Wonder Woman 1984

iguana

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Hard to see the franchaise recovering from this!

It was a poor movie but it was no worse than Ironman 2 or Thor: The Dark World.

Smacruairi

iguana wrote: »

It was a poor movie but it was no worse than Ironman 2 or Thor: The Dark World.

I think it actually is. At least with those they didn't totally derail the franchise. This... This was just really poor, but also has now made a ton of plotholes.

Iron Man 2 had bad casting for Whiplash and a overly incompetent Hammer
In fact Whiplash is far too underpowered to be a credible threat and was seen so needing Hammer's army. (mindless enemy hordes kinda all over MCU)

But it drove the Avenger plot along, introduced Blackwidow, showed that Stark was not OK. When he thought that he was dying he hid it from everyone and started giving everything away (drunk Tony fighting Rhodes was the only way he could give him the WarMachine suit with out him getting suspicious). This thread of Tony carried through the poor IM3, Age of Ultron, and Civil War

ThorDark World made mistake of casting Eccleston. Man hates blockbusters and bloody hell it showed. With someone more engaged/engaging it would have been a much better film.
The Kat Dennings scenes were woefully out of place (conversly they would work in the new lighter tone of Thor in Ragnarok and vs Guardians)


WW, however, takes 4 good actors and wastes them on a janky script which has morality issues and massive plot holes, direction issues, and bad bad action scenes.
It hasn't driven the character at all (outside imposing a 100 year mourning prosess and releasing her from that)

siblers

iguana wrote: »

It was a poor movie but it was no worse than Ironman 2 or Thor: The Dark World.

Those films aren't great but they were actually properly made films which suffered from pretty boring plots. The performances, editing, cgi etc are all of a pretty professional standard.

WW:1984 is just an absolute mess of a film. Everything is wrong apart from Pablo Pascal. It's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

micks_address

Poor Iron man 3? Thought it was the best of them

Deleted User wrote: »

Iron Man 2 had bad casting for Whiplash and a overly incompetent Hammer
In fact Whiplash is far too underpowered to be a credible threat and was seen so needing Hammer's army. (mindless enemy hordes kinda all over MCU)

But it drove the Avenger plot alond, introduced Blackwidow, showed that Stark was not OK. When he thought that he was dying he hid it from everyone and started giving everything away (drunk Tony fighting Rhodes was the only way he could give him the WarMachine suit with out him getting suspicious). This thread of Tony carried through the poor IM3, Age of Ultron, and Civil War

ThorDark World made mistake of casting Eccleston. Man hates blockbusters and bloody hell it showed. With someone more engaged/engaging it would have been a much better film.
The Kat Dennings scenes were woefully out of place (conversly they would work in the new lighter tone of Thor in Ragnarok and vs Guardians)


WW, however, takes 4 good actors and wastes them on a janky script which has morality issues and massive plot holes, direction issues, and bad bad action scenes.
It hasn't driven the character at all (outside imposing a 100 year mourning prosess and releasing her from that)

Mitch Connor

micks_address wrote: »

Poor Iron man 3? Thought it was the best of them

watched it again recently, having not been a fan of it when it came out - and my opinion on it has switched. would agree that it is the best of them (but still has flaws.)

dubstepper

I think it was a 5 out of ten movie. Which is a pity as the first was very good. It seemed to lose it's way in the middle and became almost boring. There were a number of story lines which were not followed through, for instance the one with his son. Felt like it was tacked on, rather than woven. The whole love story with Steve was ridiculous, even when you have suspended disbelief.

Also, as someone mentioned, setting the movie in 1984 and not using some of the great music from the era was a miss. You can see how they used it with Atomic Blonde for great effect.

micks_address

micks_address wrote: »

Poor Iron man 3? Thought it was the best of them

For me it's poor because of the needless Mandarin switcharoo. IMHO it hampered the storyline and Cillian (It's with a C dammit) Aldrich just wasn't as menacing as his puppet. Now I know that was meant to be the case and he had this menacing figure in public show but he felt limp afterwards.

Also ruined where they could go with 10 rings, especially the route they've taken with magic.



I also said poor, not bad, and all it's flaws are personal choice. It's a well made film.

