|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 22:34:38 GMT 1
Out of those four? Iron Man 2 Without Question (yes I typed that with a Wakandan accent) No... All three of the supposedly weakest MCU entries on a 24-hour loop vs one more viewing of WW84. I'd take the loop easily, just give me a 10 pack of Visine.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jan 4, 2021 22:37:15 GMT 1
Out of those four? Iron Man 2 Without Question (yes I typed that with a Wakandan accent) No... All three of the supposedly weakest MCU entries on a 24-hour loop vs one more viewing of WW84. I'd take the loop easily, just give me a 10 pack of Visine. The chance of me falling asleep during that loop is zero.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 4, 2021 22:54:03 GMT 1
No... All three of the supposedly weakest MCU entries on a 24-hour loop vs one more viewing of WW84. I'd take the loop easily, just give me a 10 pack of Visine. The chance of me falling asleep during that loop is zero. Yah... Yesterday, I was about to go to war with some anonymous entity on Twitter over WW84 vs. Iron Man 2. Just as I was preparing a detailed plot point by plot point comparison, I had an epiphany. I realized I don't care about Wonder Woman --- at all. Instead, I decided to just watch Iron Man 2 again - far better use of my time. Tony and Rhodey in the "kill box" - so sweet.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 0:37:27 GMT 1
Out of those four? Iron Man 2 Without Question (yes I typed that with a Wakandan accent) No... All three of the supposedly weakest MCU entries on a 24-hour loop vs one more viewing of WW84. I'd take the loop easily, just give me a 10 pack of Visine. EASILY!!!! You summed it up by saying 84 comes off as “Talking down to you”. The more you about it, the more you realize how thoughtless it is, and who wants to be intellectually insulted for 2.5 hours on purpose?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 5, 2021 1:01:59 GMT 1
No... All three of the supposedly weakest MCU entries on a 24-hour loop vs one more viewing of WW84. I'd take the loop easily, just give me a 10 pack of Visine. EASILY!!!! You summed it up by saying 84 comes off as “Talking down to you”. The more you about it, the more you realize how thoughtless it is, and who wants to be intellectually insulted for 2.5 hours on purpose? And the fact that you could fast forward, rewind, and freeze frame on HBO Max just accelerated this film's inevitable downfall. For better or worse, fans and critics are hyper-scrutinizing everything. The body high jacking controversy has been a little overplayed, in my opinion, but it makes for a convenient wrapper for all of the overall negative sentiment regarding the film. The truth is, even without the manufactured controversy, it's not a very good film - IMHO. If you saw WW84 and loved it, or loved parts of it or whatever, I bear you absolutely no ill will. Other than general box office reporting, I am closing the book on this movie personally. I hope WB makes a giga-billion dollars on this and all their other future superhero films - it's all good for the genre. I have not come out of pocket for a DCEU film since Justice League, and that's not likely to change any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 1:21:25 GMT 1
My take on the body snatching is they likely meant for it to play a bigger role, and have a different resolution. It’s possible that’s what was cut after the no so great test screenings which would explain how it’s so prominent yet never comes up.
But by not referencing it at all, not having its characters aware of the bizarre nature of it, etc, then they have left open the entire array of interpretations and deserve them as long as they’re fair. And I do think everything up to sexually assaulting the body of an unconscious man is a fair read on what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 5, 2021 1:53:54 GMT 1
My take on the body snatching is they likely meant for it to play a bigger role, and have a different resolution. It’s possible that’s what was cut after the no so great test screenings which would explain how it’s so prominent yet never comes up. But by not referencing it at all, not having its characters aware of the bizarre nature of it, etc, then they have left open the entire array of interpretations and deserve them as long as they’re fair. And I do think everything up to sexually assaulting the body of an unconscious man is a fair read on what happened.And Patty Jenkins has to live with that for the rest of her career. I think that's plenty for her to deal with for the foreseeable future. Think of every future interview she has to sit through where the issue will inevitably be resurfaced by some intrepid young entertainment reporter trying to make a name for themselves. Call me a prude, but for me, the whole thing is embarrassing and somewhat cringey. It registers for me like nails on a chalkboard. The scenario, fully realized or not, is a bizarre window into what I consider to be a profoundly personal fantasy. It's like having a crush on someone you know and spending all of your free time imagining that person as a romantic slave in your ultra-detailed day-dream... right down to the name... Handsome Man... Patty and Gal, you weird, kinky girls... If you take away the fact that it's supposed to be Steve possessing the guy, the idea is not much more than a "love potion" scenario. It's poor form to showcase the fantasies that you have that deprive others of free will to any degree (unless that, in and of itself, is your point). You should certainly try to avoid it in a genre already known for catering to wild flights of fancy. I admit that my interpretation may not be well articulated, or it could be off altogether, but I feel that aspect of Wonder Woman 84... well, the less said about it, the better. And, to be sure, women are entitled to fantasies, but let's try the grown-up kind, not the Judy Blume variety. That stuff is better left in a diary or at the other end of the line when dialing 867-5309 ("I tried my imagination, but I was disturbed..."). Even if Handsome Man was meant to have a function and a voice in the story, it's still possible to put too many components into a burrito. You know that feeling when you should have stopped at the one last ingredient.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 2:02:01 GMT 1
Totally
And that’s more or less what I’m suspicious of. That the full arc of this did play out as some sort of fantasy, perhaps he was the negative consequence for her of the monkey’s paw, and it was overtly obvious just how cringey this was. That’s actually a realistic possibility. And if that’s the case it’s possible the power loss consequence was only added as a backup, which could in turn be why it’s not an especially prominent liability, and how the armor seems to show up rather i organically. It’s hard to say. But it does feel like a domino feel in here somewhere.
