbara’s attempt at friendship and only changed her mind because the artifacts were related to the mall robbery. She was alone  completely by her own choice. 

28 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

And was the mall one of the first times she used her powers, since she seemed like a mystery woman that no one had ever seen.

They said that there was a half dozen sightings of her in the previous year. I wish they had explored the 66 years between the two movies more. It seems unlikely that Diana wasn’t using her powers that whole time. Maybe she moves around a lot to keep a lower profile. 

32 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Then again I still don't understand why she can't go home. Like what would happen if she showed up?

I think this is up for interpretation. In the first movie Diana was told that if she left she may never return. It could mean she literally is not allowed to come back or that she might choose to never return. The movies and interviews seem to go with her choosing to stay rather than being prohibited from returning. 

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

Because she doesn’t want friends. She initially rejected Barbara’s attempt at friendship and only changed her mind because the artifacts were related to the mall robbery. She was alone  completely by her own choice. 

I get that it was by choice, which is why it makes it sad that the movie suggested that the only friends she had in the last almost 70 years were the people she met the first week after she left home. And I also thought it weird that Diana would take on the kind of outward personality that she did if she didn't want to be alone. Why not act more like Barbara where you are more likely to be ignored. Or would that be too much like how, at least in the original movies, Clark Kent was a total nerd with zero social skills.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Also one little thing that bugged, when Diana showed Steve the 80"s and all the amazing things one of the things that impressed him was the Subway. But he was in London during the War and by that point the London Tube had been a thing for decades.

That seemed weird to me as well. Subways go back to the 1890's. 

[Kel Varnsen]

13 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

That seemed weird to me as well. Subways go back to the 1890's. 

The 1860's for London actually. So by the time Steve was there during WWI it would have been well established.

[Racj82]

56 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I get that it was by choice, which is why it makes it sad that the movie suggested that the only friends she had in the last almost 70 years were the people she met the first week after she left home. And I also thought it weird that Diana would take on the kind of outward personality that she did if she didn't want to be alone. Why not act more like Barbara where you are more likely to be ignored. Or would that be too much like how, at least in the original movies, Clark Kent was a total nerd with zero social skills.

Gal simply does not having the acting ability to pull off a Clark Kent/Superman duality. That's why she does a terrible job at hiding.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

And I also thought it weird that Diana would take on the kind of outward personality that she did if she didn't want to be alone. Why not act more like Barbara where you are more likely to be ignored. Or would that be too much like how, at least in the original movies, Clark Kent was a total nerd with zero social skills.

That would be too much and more than a little offensive. That’s a trope that needs to die and it’s bad enough they used it with Barbara. She didn’t take on a outward personality. She was being herself and she’s not responsible for how others perceive her. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

 

Based on the person Jenkins agreed with the body swap was supposed to be a criticism of the trope. That Diana was seduced by the lie and that the consent issues don’t matter because it may have been undone when Diana renounced her wish. In a way it makes sense because there is no reason for it to be in the movie at all. However, if that is what she was going for she is a really bad writer since none of that was in the movie. I was really looking forward to her next movies but not any more. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Guest

[Chyromaniac]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

They said that there was a half dozen sightings of her in the previous year. I wish they had explored the 66 years between the two movies more. It seems unlikely that Diana wasn’t using her powers that whole time. Maybe she moves around a lot to keep a lower profile. 

I didn't catch all the photos in her apartment, but I do recall at least a shot of a liberated concentration camp.  I think the implication is that she's been active - perhaps the year of sightings is meant to just indicate how long she's been in DC.  I do think it is reasonable to assume that she's had to "reinvent" herself a number of times - you can only be an ageless demigoddess in one place for so long.  Isn't she working out of the Louvre by the current timeline?  I bet "Diana Prince" gets terrific references whenever she needs to switch jobs...

Quote

So question for y’all - what are your theories on Cheetah’s future? I thought that when WW apologized to her when they were fighting in the water, Diana knew she had no other choice but to kill her. But she surprisingly survived the electrocution...

So did that mean that part of Diana’s immortality got transferred to Barbara?

Then when there was a montage of people renouncing their wish, it was pointed enough that Cheetah just kept quiet while staring at the sun. So did that mean she didn’t renounce her wish?

Third, Barbara got two wishes - first, to be like Diana. Then to be like Cheetah. I think it’s quite interesting that when everyone went back to their original state, pre-wish, that Barbara didn’t go back to looking like a nerd, but instead went back to her human self, but wearing fur print clothes that she wore when she had her initial transformation...

