|
Post by Grandmaster on Dec 31, 2020 21:10:10 GMT 1
Right, but arch had asked "why don't they hire comics people?" and there is your answer. The studio guys are playing it "safe" Which makes it kind of ironic, that their biggest successes, both critically and commercially, came when they let a writer-director follow his own vision, with zero studio input ( Nolan, Phillips ) To me the problem is different. DC/WB dont make a choice. You either go for a connected universe but that takes time or you make stand alone movies. WB/DC try to make a universe bit take the short route which makes their movies feel like stand alones which they are really not. And yes, TDK trilogy and Joker were their best movies.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 1, 2021 20:13:44 GMT 1
This is worth a watch if you’re interested in pondering what might have been going on behind the scenes of WW84.
Bob hits on a number of curious possibilities surrounding if and what more could be up with the bizarre nature surrounding Steve’s character and some other things. The inciting question is, the things that have wound up coming off as most problematic don’t even need to be there so what prompted them to be included? And don’t worry that it’s part 2, part 1 was just non spoilers.
This is one of those curious films where views are either hot or cold and more or less equally valid. On the surface WW84 can be perfectly enjoyable with little surprise highlights and yeah, no harm no foul. But then the more and more you think about it the more and more you wonder why any of its main plot points are even there.
And for truly good competent films, like The Godfather, or The Good The Bad & The Ugly, or The Lord of The Rings, or even something as seemingly innocent as Harry Potter, the level of detail and thought involved is so rich they get more and more interesting the more you think about them.
The result here though is that WW84 just gets more “huhhhh wha?”, and I do think some of the ideas he presents here are more interesting takeaways than anything present in the film. It’ll be curious to see to what extent any of these or something totally different are actually true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 21:18:16 GMT 1
This is worth a watch if you’re interested in pondering what might have been going on behind the scenes of WW84. Bob hits on a number of curious possibilities surrounding if and what more could be up with the bizarre nature surrounding Steve’s character and some other things. The inciting question is, the things that have wound up coming off as most problematic don’t even need to be there so what prompted them to be included? And don’t worry that it’s part 2, part 1 was just non spoilers. This is one of those curious films where views are either hot or cold and more or less equally valid. On the service WW84 can be perfectly enjoyable with little surprise highlights and yeah, no harm no foul. But then the more and more you think about it the more and more you wonder why any of its main plot points are even there. And for truly good competent films, like The Godfather, or The Good The Bad & The Ugly, or The Lord of The Rings, or even something as seemingly innocent as Harry Potter, the level of detail and thought involved is so rich they get more and more interesting the more you think about them. The result here though is that WW84 just gets more “huhhhh wha?”, and I do think some of the ideas he presents here are more interesting takeaways than anything present in the film. It’ll be curious to see to what extent any of these or something totally different are actually true. I think a solid rewrite of the script could’ve done wonders for this movie. It always irritates me when directors have the audacity to write the screenplay because they usually make such amateurish mistakes. So many really good ideas fall flat because they weren’t properly set up and executed.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jan 1, 2021 21:34:29 GMT 1
Might as well post our own review as well here.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 1, 2021 22:10:22 GMT 1
This is worth a watch if you’re interested in pondering what might have been going on behind the scenes of WW84. Bob hits on a number of curious possibilities surrounding if and what more could be up with the bizarre nature surrounding Steve’s character and some other things. The inciting question is, the things that have wound up coming off as most problematic don’t even need to be there so what prompted them to be included? And don’t worry that it’s part 2, part 1 was just non spoilers. This is one of those curious films where views are either hot or cold and more or less equally valid. On the service WW84 can be perfectly enjoyable with little surprise highlights and yeah, no harm no foul. But then the more and more you think about it the more and more you wonder why any of its main plot points are even there. And for truly good competent films, like The Godfather, or The Good The Bad & The Ugly, or The Lord of The Rings, or even something as seemingly innocent as Harry Potter, the level of detail and thought involved is so rich they get more and more interesting the more you think about them. The result here though is that WW84 just gets more “huhhhh wha?”, and I do think some of the ideas he presents here are more interesting takeaways than anything present in the film. It’ll be curious to see to what extent any of these or something totally different are actually true. I think a solid rewrite of the script could’ve done wonders for this movie. It always irritates me when directors have the audacity to write the screenplay because they usually make such amateurish mistakes. So many really good ideas fall flat because they weren’t properly set up and executed. Agreed And also I’m really curious about some of the ideas he brings up here. Like maybe the armor was actually originally intended as a segue to the introduction of a more active new Amazonian character which got cut and so they just did the Linda Carter wink at the camera cameo at the end. Or that the moral issue behind the guy Steve inhabits was meant to be explored and lead to a separate important character, but all that got cut cut around but not cut out, and it’s left feeling awkward and they hoped you didn’t notice. Or that maybe the Egypt side quest was meant to expand on one or both of those side points I’ll be really curious on this one to see somebody get to the how this actually came together part.