As opposed to WW84 and previously mentioned

pixelburp

Iron Man 3 was a great Shane Black action-comedy; up there with his better work, but kinda gets lost by dint of being a MCU film. It also didn't necessarily gel within the overall MCU, and for that gets unfair criticism IMO. I have no great grá for the 10 Rings or Mandarin, so that bait & switch was brilliant to me, not a poor or unfaithful adaptation. "Trevor" was a great Black character.

Downey gave perhaps his best performance as Tony Stark and the story of trauma and PTSD made for an interesting segue in his story after he ditched his suit (it was kinda obvious Shane Black had zero interest in the Iron Man heroics). It also quite boldly ended with Stark retiring from being Iron Man. Of course, that was never going to sit with the MCU brain-trust so literally his next appearance in Ultron, he's back in the suit and nobody speaks of his retirement ever again.

It's a film that sits in that early-mid stage when the MCU were still hiring genuine creatives, with their own visions and ideas. James Gunn is about the only remaining holdout from that era - and that's just because his vision made Marvel a metric tonne of money, while adapting (arguably) it's then trickiest MCU property. It's not without reason these days the directors hired are starry-eyed indie directors; much easier to steer than experienced talent like Shane Black.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Iron Man 3 was a great Shane Black action-comedy; up there with his better work, but kinda gets lost by dint of being a MCU film. It also didn't necessarily gel within the overall MCU, and for that gets unfair criticism IMO. I have no great grá for the 10 Rings or Mandarin, so that bait & switch was brilliant to me, not a poor or unfaithful adaptation. "Trevor" was a great Black character.

Downey gave perhaps his best performance as Tony Stark and the story of trauma and PTSD made for an interesting segue in his story after he ditched his suit (it was kinda obvious Shane Black had zero interest in the Iron Man heroics). It also quite boldly ended with Stark retiring from being Iron Man. Of course, that was never going to sit with the MCU brain-trust so literally his next appearance in Ultron, he's back in the suit and nobody speaks of his retirement ever again.

It's a film that sits in that early-mid stage when the MCU were still hiring genuine creatives, with their own visions and ideas. James Gunn is about the only remaining holdout from that era - and that's just because his vision made Marvel a metric tonne of money, while adapting (arguably) it's then trickiest MCU property. It's not without reason these days the directors hired are starry-eyed indie directors; much easier to steer than experienced talent like Shane Black.

I agree with most of what you said but also that it's a Shane Black film not a sequel to established characters. I also loved Mandarin TBH to the switch bugged me as a fan but I also think it diminished Aldrichh.



Gunn works because Guardians were completely new with no MCU baggage, he was able to shape the narrative.





But... WW sucks

Homelander

iguana wrote: »

It was a poor movie but it was no worse than Ironman 2 or Thor: The Dark World.

Not only do I think this is fundementally untrue, I also think Iron Man 2 is nowhere near as bad as people make out.

Sure, it's not brilliant, but it's solid and well-made, and critical/user reviews are actually fairly positive on it.

Thor 2 is less "solid" though I would still argue it's a lot more consistent in its banality and overall crafting than WW84.

MisterAnarchy

micks_address wrote: »

Poor Iron man 3? Thought it was the best of them

Iron Man is by far the best of the trilogy.
It was fresh, funny, and had some bit of realism.
The second one was poor and the third one was just awful, with the panic attacks and the kid.
Crummy, unfunny, and completely over the top .
Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley were completely wasted .

I thought Thor 2 was far better than Thor Ragnarok, which I hated as it was trying to be a comedy and was extremely unfunny.

jface187

Deleted User wrote: »

ThorDark World made the mistake of casting Eccleston. Man hates blockbusters and bloody hell it showed. With someone more engaged/engaging it would have been a much better film.
The Kat Dennings scenes were woefully out of place (conversely they would work in the new lighter tone of Thor in Ragnarok and vs Guardians)

Don't think Eccleston was the problem with Thor 2. It was a boring, middle of the road superhero action film. Hell Eccleston not even in it that much. Not sure about him and blockbusters, he did G.I. Joe, the seeker. For someone who didn't like blockbusters, he seemed keen to do them.

jface187

jface187 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

ThorDark World made the mistake of casting Eccleston. Man hates blockbusters and bloody hell it showed. With someone more engaged/engaging it would have been a much better film.
The Kat Dennings scenes were woefully out of place (conversely they would work in the new lighter tone of Thor in Ragnarok and vs Guardians)

Don't think Eccleston was the problem with Thor 2. It was a boring, middle of the road superhero action film. Hell Eccleston not even in it that much. Not sure about him and blockbusters, he did G.I. Joe, the seeker. For someone who didn't like blockbusters, he seemed keen to do them.

