Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

[Dagenspear]

Anyone who expected such consequences in a DC film that was tailored to meet mass audience appeal is kidding themselves. After the overblown backlash people raged for MOS and BvS, and how WB butchered JL in an attempt to satisfy current popular tastes, there was no way WB would dare show kids in danger in a Wonder Woman film that was made to be "fun".

Weren't kids shown to be have danger towards them in Justice League? And doesn't WW84 show a nuclear strike about hit with a kid standing in the middle of it?

But then again, who really knows what mainstream audiences want? They bitched about Batman and Superman killing villains, but never made a single peep when Diana did the same in her first solo outing. We heard of media narratives that the DCEU needs to brighten up to "catch up to the MCU", but WW84 doesn't appear to satisfy that many people, nor did Josstice League before. And the films that did well critically didn't do that great at the box office.

Why can't some have different tastes for different characters, in different contexts, that they may think are developed differently?

There's a desire to fill in the timeline, and usually I would be supportive of that. But not here. The original intention of WonderGal was this:

"A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind; from a century of horrors."

That statement is cut and dried, but it was deviated from because it's not 'heroic'. I am not interested in pure heroism. I am interested in the struggle people endure while they're on the path of the hero. The whole point of BvS and ZSJL is that Superman woke them all up with his sacrifice. Whether or not they wanted to emerge, the situation demanded it. Superman was not the first hero (that was Diana), but he was the most important. BvS is the true starting point for the DCEU. It's the modern day. It's the grand reveal of not just Wonder Woman, but all the other superpowered beings that followed her.

WW84 may have some decent aspects to it, but the basis for the movie is counterproductive in the context of an established shared universe. The BvS comment of walking away from mankind should have been left alone. What is 100 years for someone who barely ages? If the lack of heroism aspect was too much to swallow, they could've had Diana return to Themyscira during that time.

Why does struggling in the path of a hero have to mean giving up for a hundred years? It may not be a lot for her, but it can be for others. Why should I care about a character who doesn't care about humanity, because her boyfriend died and she doesn't like that humans do bad things, as if she has the right to judge us?

I think Superman waking them up with his sacrifice is dumb and nonsense. People die in acts of protection of others all the time. What's the difference between Superman doing it and anyone else doing it? Superman's not more important or special than other normal humans. Also, Diana jumped back into the fight, before Superman "died" in that movie. So, I don't think his sacrifice is a big wake up for her, if she's willing to help before that.

Maybe they could've, but none of the movies, Snyder's included, has had that written in them, as far as I think was presented on screen, so far.

If that is the mentality of Jenkins, I'd rather she be cut loose. Snyder has the right approach to the characters in the modern context, as Matt Reeves seem to.

Who says she should be cut loose and who decides who has the right approach?

[The Joker]

This is well done, to say the very least!

[thecolorsblend]

Posts like this one sometimes make me wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose. Nevertheless, I'll presume good faith intentions for now.

Why does struggling in the path of a hero have to mean giving up for a hundred years? It may not be a lot for her, but it can be for others. Why should I care about a character who doesn't care about humanity, because her boyfriend died and she doesn't like that humans do bad things, as if she has the right to judge us?

That's the point. It isn't a lot for her. But Diana lost more than just a boyfriend in World War I. A lot of people did. Even many of the survivors came home from the war with injuries, PTSD and so forth. Diana's experiences were intense enough to cause her to give up for quite a while. She came back to fight Doomsday because she was needed.

She stuck around because, as TDK says, "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild. We can do better."

I think Superman waking them up with his sacrifice is dumb and nonsense. People die in acts of protection of others all the time. What's the difference between Superman doing it and anyone else doing it?

People lose their souls all the time; what's the difference between Michael Corleone doing it and anyone else doing it? People reluctantly put their personal feelings aside to do the right thing all the time; what's the difference between Rick Blaine doing it and anyone else doing it? People marry their childhood sweethearts all the time; what's the difference between Forrest Gump doing it and anyone else doing it? People survive attempted murder all the time; what's the difference between Laurie Strode doing it and anyone else doing it? People go on revenge-fueled killing sprees all the time; what's the difference between Paul Kersey doing it and anyone else doing it?

The difference in each case is its those characters' stories. Their victories, failures, strengths and weaknesses are what define their character arcs and their stories. This is all about as basic as it can possibly get. Your seeming inability to grasp this simple concept of a main character having a story to play out his character arc just makes people wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose.

Who says she should be cut loose and who decides who has the right approach?

Fish, for one. One director's work appeals to him while another director's work seems to be losing his appeal to him. You do understand the idea of expressing a preference for one thing over another, yes?

[The Laughing Fish]

There's no point in trying to satisfy naysayers and mainstream bloggers.

It's like chasing a crowd, who simply isn't there. Comics has been doing this for years and years, and it hasn't worked out well for them at all.

Agreed. There is no better example of trying to appease a crowd that doesn't exist than this tweet below, from a critic who is delighted that WW84 is now labelled "Rotten".

https://www.twitter.com/rkylesmith/status/1353010976937943044

Movie studios have got to stop trying to appease these types of people. All it does is give them this grandiose sense of influence. WB may hate to admit it, but they'd be doing themselves a huge disservice if they don't embrace the fans' demand for ZSJL. Critics be damned, they've already written their negative reviews for it, but they're not the target audience who are willing to pay for this material.

The sooner that WB puts their egos aside and get on board with AT&T's enthusiasm for ZSJL and any possible continuation for the Snyderverse, the better off they will be.