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 1, 2021 23:08:03 GMT 1
I think a solid rewrite of the script could’ve done wonders for this movie. It always irritates me when directors have the audacity to write the screenplay because they usually make such amateurish mistakes. So many really good ideas fall flat because they weren’t properly set up and executed. Agreed And also I’m really curious about some of the ideas he brings up here. Like maybe the armor was actually originally intended as a segue to the introduction of a more active new Amazonian character which got cut and so they just did the Linda Carter wink at the camera cameo at the end. Or that the moral issue behind the guy Steve inhabits was meant to be explored and lead to a separate important character, but all that got cut cut around but not cut out, and it’s left feeling awkward and they hoped you didn’t notice. Or that maybe the Egypt side quest was meant to expand on one or both of those side points I’ll be really curious on this one to see somebody get to the how this actually came together part. This is the problem with the director writing and editing. They know the story so well, that it all makes sense to them so they never notice the missed portions because they have such a complete, involved understanding that they don't need to ask questions. Another set of eyes can be far more helpful when that starts happening.
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 2, 2021 0:58:02 GMT 1
|
|
Loki
Trainee
Posts: 199
|
Post by Loki on Jan 3, 2021 3:07:50 GMT 1
I finally saw WW1984 last weekend. Loved seeing Gal Gadot again as I love her in that role, but as a whole it was a disappointment. Seemed too shallow, and paper thin. I hated Pedro Pascal's character, he was far too cartoonish. Cheetah was ok I guess. Felt nothing for her. The whole thing struck me as tired and uninspired except for a couple of cool lasso moments.
Wondering if it's just me annoyed that the Wonder Woman sequel felt like a glorified love story?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 3, 2021 3:40:53 GMT 1
I finally saw WW1984 last weekend. Loved seeing Gal Gadot again as I love her in that role, but as a whole it was a disappointment. Seemed too shallow, and paper thin. I hated Pedro Pascal's character, he was far too cartoonish. Cheetah was ok I guess. Felt nothing for her. The whole thing struck me as tired and uninspired except for a couple of cool lasso moments. Wondering if it's just me annoyed that the Wonder Woman sequel felt like a glorified love story? Heyyyy, good to hear your thoughts Loki Theater or streaming? And you’re more or less where the consensus is, btw. I’m of the belief after looking quite a bit into it, that your take of a shallow glorified love story might have a shared root cause of a plot line having been largely removed. Not at all confirmed, but there are quite a few things that don’t really go anywhere and might have been tied together at some point.
|
|
Loki
Trainee
Posts: 199
|
Post by Loki on Jan 3, 2021 4:04:06 GMT 1
Thank you! Yeah I am usually quite forgiving with superhero movies (and 80s slasher because I LOVE them), but I had some expectations because I felt (surprisingly) kind of emotional for the first one. It surprised me because I thought I would be too much a Lynda Carter Wonder Woman fan, having LOVED seeing that on Italian TV (dubbed of course). And while I was a bit skeptical fie6thw beginning of the first, I warmed up to it pretty fast and when she comes running out of those trenches, I was telling YAAAAAAAS! while shedding a year of FUCK YES! And then they gave me this. Wtf? My boyfriend downloaded it. It wasn't in our paid streaming devices and the casting app on my phone can be dodgy, so he just downloaded it. Must say I'm lucky to have a guy who loves the same movies as I do (or the other way around, he's blessed to have an 80s horror and superhero movie fan as a girlfriend.) 😂
|
|
Loki
Trainee
Posts: 199
|
Post by Loki on Jan 3, 2021 4:05:36 GMT 1
Sorry about the bum quoting. I'm using my phone so I can't quite edit replies properly so it's not quoted reply upon reply.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 3, 2021 23:28:26 GMT 1
So, I’m looking around the board trying to find our opinions to this while trying to avoid spoilers. I kinda want to see this in theaters, but nobody else wants to go with me, so I may end up reneging on my convictions (again) and watching it via HBO Max, which I get for free with my cable package. Anyone wanna give me a rundown of what they think—or point me to the right thread?
