Wonder Woman 1984 (SPOILERS!)

Discussion in 'Media Central' started by Zor Prime, Dec 26, 2020.

  1. Zor Prime

    Zor Prime .

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,518
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    Anyone else watch this yet?

    SPOILER-ISH REVIEW:




    I opted to go to the theater, I really did want to see it on the big screen. Social distancing was in place and its Christmas so not many people in the auditorium.

    This is a very different movie from the first one but overall I liked it. As the movie title suggests, this not only takes place in the 80s but very much feels like an 80s movie. Could very much be a Chris Reeve Superman film but with a better budget.

    Main villains were Maxwell Lord and Cheetah. Honestly both were better done in this movie than I’ve ever seen in other media (comics, animated stuff). Wonder Woman, if we are being honest, has a very weak Rogues Gallery compared to Batman and Superman but they make it work here.

    Pedro Pascal is killing it this year. They did a very interesting thing with Diana’s final showdown with Lord. You may or may not remember the early 2000s comic storyline where Diana is forced to kill Maxwell Lord in order to break his mental hold on Superman.

    She does have the option of killing him in this movie but instead appeals to his better nature. It shows Diana as both warrior and peacemaker and thematically connects with the first film and her dual role.

    Nice to see Chris Pine as Steve Trevor again and the rekindled romance was sweet. There were some things that didn’t quite add up and left me scratching my head but they are minor quibbles in my opinion. As I said, think of it as a Christopher Reeve Superman film.

    Kristen Wiig does ok with the role. Nothing special but considering she’s mostly known for comedy it wasn’t bad.

    Overall I liked it. Not as good as the first one, but still better than most other DC live action films from the modern ‘continuity’. Parentheses because it doesn’t really connect to other DC films at all other than the original Wonder Woman. And that’s perfectly fine with me. They work better as their own thing. A third and final one set in the modern era would be welcome but only if they can keep it free from the other DC films. They could even ignore/contradict BvS and Justice League and I’d be fine with that.

    Oh and Linda Carter does show up for a quick cameo. Was hoping for more but good to see her.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +5,147
    I had been looking forward to this because the original WW was pretty good. But this one was a big disappointment on a lot of levels. I think because of the gap between the potential and the actual, I think this is probably my least favorite DCEU film other than Batman v. Superman.

    Things I liked:
    1. The opening sequence of Li'l Diana was cool to watch.
    2. It was good to see Gal and Chris together for some reunited chemistry. Honestly, I think I would have liked the movie better if it had been 80 percent a Diana/Steve rom com set in the 80s and only a 20 percent traditional superhero movie.
    3. That Diana won by making an appeal to the hearts and minds of people rather than just punching stuff.
    4. People's performances were generally good, given the script.

    Things I didn't like:

    1. There was not enough backstory for my tastte. We don't really learn anything about what Diana has been doing in the 60 or so years since the events of the first movie, how she ended up at the Smithsonian, why she has become so attached to Steve (who, let's face it, she knew only for like a week or two).

    2. The movie doesn't really make much of the fact that it is set in 1984. Unlike, say, Stranger Things or The Americans, TPTB don't really seem to work in many of the details from the 80s in terms of soundtrack, pop culture, historical events, etc. (Yes, the 80s get labeled the "greed is good" decade but really, that is true of most decades that there are slimeballs with that philosophy everywhen.) The main thing that is 80s is a sequence where Steve tries on various 80s fashions. There is a president who could be Reagan if you squint just right, but he could also just be a generic dude who doesn't like the Soviet Union. Other than the specific 80s fashion montage, there's not really any reason that it couldn't have just as easily been set really any time from 1950 to the present.

    3. Generally non-team comic movies do not do well with more than one main antagoinst. (See Spider-Man 3, Batman Returns-Batman & Robin). WW84 also falls into that category. A movie that was about WW as the defender of Truth having to fight a super-powered spreader of lies or a movhas ie about WW fighting a friend who grew corrupted and twisted out of envy of her would probably work better than a movie about both those things.

