Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

[Perfect Xero]

On 1/3/2021 at 12:36 AM, Dani said:

 

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. 

I think the intent/purpose was to symbolically show that Diana was ignoring possible present happiness because she was still hung up on Steve and not seeing what was right in front of her. She has to give up Steve for her own good, not for the good of this guy whose life she stole. I highly doubt that the consent or agency of Handsome Man was ever even considered until the film came out and people started talking about it.

As to the tweet itself, if it was a commentary on the trope then why does the life and agency of HM have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to renounce the wish?

The idea that the consent issues wouldn't matter because she renounced her wish is, possibly, even more problematic because it's basically saying that in the narrative the "rape" is all about the "rapist" reclaiming her power by sort of making an apology to herself or "God" or whatever (but not the victim, of course), and deciding to stop. The victim is just magically fixed by this? Oh boy, that would be a mess of a message.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Perfect Xero

[Spartan Girl]

If only they cut the part where they had sex. Or if they were about to, and then add Diana’s line “Or maybe I should probably find out why my dead boyfriend is back in someone else’s body...” Or maybe imply that contrary to what we saw, they didn’t actually have sex because it still felt surreal to Diana and they just slept together. That would have worked better.

I still think that there was some kind of eventual mindwipe/reset after the wishes were renounced. Otherwise it would take YEARS to straighten all that stuff out. But again, make it more obvious.

I guess I’m in the minority that I’m still willing to give Patty another chance, at least as director. I don’t know how much of the writing she was actually responsible for. Weren’t there two other guys writing with her too?

[Bruinsfan]

I'm willing to take that line of Diana's as spoken. Only considering the implications for the host body after enjoying her reunion with Steve isn't ideal, but it makes her more human to have lapses in judgement.

[shrewd.buddha]

Wonder Woman 1984 Pitch Meeting

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by shrewd.buddha

[shrewd.buddha]

Basically, the moral of the movie:  Cheetahs Never Win 

(slight variation of a comment I read )

[Katsullivan]

On 12/29/2020 at 1:30 PM, Dani said:

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. 

Just to say that I agree with this and I feel it was a missed opportunity for the movie to show the Tragedy of Immortality. As much as she loved Steve and wished they had more time, she would never have enough time with any of her friends or lovers because she would outlive all of them. I wish they had incorporated this more, instead of making it seem like she was mourning just him. 

[Katsullivan]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/patty-jenkins-says-warner-bros-wanted-her-seen-but-not-1845984253

This comment just put my own thoughts about this in words: 

Quote

 

I get what Jenkins is saying, and it sounds like despite the fight she was able to get her vision through in the first film.

But then it seems like, once handed carte blanche for the sequel she kinda shat the bed? I mean, there was good there...but a LOT of bad. And this time she wrote the script.

So what happens now? It’s proper for Jenkins to get the credit she deserves for the first film, but then she should also shoulder the blame for the failings of the second.

In this particular situation, is there space to say that Jenkins is an excellent director for this type of film, but needs an assist in the writing department? Similar to how George Lucas benefited from having a check on his own creative process during the OT that wasn’t there for the prequels?

 

 

[Guest]

Already posted. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Guest

[MarkHB]

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Weren’t there two other guys writing with her too?

Yes, Geoff Johns (who has never written a Wonder Woman comic) and a fellow named Dave Callaham who seems to have written the Expendables movies.

I wonder if, at some level, the movie is trying to be the film that Diana might have gotten in 1984, right between Superman the Movie and Batman '89. It definitely feels to me like an 80's movie.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I guess I’m in the minority that I’m still willing to give Patty another chance, at least as director. I don’t know how much of the writing she was actually responsible for. Weren’t there two other guys writing with her too?

I’m willing to give her another chance but she’s off my automatically watch list. From now on I will wait and see how the response is first. 

I’m split on how much responsibility she gets for this movie. On one hand the plot issues are so big everyone gets some of the blame. One the other hand I’m not sure I believe it was entirely her vision. The movie feels disjointed in a way that screams studio interference. 

[Sakura12]

I think if there were studio interference Jenkins would've been complaining about it, like she still is for the first one.