I had my qualms with the first Wonder Woman, but I loved Gadot’s performance (she’s got star quality written all over her) and thought Jenkins’ direction quite good. The weird thing here is that all the criticisms I’m reading of this one—clear directorial style (I’m bored of anonymous directing), “overindulgent,” “wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated”—are things I think I’d like.
So what say we—spoilerlessly?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jan 3, 2021 23:37:34 GMT 1
So what say we—spoilerlessly? Darth Ackbar™ on Dec 26, 2020 at 12:16am grading time: first 20 minutes = F middle part = A+ last 20 minutes = C overall grade = B
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 0:09:25 GMT 1
So, I’m looking around the board trying to find our opinions to this while trying to avoid spoilers. I kinda want to see this in theaters, but nobody else wants to go with me, so I may end up reneging on my convictions (again) and watching it via HBO Max, which I get for free with my cable package. Anyone wanna give me a rundown of what they think—or point me to the right thread? I had my qualms with the first Wonder Woman, but I loved Gadot’s performance (she’s got star quality written all over her) and thought Jenkins’ direction quite good. The weird thing here is that all the criticisms I’m reading of this one—clear directorial style (I’m bored of anonymous directing), “overindulgent,” “wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated”—are things I think I’d like. So what say we—spoilerlessly? 1. clear directorial style (I’m bored of anonymous directing) - Check, but be careful what you wish for...2. “overindulgent,” - Check 3. “wilder and brasher, - Check 4. more sprawling and complicated”— Check, but see comments on number 1 I gave it a 4.5 (out of 10). It's fun in places, but ultimately nonsensical and almost completely disposable.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 4, 2021 1:45:22 GMT 1
My main takeaway here is nearly nothing about it was thought through. A few major plot points make no sense or worse and the few “cool new additions” are all completely pointless to the narrative. If there’s one word for this film it’s “condescending”
I just can’t give it any real credit. They don’t deserve it for such a feeble writing effort.
ArArRated - seemingly smiley yet simply suicide squad style stupid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 2:03:30 GMT 1
So, I’m looking around the board trying to find our opinions to this while trying to avoid spoilers. I kinda want to see this in theaters, but nobody else wants to go with me, so I may end up reneging on my convictions (again) and watching it via HBO Max, which I get for free with my cable package. Anyone wanna give me a rundown of what they think—or point me to the right thread? I had my qualms with the first Wonder Woman, but I loved Gadot’s performance (she’s got star quality written all over her) and thought Jenkins’ direction quite good. The weird thing here is that all the criticisms I’m reading of this one—clear directorial style (I’m bored of anonymous directing), “overindulgent,” “wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated”—are things I think I’d like. So what say we—spoilerlessly? The Good: Fun campy villain in Pedro Pascal. Some decent action set pieces. A couple of iconic WW moments/shots. The Mediocre: Patty’s direction really lacks the quality of the first one. It no longer feels like an A List character’s movie but rather just another typical blockbuster. The directorial style was gone in my opinion. I wouldn’t have thought it was the same director if I didn’t know any better. The Bad: Some very amateurish screenwriting. Very shallow and practically nonexistent character development for Diana/WW.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 3:22:48 GMT 1
Thanks so much, everybody! I actually ended up watching it. And, er, I mostly agree with the Ackbars’ comments. Will say more in the spoilers thread. Thanks again, all.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 3:30:46 GMT 1
My main takeaway here is nearly nothing about it was thought through. A few major plot points make no sense or worse and the few “cool new additions” are all completely pointless to the narrative. If there’s one word for this film it’s “ condescending” I just can’t give it any real credit. They don’t deserve it for such a feeble writing effort. ArArRated - seemingly smiley yet simply suicide squad style stupid The film talks down to hardcore genre fans in the worse way possible. Even casuals should be mildly offended. The whole "wishes" premise feels like the screenwriter just cribbed the plot from a random fairy tale. "Hey, this Aesop guy might be on to something. He's so obscure, this is going to feel brand new."