    4. The movie provokes a lot of questions that for an answer you just have to accept "Well, he/she/it just does, OK?" as the answer. Like, how is it possible that WW has put and kept Steve in such a treasured place in her mind? How can Baby Diana keep up with, let alone outpace, fully grown Amazon athletes given the difference in size means a huge stride disadvantage? How does Maxwell Lord come to know about the Dreamstone in the first place, since, as far as we know, he is just a TV conman selling shares in fake oil with no background in archaeology, anthropology, comparative religion, magic, etc.? How does he track theDreamstone to the Smithsonian? Why do the cops let Barbara analyze the stolen artifacts at the Smithsonian rather than keeping the items under their control? Why does Barbara let Max steal the Dreamstone? Why does Max wish to become a human version of the Dreamstone, as opposed to the old "infinite wishes" or something more prpfitable? How come Steve comes back as seemingly someone else rather than just as Steve?

    5. I don't think the movie should have woobified the antagonists. I don't really want a Max Lord who is doing evil for...reasons but starts off as kind of inept and is just misguided divorced dad. I want the genius who has mind abilities and isn't afraid to be ruthless in using them. I don't want Barbara to be an adorkable goof who starts off as a friendless noob. I want one who starts off wanting to be an apex predator from the get go and does the best she can at that. At the heart of things, Max was willing to have people suffer and die (if that was what was wished for) and to profit off of making Faustian bargains with them. And Barbara was willing to let the world go to hell if it meant she could keep her superpowers and her admirers. That's kind of messed up and I think the movie tries to gloss over the evil in both those positions.

    6. Diana's deepest desire is to have Steve back. Not world peace. Not to save lives. Not to bring back her aunt and the countless Amazonian warriors who fell in the first movie, or to undo the enslavement of the Amazons or the chance to meet the gods she has worshipped, or any of a number of other things. Fine. I get that especially since she was mostly idly thinking of things without realizing that the Dreamstone actually could make good on the wish. But for me, the resolution of that part of the plot isn't well done. Part of defeating Max involves renouncing her very heart's desire. We've seen this plot line done before in "For the Man Who Has Everything." and a twist on that for Supergirl. Basically, an evil alien gives Superman/Supergirl a parasitic flower called the Black Mercy that feeds you a simulation of your deepest desire while it drains your life force. To escape, Superman/Supergirl had to reject having gotten to enjoy an idyllic life on Krpton and as a result of having to give up their deepest desire sprung forth hella pissed. Now I get WW isn't Superman/Supergirl, and the circumstances of giving up her heart's desire are different than in that story. But still, there should be some greater emotional reaction that didn't seem to fully manifest itself in the movie, whether it was gratitude for being able to get a few more days with Steve, to regret that she wasn't able to do more in that time, to anger about how unfair it was that she was put in that position, to empathy with asking people to give up their various desires, to whatever else. But after leaving Steve, I don't recall Diana showing any more emotion than someone who got her restaurant order screwed up.

    7. The movie leaves WW in a sort of awkward place where it's tough to bridge the about 40 years between it and when WW surfaces in BvS. Diana appears in WW in full costume to foil the mall heist and at other points. Diana has already adopted her civilian identity of "Diana Prince, curator at the Smithsonian." Four decades later, the general public seemingly has no idea about WW, and Diana Prince is curating for the Smithsonian (still?). Either that or she is posing as the daughter or something of the original Diana Prince.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2020
  3. Zor Prime

    Zor Prime .

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,518
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    I agree on the soundtrack. I was expecting a couple 80s tunes sprinkled throughout the film but maybe it would have felt too much like Guardians Of The Galaxy?

    I also would have liked more backstory on what Diana has been up over the last 60 years. I didn’t mind that Diana’s wish was to have Steve back. She is a hero but she also has her flaws and vulnerabilities and temptations. I think she had to start off from a place of loneliness and selfishness in order to grow during the film. It wasn’t just her preaching to the villains but also asking them to make a sacrifice like she did.

    I agree there were a lot of things that just didn’t make sense at all in the film. The bit where she turns the plane invisible kind of felt like lazy writing. Where did that power come from? I know the history of the invisible plane but they could have just made it a joke and not actually turned the plane invisible. Again it reminded me of the early Superman films where he has all sorts of new and unexplained powers. Very Silver Age.

    And yes the mechanics of the Dreamstone where not properly explained. A little more exposition was needed I think. I didn’t really understand what was going on till the end.
    I’m glad that Lord wasn’t purely evil and had a little more complexity to him. If he was just unrelentingly evil than Diana would have had to kill him just as Superman killed Zod in Man Of Steel. I’m glad they didn’t go that route again.

    I forgot to mention that Gal Gadot is insanely gorgeous. I couldn’t stop staring at her. She definitely IS Wonder Woman the same way Hugh Jackman is Wolverine and Patrick Stewart is Xavier. She perfectly fits the role in every way. She even looked more muscular/toned in this movie.
  4. Zor Prime

    Zor Prime .