This movie, unfortunately, is actually more fascinating to try and figure out what happened to it. There’s a palpable sense of this isn't what they had in mind about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 2:12:46 GMT 1
Totally And that’s more or less what I’m suspicious of. That the full arc of this did play out as some sort of fantasy, perhaps he was the negative consequence for her of the monkey’s paw, and it was overtly obvious just how cringey this was. That’s actually a realistic possibility. And if that’s the case it’s possible the power loss consequence was only added as a backup, which could in turn be why it’s not an especially prominent liability, and how the armor seems to show up rather i organically. It’s hard to say. But it does feel like a domino feel in here somewhere. This movie, unfortunately, is actually more fascinating to try and figure out what happened to it. There’s a palpable sense of this isn't what they had in mind about it. Okay, I was the one who started the conversation on the random dude Steve inhabits but now it’s really time to move on. You guys are beating this thing into the ground. I mean seriously. LOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 5, 2021 2:34:42 GMT 1
Totally And that’s more or less what I’m suspicious of. That the full arc of this did play out as some sort of fantasy, perhaps he was the negative consequence for her of the monkey’s paw, and it was overtly obvious just how cringey this was. That’s actually a realistic possibility. And if that’s the case it’s possible the power loss consequence was only added as a backup, which could in turn be why it’s not an especially prominent liability, and how the armor seems to show up rather i organically. It’s hard to say. But it does feel like a domino feel in here somewhere. This movie, unfortunately, is actually more fascinating to try and figure out what happened to it. There’s a palpable sense of this isn't what they had in mind about it. The power loss back up only makes Diana seem vain, assuming I understand how the Monkey's Paw works (and I've done my level best not to understand it). Ugh... Here we go... When you make a wish, the dreamstone takes away something that you hold dear or believe is important to you. Is that correct? If so, Diana's most valued possession is her powers. That's quite vain in my estimation. If she is interested in a life with Steve, giving up her powers shouldn't be such a huge sacrifice. Unless, of course, she was convinced she was the only person who could fight crime or prevent humanity's fall or some such. In Superman 1978, which this film supposedly draws from, Kal-El is more than happy to give up his powers for Lois (until he gets the snot kicked out of him). But I guess modern "Gal's" gotta have it all. The whole "I am my powers" narrative isn't a good look. I thought Diana was her virtue. See, now you're making me think about this film, and the character... Why? So, are you saying that WW84 is more interesting in post mortem than as a living sample of the genre? If Black Widow turns out even 1% bad, you know you're going to get crucified, right? WW84 can be 99.5% bad and still make the grade with fans - that's a proven fact.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 3:04:24 GMT 1
That’s really hitting the crux of it actually. Her moral center would seem to be a bigger loss for her, and that conceivably could have hit it.