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 3:55:50 GMT 1
So, yeah, I saw it. And, yeah, I thought it was pretty terrible. What’s weird is that I’d mostly agree with AQUA JAR!™ ’s schema here, except that for me the middle isn’t quite that good and the beginning and end are even worse. Heh, when was the last time the middle was the best part of the movie? Weirdest of all, my problems with it are exactly the opposite of the critics’ problems. Like @raimiackbar , I thought the direction felt indistinctive to the point of blandness—and tedium. One or two moments are nice, especially that scene with Steve and Diana walking the National Mall at night. That felt right, and like the first one. Otherwise, this felt like your run-of-the-mill generic blockbuster. I wanted “overindulgent” and “wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated”; I wanted in-your-face angles, bright colors, a crazy soundtrack; I wanted a director with a point of view and a way of showing it. I got Thor 2. The script is bad, no two ways about it. It jumps from scene to scene and tone to tone without any kind of coherence. Some of the main villain’s line readings were awful. It seems like they’re trying to make you feel sorry for the other villain, but she’s unlikable from the get-go. I mean, come on, quit your whining, lady! Jenkins et al. spend an eternity on exposition for the magic stone that never comes back or plays any role. The point of the McGuffin is that it has no point. This is Screenwriting 101 (I took it in college!), folks. Gadot and Pine are by far the best thing about the movie. I can’t really buy them as a romantic duo, but they do come off as real friends and have great comic chemistry. Gadot is far from the world’s best actress, but she has a real warmth and makes you want to root for her. Can someone put them in a screwball comedy? (Except that we don’t make screwball comedies anymore. Sigh.) Oh, and was this supposed to be a kids’ movie? From the hackneyed and shoehorned message to all the kids in it to the villain’s big surprise motive (HE WAS BULLIED IN SCHOOL! OH COME ON, WE’RE DOING THIS AGAIN?! I WAS BULLIED TOO! I’M NOT A MEGALOMANIAC TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD LAST I CHECKED!), it sure felt like one.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 3:58:34 GMT 1
My main takeaway here is nearly nothing about it was thought through. A few major plot points make no sense or worse and the few “cool new additions” are all completely pointless to the narrative. If there’s one word for this film it’s “ condescending” I just can’t give it any real credit. They don’t deserve it for such a feeble writing effort. ArArRated - seemingly smiley yet simply suicide squad style stupid The film talks down to hardcore genre fans in the worse way possible. Even casuals should be mildly offended. The whole "wishes" premise feels like the screenwriter just cribbed the plot from a random fairy tale. "Hey, this Aesop guy might be on to something. He's so obscure, this is going to feel brand new.” I don’t mention this in my rambling “review,” but the fairy-tale wish thing was pretty much the only part of the plot I liked. If the filmmakers had decided to go with a fairy-tale tone throughout, the film would have been much better, in my opinion. But, then, if the filmmakers had decided to go with any single tone throughout, the film would have been better.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jan 4, 2021 4:08:52 GMT 1
The film talks down to hardcore genre fans in the worse way possible. Even casuals should be mildly offended. The whole "wishes" premise feels like the screenwriter just cribbed the plot from a random fairy tale. "Hey, this Aesop guy might be on to something. He's so obscure, this is going to feel brand new.” I don’t mention this in my rambling “review,” but the fairy-tale wish thing was pretty much the only part of the plot I liked. If the filmmakers had decided to go with a fairy-tale tone throughout, the film would have been much better, in my opinion. But, then, if the filmmakers had decided to go with any single tone throughout, the film would have been better. I actually agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 4:21:38 GMT 1
The film talks down to hardcore genre fans in the worse way possible. Even casuals should be mildly offended. The whole "wishes" premise feels like the screenwriter just cribbed the plot from a random fairy tale. "Hey, this Aesop guy might be on to something. He's so obscure, this is going to feel brand new.” I don’t mention this in my rambling “review,” but the fairy-tale wish thing was pretty much the only part of the plot I liked. If the filmmakers had decided to go with a fairy-tale tone throughout, the film would have been much better, in my opinion. But, then, if the filmmakers had decided to go with any single tone throughout, the film would have been better. I can respect that, even if I can't quite agree. The wish-fulfillment concept felt lazy and overly simplistic to me. It was so heavily simplified as to collapse in on its own faulty logic with the most cursory bit of examination. It's the