[thecolorsblend]

Movie studios have got to stop trying to appease these types of people. All it does is give them this grandiose sense of influence. WB may hate to admit it, but they'd be doing themselves a huge disservice if they don't embrace the fans' demand for ZSJL. Critics be damned, they've already written their negative reviews for it, but they're not the target audience who are willing to pay for this material.

The sooner that WB puts their egos aside and get on board with AT&T's enthusiasm for ZSJL and any possible continuation for the Snyderverse, the better off they will be.

In the case of JL, the critics were key foot soldiers in executing WB's collective will. Snyder was the victim of Hollywood politics. WB came to dislike Snyder and his vision and they found willing allies among critics.

When it comes to Snyder, WB would not only have to be willing to ignore the critics (which AT&T would probably force them to do anyway) but they'd also have to publicly (even if implicitly) acknowledge that they were wrong to oppose and undermine Snyder (which AT&T is already forcing them to do because the Snyder cut is coming).

The point remains. Most film studio execs and movie critics are fellow travelers in terms of ideology and policy preferences, if you know what I mean. The studios know damn good and well what they have to do to win back their audience. But WB is the only doing something about it... and that, only because AT&T is forcing them to. Otherwise, rest assured, WB would be only too happy to allow ZSJL to stay buried forever.

Don't believe the hype. Hollywood politics is what drives the American film industry. Profit probably isn't even in the top five most important things in Hollywood.

[The Dark Knight]

The potential of another entity throwing their weight around is exciting, but I'd like to know how much influence AT&T are really going to have. If they want something strongly enough will they get it? How hard do they need to push, and is their want going to be substantial?

The real proof will be what happens after the Snyder cut. Word went around from WB that it's a dead end after the release period. But if the film is a big success and other merchandise sells, what are AT&T going to do? Just accept what WB says?

I've seen rumblings about Cavill possibly appearing in the Flashpoint movie, and perhaps other cameo appearances down the line. I'd take those crumbs over Cavill getting nothing at all, but I'm wondering - is that all AT&T could muster? 

I guess at the end of the day, a lot hinges of the popularity of the Snyder cut. If it's a successful venture, those questions I posed become a lot more relevant, and can be properly answered because AT&T would have data on their side if they want to push for more. In the shorter term it could lead to the Ayer cut.

[thecolorsblend]

I have to wonder that there are budgetary considerations to be made. At this moment, the #1 grossing in America this past weekend is The Marksman... which grossed a whoppin' $2,028,944.

If I've got my history right, these are 1970's numbers. Puny. Far too puny to justify massive nine figure production budgets.

Since billion dollar worldwide takes may very well be a thing of the past, studios have to take a hard look at what they can afford to produce. For openers, that means films with less CGI to confuse the eye and confound the understanding.

I'm on the record for predicting the demise of the comic book cinema trend from even before the coof came along. But now that we're nearly a full year into this thing, it's time to start asking what the future actually looks like. Comic book movies are expensive and, in today's market, the gold standard of risky. It's only good business rn to begin offering alternatives.

It may be that ZSJL is the swan song for many things besides just the Snyderverse.

[The Dark Knight]

I didn't see this. The Cultured Nerd keep banging the Batfleck HBO Max drum.

https://theculturednerd.org/2021/01/updates-on-batfleck-series-ayercut-and-status-of-green-lantern-in-zack-snyders-justice-league/

They claim:

A Batfleck series will consist of eight episodes.
It will feature Joker, show Robin's death, Bruce's divorce and Wayne Manor's decay.
There's a backstory for Deathstroke and his deal with Lex is explored, with Jesse coming back.
They are scouting locations and looking for a Robin actor.
Shooting would commence after Flashpoint.

The Cultured Nerd also say the Ayer cut will be announced if ZSJL is a hit.

Big funkin' claims to make.

Having a self contained Batfleck series set before BvS and after ZSJL would allow Flashpoint's ending for Batfleck to be an ending, or at least not interfere or contradict anything. Who knows what the future holds. We live in hope, and again...let's make ZSJL a monster success. Screw the pre-written reviews: money talks.

[The Joker]

Apparently, from what has been disclosed, HBO and HBO Max, combined, had 38.0 million U.S. subscribers at the end of September, and increased that number to 41.5 million U.S. subscribers by the end of 2020.

Pretty solid numbers. As a company, and for investors, that's a nice increase in a relative short amount of time. To which, no doubt about it, the controversial decision to release a high profile movie like WW1984 both digitally and in theaters on the same day, played a factor in.

Money talks and you know the rest.

Which, as a strategy, is only going to continue on in their film slate in 2021. With Godzilla vs. Kong getting bumped up from a May release, to March. We'll see what happens with Mr. Batfleck, but as a company like AT&T, their primary long term goal is for obtaining viral attention/interest for their projects from the masses, and securing subscribers to their HBO Max platform. In all honesty, I can't imagine a Batfleck series/movie not delivering for them on both fronts. Money talks ....

Seeing the increase in subs for HBO Max from Sept 2020 to the end of the year was pretty interesting. Seeing the numbers after March following the double whammy of ZSJL, and GvK should be even more interesting.

[thecolorsblend]

Apparently, from what has been disclosed, HBO and HBO Max, combined, had 38.0 million U.S. subscribers at the end of September, and increased that number to 41.5 million U.S. subscribers by the end of 2020.

Interesting growth. Are we attributing that to WW84?