And I think films in general get more interesting when you study the process of making them. The creative process. The physical process. For some it’s all the little nuanced decisions that make it so good, and for others it’s more the postmortem “how did they wind up with that?” variety. It’s whatever the most interesting discussions are and yeah I’m pretty fascinated by this one.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 3:11:41 GMT 1
Totally And that’s more or less what I’m suspicious of. That the full arc of this did play out as some sort of fantasy, perhaps he was the negative consequence for her of the monkey’s paw, and it was overtly obvious just how cringey this was. That’s actually a realistic possibility. And if that’s the case it’s possible the power loss consequence was only added as a backup, which could in turn be why it’s not an especially prominent liability, and how the armor seems to show up rather i organically. It’s hard to say. But it does feel like a domino feel in here somewhere. This movie, unfortunately, is actually more fascinating to try and figure out what happened to it. There’s a palpable sense of this isn't what they had in mind about it. Okay, I was the one who started the conversation on the random dude Steve inhabits but now it’s really time to move on. You guys are beating this thing into the ground. I mean seriously. LOLOLOL Ack I’m sorry. No harm intended. I’m just legitimately fascinated by how they got there. It’s really one of the most curious things I’ve ever seen in the genre and I think there’s a bigger story behind it. Basically it was the bulk of my experience with the film so yeah it’s hard to talk about it without this in mind. And honestly this is a film I do feel pretty strongly about. It’s perplexing me lol. I truly honestly enjoy discussing what’s going on with it, and it’s not out of malice, but I do really enjoy it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 3:44:34 GMT 1
Okay, I was the one who started the conversation on the random dude Steve inhabits but now it’s really time to move on. You guys are beating this thing into the ground. I mean seriously. LOLOLOL Ack I’m sorry. No harm intended. I’m just legitimately fascinated by how they got there. It’s really one of the most curious things I’ve ever seen in the genre and I think there’s a bigger story behind it. Basically it was the bulk of my experience with the film so yeah it’s hard to talk about it without this in mind. And honestly this is a film I do feel pretty strongly about. It’s perplexing me lol. I truly honestly enjoy discussing what’s going on with it, and it’s not out of malice, but I do really enjoy it. Oh it’s all good, my friend. No big deal. I understand. As you know I was pretty perplexed by some of the choices the movie made as well. And I’ve been thinking about the movie a lot too, dissecting what failed and why. I too find it interesting. I just had to laugh that that one specific issue was still getting so much attention. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I also sense that some of the posters who liked the movie are beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable with all the focused negativity.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 4:19:21 GMT 1
Ack I’m sorry. No harm intended. I’m just legitimately fascinated by how they got there. It’s really one of the most curious things I’ve ever seen in the genre and I think there’s a bigger story behind it. Basically it was the bulk of my experience with the film so yeah it’s hard to talk about it without this in mind. And honestly this is a film I do feel pretty strongly about. It’s perplexing me lol. I truly honestly enjoy discussing what’s going on with it, and it’s not out of malice, but I do really enjoy it. Oh it’s all good, my friend. No big deal. I understand. As you know I was pretty perplexed by some of the choices the movie made as well. And I’ve been thinking about the movie a lot too, dissecting what failed and why. I too find it interesting. I just had to laugh that that one specific issue was still getting so much attention. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I also sense that some of the posters who liked the movie are beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable with all the focused negativity. Well then in honor of WW84, if everyone would renounce their TDW comments and accept the truth, we can indeed move on ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 4:26:18 GMT 1
Oh it’s all good, my friend. No big deal. I understand. As you know I was pretty perplexed by some of the choices the movie made as well. And I’ve been thinking about the movie a lot too, dissecting what failed and why. I too find it interesting. I just had to laugh that that one specific issue was still getting so much attention. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I also sense that some of the posters who liked the movie are beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable with all the focused negativity. Well then in honor of WW84, if everyone would renounce their TDW comments and accept the truth, we can indeed move on ;-) Whoa doggy!
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 5:32:42 GMT 1
Well then in honor of WW84, if everyone would renounce their TDW comments and accept the truth, we can indeed move on ;-) Whoa doggy! Heyyyy, I'm just saying, I have proudly championed the virtues of TDW for years upon years, and nobody has been worried about anybody feeling uncomfortable over negative assertions on that one. I love discussing the details of why I love that film, and if you love WW84 the way I love the TDW, don't feel uncomfortable. Bring that love, bring that detail. I would. I have. It’s important to explore what might have happened here. So I'd say for a film that's critically and fan rated lower than TDW, ehhh it's going to have to suffer a little TDW love for awhile. I don't think it's fair to ask anybody to put on a muzzle for it after a week so long as they're discussing the genuine merits of the film.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 5, 2021 6:13:30 GMT 1
This hasn’t come up much yet with so much else going on but
Did anybody else feel they slightly overdid the number of creepy dudes? Not that there can’t be any. Three or four in the right situations is absolutely cool. I loved the bum who got his ass kicked hard by both of them.