kind of plot that noncomic book readers think that serious pursuers of comic book literature spend all of their time reading. I wish the concept had been treated with a greater degree of sophistication or something new added to it. It felt like a step back for the genre - that should be backed by Ray Harryhausen style visual effects (no disrespect to Mr. Harryhausen, of course). The wishing stone (aka the Dreamstone) is an actual artifact from the comic books. It's a rather sophisticated device that allows one to alter reality selectively by creating pocket universes. Of course, I concede that idea is a bit high concept, but watching it get wholly disfigured in WW84 was somewhat distasteful. In any event, it takes all kinds, and I'm glad that you enjoyed it to the degree that you did. If not for some compelling visual effects, above-average music, and one or two action set pieces, WW84 would have been a complete loss for me.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 4:24:50 GMT 1
I don’t mention this in my rambling “review,” but the fairy-tale wish thing was pretty much the only part of the plot I liked. If the filmmakers had decided to go with a fairy-tale tone throughout, the film would have been much better, in my opinion. But, then, if the filmmakers had decided to go with any single tone throughout, the film would have been better. I can respect that, even if I can't quite agree. The wish-fulfillment concept felt lazy and overly simplistic to me. It was so heavily simplified as to collapse in on its own faulty logic with the most cursory bit of examination. It's the kind of plot that noncomic book readers think that serious pursuers of comic book literature spend all of their time reading. I wish the concept had been treated with a greater degree of sophistication or something new added to it. It felt like a step back for the genre - that should be backed by Ray Harryhausen style visual effects (no disrespect to Mr. Harryhausen, of course). The wishing stone (aka the Dreamstone) is an actual artifact from the comic books. It's a rather sophisticated device that allows one to alter reality selectively by creating pocket universes. Of course, I concede that idea is a bit high concept, but watching it get wholly disfigured in WW84 was somewhat distasteful. In any event, it takes all kinds, and I'm glad that you enjoyed it to the degree that you did. If not for some compelling visual effects, above-average music, and one or two action set pieces, WW84 would have been a complete loss for me.Alas, I didn’t much enjoy it at all except for the Gadot-Pine scenes in the middle that made me think they should star in a screwball comedy.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 4:38:54 GMT 1
So, yeah, I saw it. And, yeah, I thought it was pretty terrible. What’s weird is that I’d mostly agree with AQUA JAR!™ ’s schema here, except that for me the middle isn’t quite that good and the beginning and end are even worse. Heh, when was the last time the middle was the best part of the movie? Weirdest of all, my problems with it are exactly the opposite of the critics’ problems. Like @raimiackbar , I thought the direction felt indistinctive to the point of blandness—and tedium. One or two moments are nice, especially that scene with Steve and Diana walking the National Mall at night. That felt right, and like the first one. Otherwise, this felt like your run-of-the-mill generic blockbuster. I wanted “overindulgent” and “wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated”; I wanted in-your-face angles, bright colors, a crazy soundtrack; I wanted a director with a point of view and a way of showing it. I got Thor 2. The script is bad, no two ways about it. It jumps from scene to scene and tone to tone without any kind of coherence. Some of the main villain’s line readings were awful. It seems like they’re trying to make you feel sorry for the other villain, but she’s unlikable from the get-go. I mean, come on, quit your whining, lady! Jenkins et al. spend an eternity on exposition for the magic stone that never comes back or plays any role. The point of the McGuffin is that it has no point. This is Screenwriting 101 (I took it in college!), folks. Gadot and Pine are by far the best thing about the movie. I can’t really buy them as a romantic duo, but they do come off as real friends and have great comic chemistry. Gadot is far from the world’s best actress, but she has a real warmth and makes you want to root for her. Can someone put them in a screwball comedy? (Except that we don’t make screwball comedies anymore. Sigh.) Oh, and was this supposed to be a kids’ movie? From the hackneyed and shoehorned message to all the kids in it to the villain’s big surprise motive (HE WAS BULLIED IN SCHOOL! OH COME ON, WE’RE DOING THIS AGAIN?! I WAS BULLIED TOO! I’M NOT A MEGALOMANIAC TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD LAST I CHECKED!), it sure felt like one. Great review, and the above-quoted insight resonates with me, mostly. The movie lacked any sense of subtlety or sophistication in the delivery of its uber-simplistic morality play. Yes, indeed, lying, stealing, cheating, and avarice are all bad - next episode, we tackle pre-marital sex. It was ridiculous. And, I think we need to give the relatable/sympathetic villains a rest. Can we please get back to good old fashioned sadism and sociopathy?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 5:09:28 GMT 1