He's on record as saying he wh*red himself for the money and hated every minute (except for Gone in 60 as he really rated Cage)

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's on record as saying he wh*red himself for the money and hated ever minute (except for Gone in 60 as he really rated Cage)

He seems to have a very low bar of tolerance for the system. By all accounts Hollywood sounds like a nightmare but equally Eccleston ain't so unique his absence is keenly felt, or that there aren't plenty of actors who can stomach the merry-go-round. He also famously swore off from returning to Dr Who again after falling out with staff during his brief stint (though he's returning to audio adaptations). I can't help wonder, like the saying in Justified: you run into an àsshole in the morning, you ran into an àsshole. you keep running into àssholes all day ...

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

He seems to have a very low bar of tolerance for the system. By all accounts Hollywood sounds like a nightmare but equally Eccleston ain't so unique his absence is keenly felt, or that there aren't plenty of actors who can stomach the merry-go-round. He also famously swore off from returning to Dr Who again after falling out with staff during his brief stint (though he's returning to audio adaptations). I can't help wonder, like the saying in Justified: you run into an àsshole in the morning, you ran into an àsshole. you keep running into àssholes all day ...

Yeah, time to look in the mirror perhaps
But it did give for an exceptionally bland big bad. He nay not have been in the film for long but it drained all threat from the antagonist

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, time to look in the mirror perhaps
But it did give for an exceptionally bland big bad. He nay not have been in the film for long but it drained all threat from the antagonist

True, but then bland villains seem a larger problem with the MCU anyway, not unique to Ecclestons own stint. Dunno why it is, and it's not like the DC films such as Wonder Woman 84 are that much better, but they feel particularly underwritten and halfàssed in the MCU. It's probably why Killmonger in Black Panther garnered such praise; it was a rare case of a villain with some interesting motivations and drives that gelled with the overall theme & story (rather than "Bad Man causes a Sky Beam", or "Hero powers, but evil"). I liked Mysterio mind you, again because he worked within the structure of Peter Parker's own arc.

I actually liked the idea of Max Lord, if only the writing ran with his scheme a little better, and with more nuance. If ever there was a blockbuster film positively crying for a Script Doctor to punch the story into shape... ah well. The way things are going though, Patty Jenkins will not starve for work. She's the Eddie Murphy of female directors ATM, though another bump like WW84 might remove the lustre some more...

jface187

[QUOTE=pixelburp;115992307
I actually liked the idea of Max Lord, if only the writing ran with his scheme a little better, and with more nuance. If ever there was a blockbuster film positively crying for a Script Doctor to punch the story into shape... ah well. The way things are going though, Patty Jenkins will not starve for work. She's the Eddie Murphy of female directors ATM, though another bump like WW84 might remove the lustre some more...[/QUOTE]

The Eddie Murphy of female directors? What the hell does that mean?

pixelburp

jface187 wrote: »

The Eddie Murphy of female directors? What the hell does that mean?

Meh, just a stupid bit of snark that Hollywood tends to have one or two choices in mind at any given juncture & can't look past it; time was IIRC Eddie Murphy had every script thrown at him 'cos he was basically the only famous black man in Hollywood.

I honestly don't rate Jenkins as a director, but she's arguably the most famous female Hollywood director ATM, so my cynicism wondered if this might open doors for her by dint of this. Certainly, Disney wanted to make a big deal of her helming the Rogue Squadron film; though to be fair they gave The Eternals to Chloé Zhao so ... all generalisations are false n' all.

So like I said, a stupid bit of snark ... mostly 'cos WW84 was such a potty movie it invites blather :pac:

Not that I think Lynn Ramsey should suddenly be given a MCU film or anything ... though as I type that it kinda sounds so mad it might work lol :pac:

zoeyalex87

It could have been better. They definitely can do better. That was my thought after I left the movie theater 2 hours ago.

It’s entertaining though but it’s just that.

plastic glass

siblers wrote: »

Those films aren't great but they were actually properly made films which suffered from pretty boring plots. The performances, editing, cgi etc are all of a pretty professional standard.

