Wonder Woman (2017)

team_actimel

I really enjoyed this film and thought Gal Gadot was perfect in her role. She was so charismatic and I am looking forward to the next WW installment.

ionapaul

Brego888 wrote: »

Gal Gadot is almost too beautiful to play the role that she becomes distracting! They did a good job though at not over sexualising her.

I said the same thing to my wife after we watched it (both enjoyed it) - I almost would have preferred they used a less attractive person in the WW role, as Gadot was so stunning it was hard to concentrate on other stuff (dialogue, plot, etc...)!

team_actimel

ionapaul wrote: »

I said the same thing to my wife after we watched it (both enjoyed it) - I almost would have preferred they used a less attractive person in the WW role, as Gadot was so stunning it was hard to concentrate on other stuff (dialogue, plot, etc...)!

Spare a thought for some of us who were too distracted by Henry Cavill to enjoy Man of Steel.

Nervous Wreck

team_actimel wrote: »

Spare a thought for some of us who were too distracted by Henry Cavill to enjoy Man of Steel.

I was too distracted by the plot to enjoy Man of Steel.

Tony EH

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Only 30 movies have ever gotten over a billion at the box office the odds are against it big time.

If it does anywhere between 500/750m it will have done amazingly well.

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

BvS fumbled an opportunity for a slam dunk, monewise. All it had to do was be good. Not even great. They could definitely have broken the billion. Funnily enough, the only thing now that can get Justice League over the billion is the good will created towards Wonder Woman.

Tony EH

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As a major history buff....not thrilled about how they basically Nazified the WW1 German army, wonder how the Germans feel about that one.

This is one of the reasons why I am probably going to dislike this film I reckon and the trench warfare idea sounds woeful.

But, in any case, I've always thought that Wonder Woman was a stupid character, along with Thor. The "god" superhero is a bloody awful idea.

This film, though, seems to be getting a pass from a lot of people in interweb world, but i've yet to see any real general criticism. It just seems to be "I liked it, because it wasn't 'Man of Steel' or 'Batman vs Superman", or simply because it didn't suck, so therefore it "great".

For the record, I actually liked 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Man or Steel' and think they get a lot of unnecessary flak. 'Wonder Woman' may be fine too, but I just know the setting alone is going to annoy the - expletive deleted - out of me.

pjohnson

Tony EH wrote: »

...and yet people keep saying that BvS "lost" money cos it didn't make a squillion dollars, which I constantly find odd.

With the pull and fanbase both Batman AND Superman have in their own right combining them obviously should have made a helluva lot more.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

BvS fumbled an opportunity for a slam dunk, monewise. All it had to do was be good. Not even great. They could definitely have broken the billion. Funnily enough, the only thing now that can get Justice League over the billion is the good will created towards Wonder Woman.

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

Tony EH

pjohnson wrote: »

With the pull and fanbase both Batman AND Superman have in their own right combining them obviously should have made a helluva lot more.

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

It's the internet. Things can only be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

Edit: For what's its worth I do think BvS should have made more than it did. Had word of mouth been good I've no doubt it would have made another 300-500m at the box office. There's a lot of people out there who just didn't bother once they heard it was "bad". A lot people won't take that chance at the cinema and instead wait for something that everyone is buzzing about.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

Yeah it achieved an astounding amount of money so was by no means a financial flop. Critically, a complete flop but financially did very well. BUT it definitely could have broken the billion if it had just been a good film. And the thing is, the source material is there by the truckload to support a great film. They've made animated versions that were great. But they still fumbled it.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

870 mil is nothing to scoff at though, especially for a film that a lot of people said was "shite". I know a few tweaks here and there made a lot of those people reverse their opinion (quite dubiously I think). But, if BvS really was as "shite" as some would have you believe, it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

I just find it bizarre that because it didn't break a billion (which a tiny amount of movies do), that people think it somehow "flopped". It's remarkable logic.

I think it speaks more to the nature of the Blockbuster these days rather than the critical or fan consensus. The Hollywood Blockbuster has become a massively bloated and mutated economy within an industry itself already fairly obscene. From what I understand, it's an economy where the done thing is now to inflate budgets, not penny pinch.

870 million is clearly not chump change, but within the context of how and for what the movie was produced, it likely under-performed in the eyes of those counting on certain results. I don't pretend to understand how high finance works, let alone within the context of film production, but there would likely have been a lot of projections made about this films potential success - not just financial either, but in terms of brand visibility & that sort of thing. It was a film about comicbook royalty, by all accounts it should have made at least a billion dollars without trying, and sat top of the heap of the cultural and box-office pyramid, yet that's not how it panned out.

Ben Gadot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

4?! I commend your fandom.

I love The Dark Knight Trilogy, and think I saw each twice respectively in the cinema.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah but fans like me went to see it once, vs the 4 times I went to see Civil War.

It's a fan that's few and far between that will watch the same film 4 times in a cinema, no matter how good it is.

pjohnson

Tony EH wrote: »

The fanbase went to see it anyway. It's not like fans of Batman or Superman didn't go.