From what I heard she used the success of WW to get full control over this one. She got rid of the writer of the first one (a writer that has actually written WW comics) and got rid of Synder's stunt team. This is the story she wanted to tell. Diana talking instead of fighting is how she wanted the first one to end as well. Which might have worked with a better actress.

Gadot has no vocal presence at all. It took me awhile to even realize she was giving a big speech. There was nothing behind it, I didn't feel like Diana believed anything she was saying. When I was supposed to feel like her words changed the minds of everyone in the world. Which is impossible on it's own if you really think about it. 

[Kromm]

13 hours ago, Dani said:

I’m willing to give her another chance but she’s off my automatically watch list. From now on I will wait and see how the response is first. 

I’m split on how much responsibility she gets for this movie. On one hand the plot issues are so big everyone gets some of the blame. One the other hand I’m not sure I believe it was entirely her vision. The movie feels disjointed in a way that screams studio interference. 

She had two co-writers. One of them was Geoff Johns.  If you set aside Snyder, he's arguably the single biggest voice in DC based filmed projects, being a producer on the mid-Snyder era-movies, a writer on a lot of the Arrowverse shows, and almost completely in charge of DC media stuff for the past two years.  He was in fact an uncredited co-writer on the FIRST Wonder Woman movie as well.

[VCRTracking]

I'm sure the WB is waiting to see how the Justice League Snyder Cut does. If it's successful, then that's what determines the course for DC movies from now on including Wonder Woman 3 and Jenkins will have to go along with it. After a successful first movie usually directors become self indulgent with a sequel. Failure provides a ice water bucket of reality and there's usually a course correction. It's like "Okay you got that out of your system, now let's get back to what works."

Really wish there was a scene of 10 year old Bruce Wayne getting his wish of his parents back and then being taken away!

Edited January 5, 2021 by VCRTracking

[Kel Varnsen]

18 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Really wish there was a scene of 10 year old Bruce Wayne getting his wish of his parents back and then being taken away!

See that is something I wasn't really sure about. Max Lord renounced his wish to be the wish machine. When he did that does that mean every wish he granted was cancelled? Or did all of those people have to renounce their wishes too? Because I could see Bruce, or some people at least, not being convinced by Diana and just keeping their wishes. 

Also if Bruce wished for his parents back whose bodies would they take over?

Edited January 5, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[JessePinkman]

It's really sad that Jenkins laughed at the very valid criticism of the body possession plot (it was most certainly not a body swap, where did this man's consciousness goes? No one seems to care.). And just because the sex was eradicated does not mean Diana didn't choose to use this man's body. We saw it happen.

[tennisgurl]

I finally got to see this and...I cant lie, this one was a pretty disappointing follow up to one of my favorite movies. I don't know if it was behind the scenes production issues or Jenkins and the other writers just had a lot of ideas that never fully formed, but while I would hesitate to call this movie bad exactly, because it did have a lot of aspects that I enjoyed, it had some real serious problems and was all around lacking, especially compared to the first movie. What makes it even weirder is that a lot of those problems are new problems, not problems that existed in smaller form in the first movie and were just more visible later on like what happens in a lot of disappointing sequels, or them trying to just do the plot of the first movie over again or spend too much time trying to set up sequels than focusing on the actual movie, I really have no idea what happened here. The first movie was so good, but this one...you can see some of the flaws of a lot of the earlier DCEU films actually, which is so weird because the first WW was so great partially because it fixed so many of those flaws. 