But then every guy at the party catcalls Diana? Really, like 3 different guys as she’s coming down the stairs at a swank party? And then the guy delivering files to Barbara? And then not just the bum Barbara destroys, but an unrelated guy in the same place immediately before she gets to the main bum.
There definitely a few that made me think that I got it already.
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 5, 2021 10:51:46 GMT 1
This hasn’t come up much yet with so much else going on but Did anybody else feel they slightly overdid the number of creepy dudes? Not that there can’t be any. Three or four in the right situations is absolutely cool. I loved the bum who got his ass kicked hard by both of them. But then every guy at the party catcalls Diana? Really, like 3 different guys as she’s coming down the stairs at a swank party? And then the guy delivering files to Barbara? And then not just the bum Barbara destroys, but an unrelated guy in the same place immediately before she gets to the main bum. There definitely a few that made me think that I got it already. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the feminist undertones. Not the original, helpful and fully supportable feminism but this neo-feminism which is just man hating. Every guy in this film was an 80s construction worker, and Diana was hung up on a guy she knew for a week 70 years ago because she lives in a caricature of men. Were we seeing how she sees every guy because of her walls? We saw Chris Pine instead of handsome man, so what level of the film was intended through her eyes rather than as the actual way things were playing out? That's what's weird about the Pine usage to me. Moral ambiguity aside, if we're shown the director will lie to our eyes for that, what aspects of the film do we trust as genuine compared to assuming there is some other twist going on to match her mood, and how are we supposed to keep up with the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 5, 2021 17:06:28 GMT 1
This hasn’t come up much yet with so much else going on but Did anybody else feel they slightly overdid the number of creepy dudes? Not that there can’t be any. Three or four in the right situations is absolutely cool. I loved the bum who got his ass kicked hard by both of them. But then every guy at the party catcalls Diana? Really, like 3 different guys as she’s coming down the stairs at a swank party? And then the guy delivering files to Barbara? And then not just the bum Barbara destroys, but an unrelated guy in the same place immediately before she gets to the main bum. There definitely a few that made me think that I got it already. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the feminist undertones. Not the original, helpful and fully supportable feminism but this neo-feminism which is just man hating. Every guy in this film was an 80s construction worker, and Diana was hung up on a guy she knew for a week 70 years ago because she lives in a caricature of men. Were we seeing how she sees every guy because of her walls? We saw Chris Pine instead of handsome man, so what level of the film was intended through her eyes rather than as the actual way things were playing out? That's what's weird about the Pine usage to me. Moral ambiguity aside, if we're shown the director will lie to our eyes for that, what aspects of the film do we trust as genuine compared to assuming there is some other twist going on to match her mood, and how are we supposed to keep up with the difference? I don't think any of that was intentionally hateful towards men. All those "creepy dudes" were put there to support the idea that Wonder Woman is so attractive no man can choose to ignore her. Why this property would be useful to an Amazon warrior is debatable. I see the "creepy dudes" as just another example of WW84's clumsy and superficial storytelling. To me, one of the film's more perplexing issues is the utter lack of utility of the golden armor. I'm in the middle of a speed run through the 80s-era source material, and not more than a handful of issues in; I see that this issue could have been addressed easily. Apparently, some iterations of the Cheetah character have magical properties that render their scratch or bite lethal - even to characters like Superman. The wound causes a loss of vitality, followed by rapid necrosis and painful death. Or, in some cases, usually with a bite, the victim is transformed into a werecat, which Cheetah can control. Had this characteristic been added to the film, Diana's need for the armor would have made more sense. Of course, had Cheetah's powers been the result of a curse and not a "wish," it would have made even more sense.