Hardcore fans probably those with a more passive interest no. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew nothing about either hero. If it was a competent movie with two such massive characters it would have pulled in casuals quite easy.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I think it speaks more to the nature of the Blockbuster these days rather than the critical or fan consensus. The Hollywood Blockbuster has become a massively bloated and mutated economy within an industry itself already fairly obscene. From what I understand, it's an economy where the done thing is now to inflate budgets, not penny pinch.

870 million is clearly not chump change, but within the context of how and for what the movie was produced, it likely under-performed in the eyes of those counting on certain results. I don't pretend to understand how high finance works, let alone within the context of film production, but there would likely have been a lot of projections made about this films potential success - not just financial either, but in terms of brand visibility & that sort of thing. It was a film about comicbook royalty, by all accounts it should have made at least a billion dollars without trying, and sat top of the heap of the cultural and box-office pyramid, yet that's not how it panned out.

Sure. There are loads of predictions made about every big budget film that goes out. I'm sure the makers of the 'Total Recall' and 'Ghostbusters' were expecting huge returns too and if either of them had made anywhere near 870 million, they'd be hailed as roaring successes.

I just find the idea that BvS "lost" money, when it sits atop such a fortune a crazy idea, expecially when the count for films that break a billion are so small. People talk as if BvS was such a flop that it forced the DCCU to quit. It's hilarious.

It's funny also, that that small list contains films that are much, much, poorer examples of filmmaking. 'Transformers 10', I'm looking at you.

In any case, I fully agree that the hollywood product is obscene as present and all this BO guff becomes extremely tiresome TBH.

Tony EH

pjohnson wrote: »

Hardcore fans probably those with a more passive interest no. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew nothing about either hero. If it was a competent movie with two such massive characters it would have pulled in casuals quite easy.

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

The film was completely incompetent, to be fair.

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

But, it was a competent movie. FFS, people are going on like this was 'Lifeforce' or something. :pac:

Just because some people were unhappy with the serious take on the characters and didn't get their "fun", doesn't mean that the films were incompetent -> and I'm no fan of Zack Snyder.

Ben Gadot

All hail Snyder.

Drumpot

I actually enjoyed MOS and BVS.... I think if people objectively think they are good or bad movies, then they are right in their own ways. Discussing the merits of a movie with somebody who thinks the opposite to you is kind of waste of time.

I've notice a consistent trend with people who hate a movie that they really wanted to do well or had some sort of excitement about it. They highlight moments in the movie they hate but ignore similar irritants in movies they enjoy. Confirmation bias is rife when judging movies, I think we are all guilty of it.

Take the hate for "Martha" moment. I don't have a problem with them using this as a plot device and I think on repeat viewings it gets more powerful. Both parents were called Martha in the universe so its not like they made it up for the movie. Superman using that name in such an emotional moment for Bruce would pack the punch it did. It would knock him off his rage fuelled vendetta, anybody who knows anything about human behaviour would tell you that's very much possible if not probable.

I allow myself to get invested in the movie and allow myself to be entertained without all the BS prejudice or pre conceived ideas of what I should expect. When I first viewed the movie I didn't overly like it, but I have found it more enjoyable on repeat viewings (which seems to happen with me and shnyder movies). If there is a movie, like BVS or MOS, that I don't completely love on first viewing, but I want to like them I will go and see them again and try to see what I can take from the movie (not go to see them to confirm I hate it!).

People who hate movies, dig their heels in and don't try to take anything else from a movie will just have their disappointment. Where is the fun in that ? Maybe as I get older I see the benefit to lowering expectations and trying to look for the good as opposed to the bad in things. It actually makes movie going experiences frequently more enjoyable.

In terms of the WW movie, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I must stress that I had three children, 2 of which were driving me mad, so I will reserve how I really feel until I see it again. I didn't feel compelled to goto the cinema again (which is unusual for me) to watch it because it felt a lot like Captain America 1 which I thought was so so.

I liked the fact that DC were trying a very different approach to Marvel, but would be concerned now that they will revert to the ingredients used in those movies. DC felt darker and dirtier and less refined, whereas Marvel feels forumulated and safe. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

It is comparable with Transformers in that it shows that making money is not about making a good movie or trying to be different, its about appealing to as wide an audience as possible. So now, instead of DC trying to be different, they are being told to feed us more mainstream generic superhero movies. I hope the whingers are happy.

IncognitoMan

Drumpot, that's one of the best posts I've read on these threads in a long long time.

fluke

Drumpot wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

I think where WW differs from a lot of the other fare (in both DC and Marvel) is that she truly seemed heroic and someone to aspire to be. Almost any screengrab from the movie frames her as an icon.

Drumpot

fluke wrote: »

I think where WW differs from a lot of the other fare (in both DC and Marvel) is that she truly seemed heroic and someone to aspire to be. Almost any screengrab from the movie frames her as an icon.