To start off with the good, this movie did at least have stronger villains than the first movie. I had no idea that Maxwell Lord was going to be the bad guy, but considering his comics history with Wonder Woman, I can understand why they went with him as the Big Bad. Wonder Woman doesn't really have the instantly recognizable rogues gallery that, say, Batman or Superman do, so I am glad they went with two villains that she does have an established history with. Pedro Pascal is great as ever in a really different kind of role here, being very charismatic and hammy while also seeming very real and human. I also thought that Kristen Wiig made for a good Cheetah, even if her arc was basically the same one that Catwoman had from Batman Returns and she ended up being rather underused except to give Diana a physical fight near the climax. She played mousy and awkward as well as violent and sexy really well, and I am very interested in seeing if she comes back later. And while the big speech climax came off as rather ridiculous and weirdly filmed, I do like that they ended with a big speech and not the usual "fights tons of minions then the big bad" ending that got so generic in superhero movies, it was at least a little different. And I like that Diana got to use her words instead of her fists to save the day, it calls back to her comic book counterparts history as a diplomat and spreader of peace. Gal and Chris also still have great chemistry, even with the weird circumstances surrounding his return, and I do totally still buy that Diana is still so heartsick over losing Steve. He was not only her first love, he was the first non Amazon she ever met, the person who showed her the world and helped shape her view of it, and she watched him explode after only getting to be with him for a short amount of time, so I can totally see her holding onto her love for him and the trauma of losing him. I have issues with the way this plot was handled, but not that Diana is still so desperate to get to be with Steve again. 

 Alright, I haven't read a lot of this thread yet, but I am guessing that quite a few of the comments are about the giant ass elephant in the living room, the whole "Steve gets sucked from heaven into some poor guys body and he and Diana have sex, meaning that Diana raped this guy and was pretty close to letting Steve just keep living in his body basically killing this guy" plot. I just...why is this a thing?! I can understand them wanting to bring Steve back, as his romance with Diana was one of the best and most memorable parts of the first movie and I can imagine that they didn't want to write her a new love interest, but it was a terrible idea all around, as great as it is to see Chris Pine as Steve. This was such a weird creepy way to bring him back and Jenkins trying to make it seem like it was all part of the plan to be creepy really doesn't help the situation. If they had just had Steve and Diana be baffled by how this happened and eventually realized what was happening and that Steve had to go because it was wrong to steal this guys life, that would have worked a lot better. Say they are getting tempted to have a second chance together and are getting lost in the fantasy, and then the guys parents or significant other or someone shows up, and they realize that what they are considering is wrong and essentially killing this innocent person is a price to high for their dream of a life together, which makes them look more heroic AND fits into the themes of the movie. Also, don't let them have sex. Just please please don't, its ridiculously messed up and gives this whole movie a really sleazy and disturbing vibe that the writers clearly did not intend. When will writers realize that just because something has fantastical elements that doesn't mean its divorced from the very real importance of consent? Having sex with a person who cannot consent because they are being possessed is totally rape, and just because its under such bizarre circumstances and this guy presumably doesn't remember it doesn't make it alright.  Having sex with someone who cant consent is rape, and its especially galling in this movie, where a big part of Barbara's subplot involved her being sexually harassed on the street and how it was one of many factors that led to her turn to the dark side. Just stop accidently writing rape scenes and then getting defensive when people call you out, writers!

The pacing was really off, it took us ages to actually get to the plot of the movie, it just seemed to lack forward momentum. While seeing the Amazons at the start was cool and well shot, it hardly had anything to do with the actual movie, besides Diana learning about short cuts and how bad they are. It felt like Diana was just reacting to things instead of doing them and spent most of the movie focused on her romance with Steve, and the actual plot with the ancient monkeys paw was happening elsewhere while Diana was skipping around with Steve. Things just seemed to be happening, and there were lots of these scenes that seemed to be rather pointless padding, this movie was WAY too long. Way way too long with too much superfluous stuff going on. This movie also rather diminished Steve to Love Interest, which was really too bad because he was such a dynamic character in the first movie. He was Diana's love interest yes, but he was his own character with his own arc and life and friends and when he died it felt like it was true to his character and story, it wasn't just to give Diana angst. I was also disappointed that we didn't get a lot of what happened to the rest of the characters from the first movie, beyond seeing some pictures showing that Diana stayed close with them for many years. Which would actually have been a better story for Diana, her growing distant from humanity after seeing all of the people she cared about dying over the years, and because Diana is immortal she just stays the same while everyone else ages and dies, this makes her hesitant to get close to people now and she has to learn to let people in again, that its better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. 