So does that mean that while she’s technically no longer Cheetah, she still got to keep Diana’s powers (as her initial wish was)? 

I don't think Barbara got two wishes - her (only) wish from the rock was just to be "more like Diana."  Then on the chopper, she says she wants to be an Apex Predator - but that wasn't a "wish."  However when Max is taking all the wishes from the world, he directs some of the "payment" her way, which is what transforms her into the Cheetah.  I do think they left it intentionally vague as to whether she renounced the initial powerup.  They could have had her say one way or the other - leaving her silent indicates they want to keep their options open,

Quote

I wasn't totally clear on what Maxwell Lord was up to. Sure, he wanted to be successful enough to impress his son and got carried away on his power trip, but what did he want by the end? What did he stand to gain, exactly, from making the world wish itself into nuclear Armageddon? More power? Over the smouldering cinder of planet Earth? Why? What was his endgame? And... was the moral of the movie that we should accept the world the way it is and not wish for anything better?

I don't think it's much more complicated than he wanted to be successful.  He just found himself in a position where he had taken a bunch of big (probably foolish) risks, that didn't pay off.  And rather than admit to his situation, he tried to wish (aka cheat) his way out of trouble - but each fix came with greater and greater blowback.  Surely the next wish would be the one that solved everything, right?  Nope - he still needed more power, to the point where he was basically triggering nuclear armageddon.  What Diana finally helped him realize was that there was no way to out game luck, and that he had to give it all back.

As for the moral, I don't think the film is saying we should just accept the world - however simply wishing for changes isn't going to make anything better on it's own either.  Absolutely you can try to make yourself or the world better - just do it on your own merits, and be okay with whatever the outcome may be.  Also, you shouldn't take shortcuts, whether that's in a race, business ventures, popularity, or even love.  There will always be a price to pay.

Overall, I enjoyed this film a lot.  Gadot and Pine were great together again, and I appreciated the role reversal from the first film.  And, for personal reasons, I get why they wanted this to be a story about Diana getting a second chance with Steve, but then coming to terms with letting him go.  And, the whole Invisible Jet sequence was really wonderful.  I thought Pascal and Wiig did a tremendous job bringing depth to what could otherwise have been cardboard villains.  I certainly feared Barbara could be another Jamie Foxx Electro, but I felt her performance was more grounded (ha ha).  And man, I did not expect the climax to hinge on the conscience of a wannabe 80's oil tycoon - but Pedro pulled it off.

[Sakura12]

They needed the writer from the first one, since he knew how to make it explicitly clear he was making fun of the glasses make a beautiful woman unattractive trope. Which Jenkins went ahead and undid with Barbara.

So if her intention was to show that the trope was problematic, she did a terrible job. She spent no time explaining it or caring about it. Diana and Steve showed no care that they were using another man's body when they had sex. Did everyone forget what happened at the end? Is that what happened, that wasn't made clear either. Because it sure seemed like Barbara and Maxwell remembered. 

We were just supposed to guess she was paying homage to 80's movies? Stranger Things feels like it's in the 80's, besides a few things here and there, this movie barely felt like the 80's. So I wasn't thinking 80s movie homages when watching it. 

I still really hope they take the writing away from Jenkins for the next one. She's not a good writer.

[Winston Wolfe]

8 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

I still really hope they take the writing away from Jenkins for the next one. She's not a good writer.

The fact that most of us are working so hard to make sense of WW 1984 is a telling commentary on how bad it was.

While I think most DC movies are atrocious I loved Shazam! It was a simple, old-fashioned super-hero movie with no aspirations to be otherwise. It was a fun romp that made me feel 10 years old again. Even if there were flaws, that movie was so enjoyable that you didn't think about them.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Winston Wolfe

[Perfect Xero]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:05 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

I get that it was by choice, which is why it makes it sad that the movie suggested that the only friends she had in the last almost 70 years were the people she met the first week after she left home. And I also thought it weird that Diana would take on the kind of outward personality that she did if she didn't want to be alone. Why not act more like Barbara where you are more likely to be ignored. Or would that be too much like how, at least in the original movies, Clark Kent was a total nerd with zero social skills.

My take away is that she avoided making friends or finding love so she wouldn't be hurt by losing them. Steve was her first experience with meeting someone and then suddenly losing them. Etta would have been her first experience with seeing someone grow old and die.