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,518
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    As far as point 7 I am actually glad they disregarded BvS and just told their own story. I’m not a fan of the Snyderverse films or Suicide Squad films... although I’m curious to see how different his Justice League is compared to Whedon’s.

    I still think the best DC stuff is the animated stuff (Harley Quinn, Young Justice, Timmverse, the recent animated films).

    If I have to rank the post Nolan DC live action films:

    1. Wonder Woman (excellent other than the awful Ares battle at the end)

    2. Aquaman (mostly a CGI fest but executed well and a fun popcorn movie, shut your brain off and enjoy)

    3. Shazam (also felt like an 80s movie, nice little story but not much to say about it, basically a Tom Hanks film)

    4. WW84 (problematic but overall I liked the positive theme)

    5. Man Of Steel/BvS (a different take on Superman but I didn’t care for them)

    6. Harley Quinn (Robbie is good but this doesn’t compare at all to the animated Harley show)

    7. Justice League/Suicide Squad (these movies are just a complete mess, again so many better animated JL and SS movies)
  5. We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse

    We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse Probably a Dual

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    16,350
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +23,418
    The first Wonder Woman was genuinely entertaining and broke the curse of crappy DC movies.

    I really wanted to like WW84. In many ways, it's the perfect film for 2020: I started out filled with hope but quickly had my expectations dashed and, by the end, realized I had sat through a complete fucking dumpster fire.

    The problems with this film are far too numerous for me to list here. But I think the scene where Wonder Woman "learns" to fly perfectly encapsulates the shit show that this movie is. They couldn't even come up with their own score and had to rip the Adagio from another movie (Sunshine). You'll recognize the music because it's basically been repurposed for every movie trailer to let you know SOMETHING IMPORTANT IS HAPPENING. In other words, not an original thought to be had.

    So disappointed.

    Although it was nice to see Linda Carter. That's something.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2020
  6. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    87,569
    Ratings:
    +58,556
  7. Nova

    Nova livin on the edge of the ledge Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,996
    Ratings:
    +29,050
    That was....just...DAMN (and not in a good way!)

    A movie set in '84 with ZERO 84 music even in a mall is simply unacceptable but that aside....this looks like they shot the first draft of the script.
    I mean the basic story concept is okay, even compelling at points, but I don't have sufficient adjectives to describe what an atrociously bad script this was. But bad in ways that a few revisions and polishings could have largely cleared up. Geoff Johns has a screenplay credit along with Jenkins and some other dude - and I'm blaming it all on the other dude because I don't want to believe Johns wrote this.

    Then again, he and Jenkins let this make it to the screen so...
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey official beverage of antifa

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,666
    Ratings:
    +20,725
    yeah... was let down with using the intro to "welcome to the pleasure dome" at the gala... the redcarpet walk preceding it practically demanded ZZ Top's "Legs".


    Villain motives were cheesy. Human, but cheesy. Guessing there's a message in there about sad people doing desperate things, but the humanity is as shallow as the villainy.

    Fan service of the invisible jet and her learning to fly without it added nothing... swinging by her lasso via passing jetliner made more sense than the "just forget you're falling" bullshit.

    It's the goddamned summer of '84 and not a word about the Olympics?

    Some of the green screen action seemed a little 2005. Kind of jarring for a movie of this scale.



    Other than Max, there's a guy on the street Diana interacted with briefly that looked kind of like a young DJT

    the drunk creep-why was he dressed like Willoughby Kipling and John Constantine?

    It ain't great, but it's a nice change from the usual DCU downers.
    agree with Zor that there was very much a Chris Reeve era optimistic vibe that for all the flaws still left me contented for having watched it.
  9. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    24,975
    Ratings:
    +30,543
    I waited two and a half hours for a neck snapping, and everyone's neck was fine in the end. :(

    Why even make the guy Max Lord? Just misdirection? It felt like the "slap a recognizable name on this unrelated character so people will like it" thing they do in Transformers movies.
  10. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +5,147
    The original incarnation of Max Lord in the JL/JLI was not too far from this character -- a sleazy 80s businessman and publicity hound con artisty type.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,098
    Ratings:
    +31,344
    This was OK, not nearly as good as the first one. Pedro Pascal was great, if a bit hammy. Kirsten Wiig was underused. It didn't feel like it was set in the 80s. Felt more like they were all at an 80s costume party.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse

    We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse Probably a Dual

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    16,350
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +23,418
    The many anachronisms are often jarring, if you're paying attention. There was absolutely no reason to set this film in 1984.