Speaking of the supporting cast, one of the great things about the first movie was how well drawn every character was and how much fun they all were. They're interactions felt so real and warm, both the Amazons as well as everyone she met out in the world, every character added so much to the movie, be it comedy or pathos or both. This movie had basically no supporting cast, it was pretty much just the villains and Steve, and that probably contributed to the movie seeming strangely lifeless and cold, which could possibly be on purpose, showing how Diana went from warm and excited and naïve in the first movie to being more distant in this movie, but it just made for a less fun experience. I was also struck by how humorless this movie was, especially compared to the first movie, which managed to have lot of real and endearing laughs in the middle of one of the bloodiest conflicts of recent history! 

Edited January 6, 2021 by tennisgurl

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

Steve gets sucked from heaven into some poor guys body and he and Diana have sex, meaning that Diana raped this guy and was pretty close to letting Steve just keep living in his body basically killing this guy" plot. I just...why is this a thing?!

Speaking of the sex I guess it is good that Diana is immortal considering she basically had sex with a guy she just met right in the middle of the AIDS epidemic.

Although thinking about it, Amazonian immortality must be kind of crappy if her aunt died from a single gunshot wound. Most people who are shot once survive. Plus does that also mean other Amazons have died from things like getting trampled by a horse, or falling off a cliff or an accident in the kitchen?

[Chyromaniac]

7 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Also if Bruce wished for his parents back whose bodies would they take over?

Meanwhile in Kansas...

[cambridgeguy]

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Although thinking about it, Amazonian immortality must be kind of crappy if her aunt died from a single gunshot wound. Most people who are shot once survive. Plus does that also mean other Amazons have died from things like getting trampled by a horse, or falling off a cliff or an accident in the kitchen?

Wonder Woman's invulnerability has always been a weird one.  She can trade blows with characters like Doomsday but has to block regular bullets, so it seems like massive blunt force trauma isn't an issue but high force/small area attacks are an issue.  Otherwise she's just showing off when she's doing her thing.

[Bruinsfan]

Yeah, comic book physics is always dodgy and you have to just ignore a bunch of things that don't make sense, but maintaining Diana as a near-equal to Superman in physical might as his powers increased over the years while ALSO keeping her need to protect herself from handgun bullets really strains suspension of disbelief. If you can apply enough force through the palms of your hands to flip a tank or APC over, your skin is withstanding a lot more spot pressure than a Luger round has on impact.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Bruinsfan

[supposebly]

Not that I care all that much and I haven't seen the movie but if there was thingamajig that grants wishes, why didn't it grant the wish to have Steve come back in his own body? It grants wishes, did she wish for Steve to come back in a different body? 

From what I'm reading they created a problem for no apparent reason?

[Unclejosh]

I am not sure but WW immortality is not the same as the rest of the Amazons.  She is a demigod and is nigh invulnerable for the most part. I think the rest of the Amazons are immortal in the sense that they age extremely slowly and have clearly above human strength and reflexes, but are still vulnerable to dying and injuries inflicted upon them.  They do not share Diana's superhuman attributes.

She is literally one of a kind.

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Unclejosh

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Unclejosh said:

I think the rest of the Amazons are immortal in the sense that they age extremely slowly and have clearly above human strength and reflexes, but are still vulnerable to dying and injuries inflicted upon them.

The definition of immortal means living forever. So they can't die, unless there's an exception like there was for The Highlander, where getting your head lopped off killed you. I don't know if there's something similar with these Amazons.

[Ravenya003]

Just saw it yesterday, sorry if I repeat anything that's been mentioned already.

Interesting ideas, but oddly little Wonder Woman. The first movie was special because Diana was front-and-centre, and she was truly wondrous to watch. Not just her beauty or athleticism, but the fact that she made goodness INTERESTING. That's such a rare thing in fiction (to quote Simone Weil: "“Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.” The first movie managed to make the goodness of Diana romantic and exciting: her joy at seeing a baby, her steadiness of character, the way she said: "who will sing for us?" to Charlie, the way she always chose to do the right thing and had the power to see it through...

Here she was just not really there at all. She felt like a supporting character in her own movie. 