WW:1984 is just an absolute mess of a film. Everything is wrong apart from Pablo Pascal. It's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I am 30 minutes from the end and have to agree with this. The last one was very good but this is a mess. It has slightly come together in the last 20 minutes but still woeful.

No idea what they were doing bringing Chris Pine back. Wonder Woman and gal gadot more than capable of carrying the film without him. Their chemistry was good in the last film but not so good you needed to bring him back. Very very very odd decision

Coybig_

plastic glass wrote: »

I am 30 minutes from the end and have to agree with this. The last one was very good but this is a mess. It has slightly come together in the last 20 minutes but still woeful.

No idea what they were doing bringing Chris Pine back. Wonder Woman and gal gadot more than capable of carrying the film without him. Their chemistry was good in the last film but not so good you needed to bring him back. Very very very odd decision

I thought their chemistry in the last movie completely carried the whole thing. Without their chemistry the movie would have been very, very average.

I think Jenkins knew this however the body swap fiasco was so unbelievably bad, and they made him a completely useless lapdog with nothing to do himself. In the first one he actually had his own arc and goals which made their dynamic so good - as he wasn't always wanting the same thing as her and had his own objectives to complete. He literally follows her around in this and offers nothing else.

plastic glass

Sad Professor wrote: »

Presumedly a case of temp track love. It's when a director falls in love with a track from the temp track and nothing the composer comes up is good enough to replace it. Most likely Zimmer did his own thinly veiled copy of the Sunshine track but Jenkins still couldn't let go of it.

Any artist worth their salt should have come up with or chosen something original, or at a minimum chosen something a little bit more obscure.

That piece of music is one of the greatest but overused pieces of music in the 21st century.

B.A._Baracus

I don't get the hate for Wonder Woman 1984.
Sure, it's no where as good as the first and really should have been much better. But you can watch it.

From a viewers prospective, if you have to switch off a movie then it's failed as a movie. I tried to watch Outside the Wire last weekend and me and the mrs had to switch it off at 45 minutes. That's bad.

micks_address

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I don't get the hate for Wonder Woman 1984.
Sure, it's no where as good as the first and really should have been much better. But you can watch it.

From a viewers prospective, if you have to switch off a movie then it's failed as a movie. I tried to watch Outside the Wire last weekend and me and the mrs had to switch it off at 45 minutes. That's bad.

I think I expected ww to save 2020. The first trailer was so perfect it couldn’t have lived up to expectations

silverharp

micks_address wrote: »

I think I expected ww to save 2020. The first trailer was so perfect it couldn’t have lived up to expectations

if they had used the trailer music Nolan style through the film it would have taken it up a notch

Muppet Man

Just paid sky on demand 17 euro to watch this. On principle alone I wouldn't turn it off, but it was quite poor. SFX were OK, and story a bit of a mess.

Glad i stayed for the last 10 seconds. A little cheesy, but a nice way to end the movie.

pixelburp

Like it or loath it, looks like ww84 was a success for HBO Max anyway; Nielsen got some figures showing that it accumulated 2.25 billion minutes viewer - equivalent to 16.9 million complete views. Obviously with all streaming platforms the detail would tell more, but WB aren't sharing that so we don't know how many people actually watched it all (for instance).

Mind you, in a market so starved of Hollywood blockbusters it would have been more surprising were it NOT a success.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/wonder-woman-1984-streaming-audience-hbo-max

mikhail

I have no sense of what that means. Multiply 16.9 Mviews by, e.g. $15* to get a $253.5M gross ticket income. Is that the entire take for the US market? It's ... pretty good? A couple of figures for benchmarks: Avengers Endgame made $858M in the US alone (nearly 1/3rd of its total). Tenet made $58M (around 1/6th).

*I haven't been to the cinema in the US in over a decade, so that may be way off.

silverharp

mikhail wrote: »

I have no sense of what that means. Multiply 16.9 Mviews by, e.g. $15* to get a $253.5M gross ticket income. Is that the entire take for the US market? It's ... pretty good? A couple of figures for benchmarks: Avengers Endgame made $858M in the US alone (nearly 1/3rd of its total). Tenet made $58M (around 1/6th).

*I haven't been to the cinema in the US in over a decade, so that may be way off.

Im guessing the breakeven point is lower, marketing budget would be slashed and the studios get a higher cut of the take with the cinemas cut out