    And therein lies the very first of the plethora of problems with this train wreck of a shithole film.

    Wait, that's not fair to trains or shit. :diacanu:
  13. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,098
    Ratings:
    +31,344
    Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. If someone is going to set a movie in a certain time period, you'd expect that to be relevant to the plot, characters, setting, and/or dialogue. I guess they were trying to get at people being addicted to TV and Pedro Pascal being a televangelist/motivational speaker type, but those themes are just as relevant in 2020 as they were in 1984. Even the threat of all out nuclear warfare would be just as relevant today. The main impact the time period had was the characters' inability to pick up a cell phone and call each other (even though Diana was able to just pick up a payphone in the middle of the desert and call Barbara).
  14. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    24,975
    Ratings:
    +30,543
    Eh, I don't care that the movie wasn't drenched in 80s nostalgia, or filled with 80s music. I'm not watching it to experience the 80s, I'm watching it for Wonder Woman. The film had to be set during a time when it wouldn't bump up against the rest of the DC Murderverse. I didn't watch Dark Knight just to see the music and fashion of 2008. :shrug:

    Stuff I would have liked:

    -Reference the JSA, even just in the background. Show us that Diana did more than work in a museum and pine (heh) for Steve over the last several decades.

    -Show the villains redeemed at the end. Show us Diana and Minerva having lunch again. Show Max putting his efforts into helping people, maybe even running an organization called the JLI.
  15. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +5,147
    Yeah, but the Dark Knight was set in basically the year that it was filmed. When a filmmaker consciously says "I'm setting this film in another time than now" it raises the question of why and whether that was a good choice.

    Like Joker could/would have been essentially the same movie essentially set in 2019. But part of why it was done in 1981 was to distance it from the DC Extended Universe, and part of it was the filmmaker's choice to evoke movies like King of Comedy that came from that time period. I don't care that there wasn't a single 80s song in Joker (as far as I know) because it makes sense that there's not. It wasn't meant to be that kind of movie, and there wasn't a trailer showing a big 1981 hit.

    But WW84 is supposed to be part of the Extended Universe, and I (at least, presumably others) got ridiculously pumped about the movie because it featured New Order. Would it have helped the many, many bad choices that the filmmakers made to have better music? Probably not. But it wouldn't have hurt.
    I don't think that anything in the movie contradicts the DC Murderverse.
    I don't think that anything in the movie contradicts the DC Murderverse.
  16. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    48,059
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +50,961
    The year is, after all, in the title. I would've expected a Stranger Things-like re-creation of the era...half the fun of a period piece is experiencing that period of time.

    I haven't seen the film, but I suspect from what little I've read/seen that setting it in 1984 is meant to drive home some parallel between the film's wish fulfillment/unintended consequences theme with the wanting-it-all, materialistic 80s.
  17. We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse

    We Are Borg vs. USS Crazy Horse Probably a Dual

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    16,350
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +23,418
    That's such a tired (and largely false) trope.

    "Materialistic 80's."

    Um, hello? Have you seen the 21st century?

    The 80's were downright charitable compared to the selfish, materialistic shit we've been living with the past 20 years.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Sad Sad x 1
  18. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    48,059
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +50,961
    I actually agree. I was alive and an adult by the late 80s, and today doesn't seem much different as far as acquisitiveness or displays of affluence go. It was an era when the economy did well--after not doing well for many years--and I think the "materialistic" tag got hung on the time because some people resented the success many were having. Your 1980s neighbor was greedy for having a $45,000 Porsche; your 2020s neighbor is socially conscious with his $120,000 Tesla.

    But the trope exists and I think the movie plays off the trope.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Nova

    Nova livin on the edge of the ledge Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,996
    Ratings:
    +29,050
    Riddle me this:
    How does a dude who isn't sure about a trash can, seems mystified by fireworks as if they didn't have those in 1915 - the same dude who can sit down in a modern fighter jet and suss it out in a few minutes.
    Also - there are runways at the Smithsonian? The planes are prepped for flight? This one can fly DC to Egypt without refuelling?
    All this took me out of it more than the invisibility gag.