Maxwell, Cheetah and Steve. You could have had TWO of these characters. TWO. Not three. There just wasn't time to do any of them justice, and oddly it seemed to be Maxwell, the character who had the least relevance to Diana's personal story, that got the most screen-time. 

Ironically the best parts were the very beginning and the very end: little Diana in the Amazon Olympics, and Lynda Carter's cameo at the end. I really hope the third movie goes back to Themyscira.

When Maxwell's kid wished: "to be great like you, dad" I thought that this meant all the power of the wishing rock would pass into him, and that Diana would be faced with the moral crisis of potentially having to kill a kid in order to save the world (foreshadowed by all the kid-saving she did in this movie). And then that... didn't happen. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, supposebly said:

Not that I care all that much and I haven't seen the movie but if there was thingamajig that grants wishes, why didn't it grant the wish to have Steve come back in his own body? It grants wishes, did she wish for Steve to come back in a different body? 

It worked like the monkey’s paw where you get your wish but it comes with a twist you never would have wanted. A guy wishes for a farm and ends up with the burden of caring for cows in the middle of DC. The President wishes for more nukes to stop the threat of war and starts a nuclear war. Diana wishing for Steve and him coming back in someone else’s body would have worked well if the movie had let that be the consequence. Unfortunately the writing was completely inconsistent on the wishes and the consequences. It does seem like at some point it was intended to be fleshed out and then they added a second villain instead. 

8 hours ago, Ravenya003 said:

Maxwell, Cheetah and Steve. You could have had TWO of these characters. TWO. Not three. There just wasn't time to do any of them justice, and oddly it seemed to be Maxwell, the character who had the least relevance to Diana's personal story, that got the most screen-time. 

Oddly Maxwell wasn’t originally going to be there at all and then he ended up taking over the entire movie. Patty Jenkins said in an interview that Cheetah was supposed to be the only villain but they realized they needed Maxwell. I’d be interested in seeing that first script because that seems like a much stronger movie. I have to wonder if someone involved thought they couldn’t have a movie centered around a female hero and female villain. 

8 hours ago, Ravenya003 said:

When Maxwell's kid wished: "to be great like you, dad" I thought that this meant all the power of the wishing rock would pass into him, and that Diana would be faced with the moral crisis of potentially having to kill a kid in order to save the world (foreshadowed by all the kid-saving she did in this movie). And then that... didn't happen. 

He wished for “your greatness”. Initially I thought he was wishing to be great but the movie intended it to be him wishing greatness for Maxwell. It was weird and confusing phrasing. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Guest

[thuganomics85]

Finally got the chance to see this and had plenty of time to hear about the controversy and mixed reactions.  And.... yep, I think pretty much all of it is deserved, sadly.

So, let us just dive right into the big stuff: the whole "Steven Trevor is actually inside another dude's body this entire time" trope.  Which both he and Diana know about instantly.  And... she still has sex with him.  Without the other guy's consent.  Yikes!  I wish I could say that surprised me, but it really doesn't, because I'm guessing Patty Jenkins and the rest of the writer's mindsets were a) people won't care because of Diana/Steven's chemistry and b) hey, most straight guys would be over the moon if they found out their bodies were used to have sex with someone who looks like Gal Gadot, so high-fives all around!  I also think them spending the time to mention him only having pictures of himself was their way of explaining that he was single/a loner, so it wasn't like any actual cheating was going on here.  Sorry, but the whole thing was still so icky.  And so easily avoidable.  Why not just have him appear out of thin air?  Unless Jenkins excuse about her making fun of the trope was accurate (which, frankly, I'm calling bullshit on), but if so, it really wasn't conveyed well at all.  Either way, it was just another case of sexual assault/rape being dismissed in a fantasy/superhero setting, which is a popular thing in this genre (my "personal favorite" goes to Once Upon a Time, and all of the times they pulled the "evil, but sexy witch pretend to be someone else and trick a guy into sleeping with them."  So wacky!)