I think a solid rewrite of the script could’ve done wonders for this movie. It always irritates me when directors have the audacity to write the screenplay because they usually make such amateurish mistakes. So many really good ideas fall flat because they weren’t properly set up and executed. Agreed totally with the non-bolded part. As for the bolded part: Offhand, almost all the great writer-directors I know started off as writers. (Orson Welles may seem to be the major exception, but remember he was cowriting or adapting most of those Mercury Theatre plays and radio-plays.) Just think of Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, Blake Edwards, Woody Allen, ad infinitum, ad gloriam… Now, of course we had the non-writer directors who got to micromanage the writing process (Hitchcock, Lubitsch, Hawks, Ford, etc.). And of course you had the directors who usually didn’t have any say on writing but still managed to instill their films with their worldviews and styles anyway (Cukor, Hollywood-period Lang, von Sternberg, Borzage, Ray). But I can’t think of a single director who turned out to be an amazing writer who hadn’t already proven his chops before moving from the writer’s cubicle to the director’s chair. Which is all to say that I think you’re right on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 7:11:54 GMT 1
I think a solid rewrite of the script could’ve done wonders for this movie. It always irritates me when directors have the audacity to write the screenplay because they usually make such amateurish mistakes. So many really good ideas fall flat because they weren’t properly set up and executed. Agreed totally with the non-bolded part. As for the bolded part: Offhand, almost all the great writer-directors I know started off as writers. (Orson Welles may seem to be the major exception, but remember he was cowriting or adapting most of those Mercury Theatre plays and radio-plays.) Just think of Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, Blake Edwards, Woody Allen, ad infinitum, ad gloriam… Now, of course we had the non-writer directors who got to micromanage the writing process (Hitchcock, Lubitsch, Hawks, Ford, etc.). And of course you had the directors who usually didn’t have any say on writing but still managed to instill their films with their worldviews and styles anyway (Cukor, Hollywood-period Lang, von Sternberg, Borzage, Ray). But I can’t think of a single director who turned out to be an amazing writer who hadn’t already proven his chops before moving from the writer’s cubicle to the director’s chair. Which is all to say that I think you’re right on this. Yeah, the second part was certainly an overstatement on my part. There are definitely directors who are terrific writers as well. I just really got the sense here that Patty was one of those “how hard can it be” types that had the ego to think she could pull it off. I don’t know for sure, but based on this movie I highly doubt she has written anything before. So many rookie mistakes. The worst of which was that random Mayan guy who appeared out of nowhere for one scene to explain everything.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jan 4, 2021 16:03:12 GMT 1
It was bad m'kay.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jan 4, 2021 16:22:06 GMT 1
Yeah, the second part was certainly an overstatement on my part. There are definitely directors who are terrific writers as well. I just really got the sense here that Patty was one of those “how hard can it be” types that had the ego to think she could pull it off. I don’t know for sure, but based on this movie I highly doubt she has written anything before. So many rookie mistakes. The worst of which was that random Mayan guy who appeared out of nowhere for one scene to explain everything. Oh, I was trying to say I agree! Mea culpa for all the verbiage. What I meant to say is that, yes, plenty of writers ended up being great directors as well, but I can’t think of a single director who ended up being a great writer as well. Maybe I’m missing someone, but I can’t think of any director who’d never written a screenplay before, suddenly started writing, and did a great job. As for Jenkins, yes, absolutely. You’re right, the script’s full of rookie mistakes, including that Mayan guy. And that interminable, irrelevant opening sequence.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 22:09:35 GMT 1
It was bad m'kay. LOL! Wonder Woman 1984 or Thor 2, Iron Man 2 and Ant-Man and The Wasp on repeat for 24 hours? Choose wisely. Hee hee hee...
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jan 4, 2021 22:10:53 GMT 1
It was bad m'kay. LOL! Wonder Woman 1984 or Thor 2, Iron Man 2 and Ant-Man and The Wasp on repeat for 24 hours? Choose wisely. Hee hee hee... Out of those four? Iron Man 2 Without Question (yes I typed that with a Wakandan accent)
|
|