Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

[The Joker]

Interesting growth. Are we attributing that to WW84?

The whole enchilada? Or are we going with WW1984 playing a factor with the increase?

I know I am only repeating myself, but let's go with the latter rather than the former.

I don't mind giving the film credit for the prospect of increasing subs for HBO Max in the final seven days in the month of Dec, even if I wasn't overly enthusiastic about the final product, but let's be modest with the attribution here. If not realistic.

[Dagenspear]

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."

Nothing in any of the movies showcases PTSD or losing anything more than Steve, really, I think.

That statement is wrong. And it shouldn't matter.

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.

I don't think this connects to what I said. This doesn't mean people in the fictional world of the movies would care that he died anymore than they care about anyone else.

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?

Isn't that more a taste or opinion based issue? Not a decider of who should go?

[thecolorsblend]

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."

Nothing in any of the movies showcases PTSD or losing anything more than Steve, really, I think.

That statement is wrong. And it shouldn't matter.

My comment wasn't restricted to the movie. Did you know there was a real war called World War I? And in that real war, many survivors came home with injuries and/or PTSD? It's crazy, I know, but that rly happened. The movie doesn't exist in a vacuum. Everything the movie shows us about World War I as well as everything the movie doesn't show us about World War I can be assumed to be part of Diana's larger awareness of and experience with the war. And it would've shaped her decisions in the future.

The rest of your post, I just can't even...

[The Laughing Fish]

Despite the incessant complaints about WW84 being a setback for the character and a downgrade compared to the first movie, I heard Patty Jenkins has confirmed her intention to return for the sequel.

RIP to the compassionate warrior we saw in BvS and ZSJL.

[The Joker]

If Patty, and Warners, can get their head out of settling for Disney MCU-lite safe mode, and move past the 'humorous' Silver Age approach that WW84 exhibited, then it's got a shot at being something more worthwhile like the 2017 origin movie than just simply alright/ok. Patty's not a director lacking in talent, so going back to the appeal that really brought back Wonder Woman to the dance for modern audiences (BvS, WW2017, and more recently ZSJL) would be the preferred and logical choice.

Audiences have decisively spoken. Just listen to them ...


In other news, Wondy's 80th anniversary is today. Here's Gal marking the occasion.

[The Laughing Fish]

Audiences have decisively spoken. Just listen to them ...

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I got the memo awhile ago that Warner doesn't give a sh*t about what the fans want. Hell, they don't even care about the welfare of their own directors and actors. These unfit people only care about protecting their pathetic fragile egos, which is why they must be fired.

Jenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

[The Joker]

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I got the memo awhile ago that Warner doesn't give a sh*t about what the fans want. Hell, they don't even care about the welfare of their own directors and actors. These unfit people only care about protecting their pathetic fragile egos, which is why they must be fired.

Well they are the masters of tone deafness after all ...

Jenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I mean, you'd think it would be common sense to get someone to tell Patty, "Hey, you know that first Wonder Woman movie that was well received by audiences, and made the studio a lot of money? Make another one of those, please."

But I know, I know. It's a absolute funny farm over at Warners.

[thecolorsblend]

Jenkins went on record expressing her distaste for Wonder Woman as a warrior, so I'm not very hopeful for the character to go back to her roots as long as she is directing.

Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I can somewhat buy into her viewpoint tho. Yes, Diana is a warrior. But she's also been equally an ambassador. A diplomat, you might even say. Considering that Wonder Woman as warrior was covered quite well in Snyder's movies, I can see the logic she might've had in wanting to show a different side to her character.

We can all see how that turned out, of course. I'm just saying that her rationale does add up.

In the final analysis, fans and critics need to start considering the likelihood that most of what made the first Wonder Woman movie great came from Snyder whereas most of what made the second Wonder Woman movie such a disappointment came from Jenkins.

Those are the facts.

[The Joker]

I am not exactly sure just how well Patty was versed with WW lore before coming on to direct the 2017 WW film, but it's no secret that Geoff Johns' name was all over the opening credit sequence with WW1984, and whom has never been shy about his love for Silver Age DC (and evidently thirsting to be the Warners/DC equivalent of Kevin Feige). Throw in the fact that Warners was very much openly and publicly yearning to move on from Sndyerverse continuity and tone, it's no wonder we got a film that was much more reflective of the Silver/Bronze Age than what was previously established.

I'm sure if Patty had any lingering doubts about veering too far away from the tonality set with the 2017, they were probably quickly and gently squashed in favor for more of a Disney Marvel formulaic approach. Thinking it will be even more successful since Wondy is already established and the origin movie is out of the way.

[The Laughing Fish]

Patty Jenkins' Star Wars movie, Rogue Squadron, has been put on hold due to creative issues. It's no coincidence to see the third WW sequel is being discussed in the media, with Lynda Carter returning.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13722802/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1

Ordinarily, in a even decently ran studio, Patty Jenkins most likely wouldn't have the carte blanche following WW1984, as she did following the success of the first 2017 film. Why would she? Every which way you could measure success with WW1984, as opposed to the 1st film, was of lesser value.

I mean, you'd think it would be common sense to get someone to tell Patty, "Hey, you know that first Wonder Woman movie that was well received by audiences, and made the studio a lot of money? Make another one of those, please."

But I know, I know. It's a absolute funny farm over at Warners.

The more distaste that Jenkins expresses for a violent, action-packed Wonder Woman, the more she's disassociating herself from the 2017 movie. I think it's utterly stupid of her to do that. Yes, I know Snyder and Heinberg were instrumental to that movie's success, but it still remains Jenkins' biggest recognition as a film director since Monster. Diana is compassionate and loving and all, but audiences don't want to see that badass side of her get thrown in the bin. It's those very same traits why WW2017 and ZSJL were popular among general audiences. In ZSJL, the scene wehre Diana comforts a young schoolgirl and encourages her to be whatever she wants to be growing up, right after saving all the hostages in explosive fashion, is an example why people enjoy her character. From what I've read of WW84, it is a setback when it comes to portraying Diana as a feminist icon, compared to her defiantly telling Steppenwolf she belongs to no one.

It's weird. When WW2017 came out, it was used to run a narrative against Snyder's vision, mostly because of Geoff Johns had a hand in doing uncredited rewrites for the third act. But the studio were in on it, make no mistake. Even Henry Cavill, as much as I enjoy him as Superman, was opportunistic in hailing WW2017 as a "step in the right direction", while implying Snyder's style for DC on film was a "mistake"...despite the fact WW2017 is looks more like a Snyder-directed film than either MOS or BvS, and does many things those films get criticised for.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171101200425/https://www.moviefone.com/2017/10/31/henry-cavill-wonder-woman-first-step-correcting-dceu-mistakes/

But now, if Jenkins gets her way, Wonder Woman as a franchise will continue to steer away from the very first movie that made it successful. At this stage, it sounds as if ZSJL will be the closest thing to a true WW sequel we will get. As baffling as it is, it's yet another example of gross incompetence and mismanagement affecting the studio to this very day.