But even then, this film was just a mess.  Overlong and boring in ways no superhero films should be (dammit, the Wonder Woman franchise is suppose to be different from the Snyder films, not more like them!)  One-note villains and even weaker side characters.  Action that was fine, but not anywhere close to other superhero films, let alone its predecessor (nothing even in the same galaxy as "Diana in No Man's Land" scene.)  Han Zimmer just phoning in the soundtrack this time.  And surprisingly lite on the humor.  Really thought they would get some mileage out of the whole "Steven in the 80s" thing, but most of it landed with a thud, and lack the charm of the similar style of humor in the first film, where it was Diana that was the fish out of water.  All in all, so much disappointment here and it is simply too long to list.

As for the acting, I honestly was disappointed with this aspect as well.  I know Gal Gadot can be hit or miss as an actress (mainly due to limit range, I suspect), but I thought she was perfection as Diana in the first film (and even Justice League and Bats vs. Sups.)  But I honestly found her performance a bit off here.  She was still at her best opposite of Chris Pine (and even then, I felt like he still had to carry the scenes), but didn't play off the rest very well.  Not sure what went wrong here, but I do hope she improves on some of her weaker elements, because her natural likability and charisma can only do so much.

Then again, everyone else wasn't blowing me a way either.  Kristen Wiig had her moments, but I still wasn't as impressed as I hoped I would be.  Granted, the film really did the Barbara character a disservice and she felt like a waste here.  They might have been better off just introducing her briefly here and saving her/Cheetah for another film.  Meanwhile, I went in thinking Pedro Pascal could do no wrong, but I surprisingly didn't enjoy his performance.  It was just hammy and not in a good way.  Kind of funny that he can be so more compelling and charismatic on The Mandalorian, where his face is hidden, but couldn't do much here.  I did think his final scene with Max's son was his best work, but even then, didn't carry the weight like he has done in the past.  That just leaves Chris Pine as the only one I felt like came through this unscathed, and likely solidifies why I think he's the best out of the "Hollywood Chrises" (although I do bounce around between him and Hemsworth: especially when Hemsworth is allowed to be funny.)

It's probably telling that I wish we had more flashback scenes.  Mainly because I'm all for more Antiope and Hippolyta, even if Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are hampered by having to do accents similar to Gadot.

Credit where credit is due: I did think Jenkins once again did a great job at not shying away from how beautiful and straight-up sexy Diana/Gal Gadot is, but did so in a way that didn't feel gratuitous or over-sexualized.  Definitely refreshing compared to how some of the male D.C. directors handle things (including how Diana/Gal herself was treated on Justice League with all of the ass shots.)

So, yeah, this was a disappointment, although hilariously, it still might be in the top half of the D.C. films for me.  But if the first film was my favorite, I still would put Shazam! and maybe even Aquaman over this, which I never would have predicted in a million years.  I'm still glad that a third filming is happening and am willing to give Patty Jenkins another chance, but I'll definitely be more cautious going forward, because she apparently isn't immune to dropping the ball at times.  But if WB can keep giving Snyder chances...

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

Diana wishing for Steve and him coming back in someone else’s body would have worked well if the movie had let that be the consequence. Unfortunately the writing was completely inconsistent on the wishes and the consequences. It does seem like at some point it was intended to be fleshed out and then they added a second villain instead. 

It's weird that him being in someone else's body wasn't the consequence of the wish since that would have made more sense than her also losing her powers (but slowly for some reason). Then again I am still not sure what happened to the wish thingy again. Did it disappear until next time it needs to fuck with a civilization or is it just sitting on Max Lord's desk where we last saw it?

[cambridgeguy]

19 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

The definition of immortal means living forever. So they can't die, unless there's an exception like there was for The Highlander, where getting your head lopped off killed you. I don't know if there's something similar with these Amazons.

???  All of those Amazons, including Antiope, were clearly dead after they were shot by the Germans.  If they truly can't die then they're a bunch of drama queens - do you howl in despair and break down in tears if a loved one gets a bruise?

The Amazons are immortal are comparable to the Asgardians.  They clearly age very slowly although the jury is still out about whether they would ever die of natural causes like Odin. 

[AimingforYoko]

1 hour ago, cambridgeguy said:

All of those Amazons, including Antiope, were clearly dead after they were shot by the Germans. 

Diana is only half Amazon, she's a demi-god.