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 5, 2021 23:11:15 GMT 1
I've got it!!! Handsome guy wished to have intimate relations with Wonder Woman before Wonder Woman wished for Steve. The only guy she was sleeping with was Steve, so that's how the stone fielded it. No longer rape. We're done here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 23:42:15 GMT 1
I've got it!!! Handsome guy wished to have intimate relations with Wonder Woman before Wonder Woman wished for Steve. The only guy she was sleeping with was Steve, so that's how the stone fielded it. No longer rape. We're done here. That would’ve been pretty clever if it were written it. LOL. Later he realizes the curse part was that his penis was present but his consciousness wasn’t! Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 5, 2021 23:46:03 GMT 1
I've got it!!! Handsome guy wished to have intimate relations with Wonder Woman before Wonder Woman wished for Steve. The only guy she was sleeping with was Steve, so that's how the stone fielded it. No longer rape. We're done here. That would’ve been pretty clever if it were written it. LOL. Later he realizes the curse part was that his penis was present but his consciousness wasn’t! Brilliant! He was dressed up like that, because he thought any moment now he'd be landing Wonder Woman, which is how he so deftly ignored Gal.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 6, 2021 1:31:20 GMT 1
I've got it!!! Handsome guy wished to have intimate relations with Wonder Woman before Wonder Woman wished for Steve. The only guy she was sleeping with was Steve, so that's how the stone fielded it. No longer rape. We're done here. That would’ve been pretty clever if it were written it. LOL. Later he realizes the curse part was that his penis was present but his consciousness wasn’t! Brilliant! Id bet real money there was more going on with this guy that they cut and what you two are talking about might have been it. I’ll even bet the moral issue here was actually the intended cost of her wish and that’s what they abandoned after those test screenings didn’t go so well. That also adds up when you consider that the loss of her powers angle, really only appears in scenes that could easily have been a part of the reshoots or CGId in after, like when when she heals after saying goodbye to Steve. Or perhaps he was even meant at one point to be the god behind the stone, literally abusing Diana’s wish and Diana herself. Maybe Steve wasn’t even Steve in that case but that didn’t play well. If he was, it would tie in well to her trip to Egypt which doesn’t actually serve much function otherwise in terms of Diana needing to be there. It could also be where she got her armor as part of her research which would explain why that armor introduction scene seems so forced. If she’s getting it to fight a god, it makes a lot more sense and all of these pieces have actual weight within the narrative. It also meshes well with Ares having been alive as well. Thats probably not it, but regardless, I think they took out a significant portion of what that random guy was supposed to be, and it had a cascade effect within the film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2021 2:06:36 GMT 1
That would’ve been pretty clever if it were written it. LOL. Later he realizes the curse part was that his penis was present but his consciousness wasn’t! Brilliant! Id bet real money there was more going on with this guy that they cut and what you two are talking about might have been it. I’ll even bet the moral issue here was actually the intended cost of her wish and that’s what they abandoned after those test screenings didn’t go so well. That also adds up when you consider that the loss of her powers angle, really only appears in scenes that could easily have been a part of the reshoots or CGId in after, like when when she heals after saying goodbye to Steve. Or perhaps he was even meant at one point to be the god behind the stone, literally abusing Diana’s wish and Diana herself. Maybe Steve wasn’t even Steve in that case but that didn’t play well. If he was, it would tie in well to her trip to Egypt which doesn’t actually serve much function otherwise in terms of Diana needing to be there. It could also be where she got her armor as part of her research which would explain why that armor introduction scene seems so forced. If she’s getting it to fight a god, it makes a lot more sense and all of these pieces have actual weight within the narrative. It also meshes well with Ares having been alive as well. Thats probably not it, but regardless, I think they took out a significant portion of what that random guy was supposed to be, and it had a cascade effect within the film. It’s certainly possible. I was really kind of astonished how little the movie focused on Diana in Act One. I would not be surprised to learn that they cut a bunch of scenes.
|
|
|
Post by maximura on Jan 11, 2021 14:21:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jan 11, 2021 18:29:19 GMT 1
Robin Wright Connie Nielsen
For Best Supporting actress? They were in one scene.
I liked this movie but Academy Awards? No way. Oh well maybe if it wins a bunch of stuff it will be the final nail in the coffin of the joke that is the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 11, 2021 18:31:31 GMT 1
Robin Wright Connie Nielsen
For Best Supporting actress? They were in one scene.
I liked this movie but Academy Awards? No way. Oh well maybe if it wins a bunch of stuff it will be the final nail in the coffin of the joke that is the Oscars.
I think this is just standard operating procedure for the studios to mount Oscar campaigns for certain films. It's likely a ploy to generate more interest in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jan 11, 2021 18:43:31 GMT 1
It actually has a shot at being nominated. There werent that many movies coming out in 2020. Maybe its best if they cancelled the Oscars this year.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jan 11, 2021 18:51:05 GMT 1
It actually has a shot at being nominated. There werent that many movies coming out in 2020. Maybe its best if they cancelled the Oscars this year. THIS JUST IN DareDevil 2003 has retroactively asked for Oscar Consideration in all categories
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 11, 2021 18:57:05 GMT 1
It actually has a shot at being nominated. There werent that many movies coming out in 2020. Maybe its best if they cancelled the Oscars this year. Will it? Will it, really? The Academy is on thin ice with viewers as it is, to endorse a film that's been dogged by a "body horror" scandal seems unlikely.
|
|