    Side note: if this is 1984 is there not a 10 year old(ish) Bruce Wayne out there saying "I wish I had my parents back!"
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  20. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    48,059
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +50,961
    Not...likely. Even an experienced jet pilot would have to get training and checked out in order to fly a new jet. Trevor comes from an era where someone had to pull on the prop to get it turning. He's not going to suss out the finer points of jet aviation from a few minutes sitting in the cockpit.

    That's almost up (down) there with the caveman-like humans flying 1,000 year old Harriers in Battlefield: Earth.
  21. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey official beverage of antifa

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,666
    Ratings:
    +20,725
    yeah, several of the things that he was supposedly perplexed by were common enough by 1915... subways and escalators among them.
  22. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +5,147
    I am somewhat charitable. Even though escalators exist, these particular esccalators are impressive. Some of the DC Metro stations have escalator banks that are like 150-200 feet deep. It took me a little to get over the scale of them, even though I'd seen escalators in public transit before.

    And of course, the 1984 Metro cars probably go at least 10-20 mph faster and look more modern than anything that would have been around in 1918.
  23. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    24,975
    Ratings:
    +30,543
    We should have had this, but with young Bruce:

    [​IMG]
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. AlphaMan

    AlphaMan The North Remembers...

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    10,293
    Location:
    NY
    Ratings:
    +8,294
    Watching Wonder Woman 1984, it strikes me as a kids movie... It's intended audience was for children. I guess it's good in that way, ut I did not enjoy it as much as I enjoyed watching Gal Gadot and the cameo by Lynda Carter in the post-credits.
  25. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    24,975
    Ratings:
    +30,543
    Eh, "any pilot can fly anything" is a common enough trope in media. It's worse when a human pilot is able to expertly fly an alien ship they've never seen before.

    Meanwhile, drunk Ray is extremely proud of himself if he can use an ATM in French. :async:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    48,059
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +50,961
    If a Piper pilot sits in a Cessna (or vice versa), yes, he probably could get it to fly. But a WWI pilot operating a modern jet? He wouldn't have the faintest clue what many of the controls do or gauges indicate. He'd have a hard time just getting the thing to start!
    I think a human flying an alien ship is, weirdly, more plausible. Advanced technology may let a non-skilled person fly an aircraft by handling all the chores other than direction and speed. "I wanna go that way" - plane makes it happen.
  27. StarMan

    StarMan No One

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +86
    I didn't mind it at all for a bit of fluff. But some comments here have illuminated several reasons why I should be ... less enthused. Thank you all for knocking it down a peg for me. :D

    I know next to nothing of Wonder Woman's comic book adversaries, so I took Max Lord and Cheetah as they were without any preconceptions.

    I agree that the setting was underused. So far as the fighter jet scene, well ... as Trevor put it, it's all about joining (?) with the wind - or was it "don't be afraid of the wind"? Fuuuck. Also, wasn't flying thru a fireworks display *slightly* reckless?

    But yes, okay if one isn't too invested like myself. Not too sure where they go from here.
  28. Tuckerfan

    Tuckerfan BMF Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    39,966
    Location:
    Can't tell you, 'cause I'm undercover!
    Ratings:
    +69,435
    Squiggly. Not that I have any experience flying planes but there's some commonalities between cars and planes. The instrument cluster on a plane in 1918 would have been fairly simple. You'd have things like RPM, fuel gauge, and oil pressure. Probably a compass and a maybe an altimeter. Regardless of the exact nature of the items, there wouldn't be nearly as many back then as there are today (doesn't matter if it's a prop plane or a jet). Think about the instrument cluster on a car, you've got a whole bunch of gauges (or warning lights and gauges, if not both). But most of the time what do you care about? The speedo and the fuel gauge. Sure, things like the voltmeter and the oil pressure gauge can be helpful if you think that there's a problem, but if your car is well maintained, you don't need to look at them all that often. The same is probably true of an airplane.

    So, certain aspects of flight in a modern plane wouldn't matter to him until something went wrong. Where he absolutely would have problems are things like the responsiveness of the controls. He was trained to fly planes that required him to use a lot of force to move the stick because there was no power assist. I know that in drive-by-wire systems, they build in resistance so that it feels like you're driving a normal car, even though you really don't have to put in the same kind of effort to turn the wheel or mash the brakes as you would with an older model car. I assume that they do something similar in aircraft. Even so, the amount of feedback they'd offer would probably be less than what he was used to dealing with.