[Bruinsfan]

It may very well be that Diana's only been vulnerable to mortal weapons in the past because she believed herself to be until Ares revealed her true parentage to her. His declaration that only a god can kill a god might work both ways.

[cambridgeguy]

Yeah, although I don't think Ares, Zeus, and the rest ever had that truly tested unless Darkseid and Steppenwolf pounded them into paste and they still got up.  God might equal sufficiently powerful being.

[Sakura12]

Steve using another guys body wasn't the consequence of the wish, Diana losing her powers was. So Steve could've come back in his own body and it wouldn't have made a difference. 

Diana would still have to choose her powers over her lover. And she could've done that without raping someone. They never even spoke about the fact that Steve was stealing someone life. And maybe that's another reason he couldn't stay.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It's weird that him being in someone else's body wasn't the consequence of the wish since that would have made more sense than her also losing her powers (but slowly for some reason).

Exactly. I think I’m mostly frustrated because it feels like the bones of a strong plot that could have exceeded expectations is buried in there.

[Lantern7]

Honest Trailer coming eighteen days after the release. Thanks, COVID! 🙄🙄🙄

 

[Sakura12]

They should've named it Wonder Woman: Cheetahs Never Prosper. Lol

[AimingforYoko]

4 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

They should've named it Wonder Woman: Cheetahs Never Prosper. Lol

Boooooooo! (Take your like and go.)

[tennisgurl]

On 1/7/2021 at 8:30 PM, thuganomics85 said:

Either way, it was just another case of sexual assault/rape being dismissed in a fantasy/superhero setting, which is a popular thing in this genre (my "personal favorite" goes to Once Upon a Time, and all of the times they pulled the "evil, but sexy witch pretend to be someone else and trick a guy into sleeping with them."  So wacky!)

*Shivers* Sorry, a cold chill always goes down my back whenever someone mentions Once Upon a Time and their love of magic rape. A quick word of advice to writers everywhere who don't seem to get that consent is an important thing even when stuff like magic, parallel universes, possession, etc are a part of it. Just because its under weird fantastical circumstances, its still rape to have sex with someone who did not consent to have sex with you. If I am not supposed to take it seriously because it involved magic or whatever, then why should I care about your story at all if none of it is supposed to be taken seriously because it involves fantastical elements? 

Ugh, Honest Trailers reminded me of that smug "I don't have a TV" line. Don't be that person Diana. Nobody likes that person. Especially when you do, in fact, have several TV's and having a TV could have helped you crack this mystery earlier. 

Did anyone else see Barbara and immediately think "She has glasses, and a ponytail! And she has paint on her overalls!!" Yeah she doesn't have a ponytail, but the sentiment stands!

Edited January 13, 2021 by tennisgurl

[Bruinsfan]

Oh totally. I'm surprised they didn't give her buck teeth and a bow tie like Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor. That whole characterization of Barbara as farcically forgotten/shunned by her colleagues because she was socially awkward and dressed dowdily was utterly beneath Patty Jenkins. For Pete's sake, she worked in a museum, not a marketing firm or the fashion industry. Most of her coworkers should ALSO have been academics and researchers with more than a whiff of nerdiness about them!

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Ugh, Honest Trailers reminded me of that smug "I don't have a TV" line. Don't be that person Diana. Nobody likes that person. Especially when you do, in fact, have several TV's and having a TV could have helped you crack this mystery earlier. 

We I guess if her goal was to not have any friends ever since the ones she met on her first week in the real world all died, then being an "I don't have a tv" person would be a good way to get cut out of a lot of conversations.

[Sakura12]

I loved the scene in the first one where Steve thought Diana still stood out too much and threw some glasses on her and Etta rolled her eyes and was like sure now she's suddenly unattractive. 

Jenkins threw that all away with Barbara. She works at a museum with a bunch of nerdy academics, she wouldn't be a pariah. 