WW turned her back on humanity for nearly a 100 years, how is that heroic or something to strive ? She gets one bad experience with humans and rights us off!

You could put Captain America (not necessarily my favourite superhero) into your post and it would pretty much fit perfectly. There is no better example of heroism or somebody who strives to protect what is right, even if its at his own expense.

The Cap's had more life experience and pain to get to where he is and never turns his back on those weaker then him. He knows what its like to be weak and pushed down by those stronger/bigger then him. His characters unyielding moral compass and desire to at least always try and do the right thing is heroic and makes him an even bigger icon (IMO).

fluke

Drumpot wrote: »

You could put Captain America (not necessarily my favourite superhero) into your post and it would pretty much fit perfectly. There is no better example of heroism or somebody who strives to protect what is right, even if its at his own expense.

None of the Cap America scenes in any of his appearances look anywhere near as iconic as any of the WW scenes.

Drumpot

fluke wrote: »

None of the Cap America scenes in any of his appearances look anywhere near as iconic as any of the WW scenes.

You said she seemed heroic and somebody to truly aspire to be. . I don't know how you came to that conclusion. She opted out of helping humanity for 100 years.. If anything she came across more like a generation snowflake hero then anything else.

What screenshots are you talking about that sets her apart from other hero movies. I was dragged out of cinema a few times by kids and missed parts of the movie so I could of missed some of these moments.

To be fair, I do think that watching it with my children has not helped my perception of the character or the movie. I am only sharing my initial feelings of the movie...

Ben Gadot

Drumpot wrote: »

I actually enjoyed MOS and BVS.... I think if people objectively think they are good or bad movies, then they are right in their own ways. Discussing the merits of a movie with somebody who thinks the opposite to you is kind of waste of time.

I've notice a consistent trend with people who hate a movie that they really wanted to do well or had some sort of excitement about it. They highlight moments in the movie they hate but ignore similar irritants in movies they enjoy. Confirmation bias is rife when judging movies, I think we are all guilty of it.

Take the hate for "Martha" moment. I don't have a problem with them using this as a plot device and I think on repeat viewings it gets more powerful. Both parents were called Martha in the universe so its not like they made it up for the movie. Superman using that name in such an emotional moment for Bruce would pack the punch it did. It would knock him off his rage fuelled vendetta, anybody who knows anything about human behaviour would tell you that's very much possible if not probable.

I allow myself to get invested in the movie and allow myself to be entertained without all the BS prejudice or pre conceived ideas of what I should expect. When I first viewed the movie I didn't overly like it, but I have found it more enjoyable on repeat viewings (which seems to happen with me and shnyder movies). If there is a movie, like BVS or MOS, that I don't completely love on first viewing, but I want to like them I will go and see them again and try to see what I can take from the movie (not go to see them to confirm I hate it!).

People who hate movies, dig their heels in and don't try to take anything else from a movie will just have their disappointment. Where is the fun in that ? Maybe as I get older I see the benefit to lowering expectations and trying to look for the good as opposed to the bad in things. It actually makes movie going experiences frequently more enjoyable.

In terms of the WW movie, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I must stress that I had three children, 2 of which were driving me mad, so I will reserve how I really feel until I see it again. I didn't feel compelled to goto the cinema again (which is unusual for me) to watch it because it felt a lot like Captain America 1 which I thought was so so.

I liked the fact that DC were trying a very different approach to Marvel, but would be concerned now that they will revert to the ingredients used in those movies. DC felt darker and dirtier and less refined, whereas Marvel feels forumulated and safe. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy marvel movies but I don't want to just now see double the amount of these kind of movies. That's part of the problem with the success of the likes of WW, its basically saying to the studio, if you want to make money make the same thing that Marvel are doing.

It is comparable with Transformers in that it shows that making money is not about making a good movie or trying to be different, its about appealing to as wide an audience as possible. So now, instead of DC trying to be different, they are being told to feed us more mainstream generic superhero movies. I hope the whingers are happy.

Fair play for saying that even if saying it is a hiding to nowhere. I would of thought the same before WW but there's plenty of people on here who were negative about the film to the lead up to its release only to hold their hands up and admit they were wrong.

Drumpot

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Fair play for saying that even if saying it is a hiding to nowhere. I would of thought the same before WW but there's plenty of people on here who were negative about the film to the lead up to its release only to hold their hands up and admit they were wrong.

That's great and I think people can be like that about more movies with the right approach.

I think it's setting yourself up for more falls to have a higher bar for movies. That's why, so often I find (like others) that something I am really looking forward to ends up dissapointjng. I enjoy many movies, some more then others and some might dissapoint initial but get better on repeat viewing. Some movies wow me and some movies surprise me. People with higher expectations and subjective critical analysis on movies limit their own chance to enjoy more movies.

It's like Irish soccer fans versus fans that are only able to enjoy their team when they win. It's not that I don't care about movies or don't want them to be better. It's that life has thought me that being able to find the good in things is simply more enjoyable then critically picking things apart.