    Having read Above the Battle by Vivian Drake and High Adventure by James Norman Hall I can tell you that it was common practice of the RAF to just throw people into the pilot's seat of planes with almost no training at all. Literally, they'd get some instruction on the ground about how planes worked and then be tossed into single seat aircraft and told to not fuck it up. The French, by contrast, had trainer planes that couldn't get very high off the ground by were enough like actual planes that they were useful in teaching people how to fly.

    So, if Steve had a "simple" flight of getting from point A to point B, he might have been able to figure out a lot of shit in the air (though he might have fucked up the landing a bit). If he had to do any kind of serious flying, like a dogfight, then he'd pretty much have been fucked.

    I won't even get into how stupid the Battlefield Earth shit was (and none of that was in the novel, FYI). I'll just point out that Travolta (who was responsible for BE) has said that he "doesn't get" science fiction and that BE is an allegorical novel about Scientology...
  29. Zor Prime

    Zor Prime .

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,518
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    So after reading some reviews I realize that I was giving the movie way too much credit in my initial review. Or just not thinking critically about it on first viewing.

    I think I was just excited coming out of the film because I like the Wonder Woman character (especially as played by Gal Gadot) and it was also my first time watching something at the theater since last January or February (before the pandemic). I really wanted to like this film. Unlike some other heroes, Wonder Woman has so few good stories/adaptations outside of the comics and so I was really rooting for this one to live up to the expectations after the first movie.

    I still stand by most of my initial review. The cast was excellent all around. Woudn't change anything about that. I did enjoy myself during the film and I liked that the resolution to the film wasn't overly violent or cynical like Man Of Steel. I liked the way the villains were portrayed and it was nice to have Chris Pine back.

    However there are MANY problematic things about this movie. After the impressive opening scene of Diana participating in the Amazonian Olympics wouldn't it have been perfect if they transitioned to 1984 with a scene at the Summer Olympics which actually took place in the US that year? It didn't need to be a focus of the film but I think it would have helped add some justification for setting this movie in that specific year. As others have mentioned, they didn't really do enough with the 80s setting. It was a little vague. The 80s was known for more than just consumerism and the Cold War.

    Although this still felt like a movie made in the 1980s. The first three Superman films are guilty pleasures of mine, even though they got progressively more silly/campy with each installment. I can enjoy WW84 in the same way I enjoy Superman II or III. Lots and lots of dumb stuff happens but they are still fun to watch.

    The biggest problem with the film was the dream stone/wish stone. They never properly explained the rules of how it was supposed to work and because of that all plot logic went out the window, especially when Lord started broadcasting to every single person in the world. It made no sense at all and just opened up a ton of plot holes and the movie became nonsensical in the third act. The wish stone had some of the same problems as the Nexus in Star Trek Generations, except much worse. If they were going to use some sort of wish stone they should have limited or more clearly defined how it worked. In hindsight it felt like they were just making things up on the spot and its really disappointing that Patty Jenkins let the script go to pieces like that.

    Everything about the plane sequence was dumb, as others have mentioned. But the other big problem was the message this movie sent about women and feminism. Diana, an immortal warrior goddess and a feminist icon, spends 60 years pining over a guy she spent a week with? And she is ready to let the world go to hell to keep him? She does learn her lesson in the end but it is out of character for how Wonder Woman is usually portrayed. I think they just went a bit too far... seriously he was the only moment of joy she ever had in her whole life? She needs to get out more.

    Also problematic was the fact that they basically hijacked some dude's body and entire life. Wasn't that non-consensual sex? On top of that they eat his food and messed around with his personal stuff. Not good. And when she meets the guy again at the end of the film she doesn't even bring it up. That kind of sucks for the dude... "hey you had sex with a goddess but you'll never know about it or remember it!"

    Worse, there was no need for the wishing stone to even hijack someone else. We saw the stone bring other stuff into existence out of nothing like the wall in Egypt and the nuclear missiles and the cows. Why was it different for Steve? Why were they so careless with the script?

    There is probably more I could nitpick but that is the major stuff that comes to mind. I don't think it is a horrible movie but its a huge step down from the first Wonder Woman (still think its better than some of the other DC live action films but that's not saying much). I still am hopeful that a Wonder Woman 3 can turn things around. It would be interesting to see Cheetah back and maybe they can delve more deeply into some Greek mythology. I've seen some speculation that the next film would include Circe, the mythological sorceress who was a prominent enemy of Wonder Woman in the comics.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    24,975
    Ratings:
    +30,543
    I can't believe it hasn't been said yet...

    WW84 is good...

    [​IMG]
    • Funny Funny x 2