[methodwriter85]

As an aside, the reaction people are having about the Steve/Diana storyline is really making me think about my wish to see Quantum Leap rebooted. Even though the show established that Sam never actually takes over the body of the person he's helping, there's still all kinds of questions I now have about consent because Sam does have sex with people in the show who are under the impression that he's somebody else. The show for the time did a pretty good job about consent (the episode explicitly about rape as well as the episode where Sam avoids having sex with a model who is high on drugs) but he does still have sex with characters who don't know what he really looks like or who he is.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by methodwriter85

[xaxat]

I agree with a lot of the criticism here. This was not a good movie. One thing I noticed is that the action scenes weren't good. Which is kind of a problem in a super hero movie. It started out OK with young Diana, but after that you had the run of the mill chase scene and a couple of "meh" fight scenes with Cheetah.

Compare that with the first film. The climactic fight scene is pretty good. But you also had the beach fight on Themyscira which is great and the trench war scene. (Is there anyone who didn't get goosebumps when Diana started walking toward the enemy line?)

Speaking of climactic scenes, both movies where kind of "talky". But the exposition in the first movie worked so much better because Diana was making a case for humanity both for herself and Ares with the context of Steve's sacrifice.

This movie? I'm still not sure. It seems like she is making a case to humanity in general, but did she lasso everyone in the world through a TV transmission? 'Cause I know a lot of people would be perfectly happy with their wish. (I got a pony! I got cured from cancer! I got nukes that will protect my people!)

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SAG Award nomination!

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

[SherriAnt]

One thing that always annoys me with movies about the '80's is that nobody goes all in on the fashion. Where were the shoulder pads, the giant earrings, colourful makeup and especially the big hair! In 1984 I had shoulder pads like a football player, hair that took a can of hairspray, a ratting comb, a perm, and an hour to do every day!

[Robert Lynch]

23 hours ago, SherriAnt said:

One thing that always annoys me with movies about the '80's is that nobody goes all in on the fashion. Where were the shoulder pads, the giant earrings, colourful makeup and especially the big hair! In 1984 I had shoulder pads like a football player, hair that took a can of hairspray, a ratting comb, a perm, and an hour to do every day!

I think there are some shows or movies that remain true to the era (Stranger Things, The Americans, etc.) while we see movies like Wonder Woman 1984 that just don't give any thought as to how to present the year itself. It's one of those mixed bags of yeah, so what feelings when watching this movie.

[shrewd.buddha]

On 2/7/2021 at 9:45 PM, Robert Lynch said:

I think there are some shows or movies that remain true to the era (Stranger Things, The Americans, etc.) while we see movies like Wonder Woman 1984 that just don't give any thought as to how to present the year itself.

For me, one of the worst offenses was the complete lack of 80's music. How? Why?
Even the first trailer (which looked promising) featured 80's music (New Order, I think..)
How did none of the producers realize how much music could add to the appeal of a movie ? (ie: Guardians of the Galaxy).

Edited February 9, 2021 by shrewd.buddha

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Critics' Choice Award nomination!

Best Visual Effects

[Chit Chat]

We just watched the movie.  What a disappointment!  It was just way too farfetched for us.  At least we only spent $20 watching it at home, versus what we would've spent at the theater.  Damn, that was a stupid movie. 

[Racj82]

On 2/21/2021 at 8:54 PM, ChitChat said:

We just watched the movie.  What a disappointment!  It was just way too farfetched for us.  At least we only spent $20 watching it at home, versus what we would've spent at the theater.  Damn, that was a stupid movie. 

You did the theater at home thing? Not judging. I just didn't think anyone did it. Or at least would for a movie this critically panned. Hbo max is 15 dollars a month so that was the only way I was watching it. It's also sneakily the best streaming service out there in terms of content.

Wonder Woman was like a savior to this universe and now it's an example of it's many problems.

[Chit Chat]

8 hours ago, Racj82 said:

You did the theater at home thing? Not judging. I just didn't think anyone did it. Or at least would for a movie this critically panned.

Yeah, we're not comfortable going to the theater just yet, and we don't have HBO, so we went ahead and paid the $20.  It would've cost more than that if we had seen it at the theater with snacks and all!!  We've been out of the loop for awhile (stuff going on), so I wasn't aware of any of the reviews of the movie.  How disappointing it was.  I expected much better.