# Wonder Woman Out Dec 16th



## Morrus (Nov 25, 2020)

Wonder Woman is hitting cinemas on Dec 16th (dates may vary internationally).









						WONDER WOMAN 1984 Global Release Dates Revealed Ahead Of Its December 25 HBO Max Debut
					

Wonder Woman 1984 may be heading to HBO Max on Christmas Day, but it's arriving in a number of international theaters before then, and you can find the full list of global release dates right here...




					www.comicbookmovie.com
				




I won't see it, though I want to. No chance I'm going to a cinema right now, even if they are open then. If you're in the US you can watch it on HBO on Christmas Day, but that's not an option for most people. Hopefully it will be available in other ways in 2021.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 25, 2020)

I almost feel sorry for the studios.  Managing finances when they can't actually get the billion dollars they were expecting has got to be hard.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Nov 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I almost feel sorry for the studios.  Managing finances when they can't actually get the billion dollars they were expecting has got to be hard.



In the same way the Television Writers Strike helped create (or at least popularize) reality television, it will be interesting in 10 years to see how the pandemic changed Hollywood.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 25, 2020)

Yeah.  I mean, the results of the writer's strike were not an improvement, so... that doesn't bode well.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 25, 2020)

I can't imagine going to a theater right now, but I'll be happy to check it out on streaming. Pixar's Soul is also coming to Disney+ on the same day.

One wonders if this represents the breaking of the floodgates, if we'll see Black Widow, Dune, and others released in a similar model? I think it unlikely (Marvel has said "we're focusing on the TV series right now"), but if there's enough revenue, maybe?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 25, 2020)

If it’s only streaming in the US, I suspect this might become the most pirated film in history.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 25, 2020)

Theaters open/safe here just not a lot to see. At least movies I've heard of. 

 First one was good so might go see this one.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 25, 2020)

I don't see myself going to a theatre for this, either. We're back into lockdown because my region is responsible for roughly a third of the new cases in the entire Province, so I also don't see theatres being open, anyway.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Nov 25, 2020)

Even if the theaters are open, no way I'm going.  My partner and I have been doing everything right: never going out, social distancing, masks when we do, etc.  And on Friday she got really sick.  Fever, all over body rash, body ache, cough, and headache.  On Sunday her temp dropped to 95 degrees but no urgent care could see her because they are all overwhelmed already.  Her oxygen levels are still good thankfully, and last night she finally was able to get a test.  Test results aren't back yet, but she's still sick today.  So far the kid and I feel normal, but we are on self lockdown and have been since she first showed symptoms.  Best we can tell, the only place she could have gotten sick from was from her 5 year old after he got back from his dad's (he doesn't take this as serious as we do, and they still go to the park to play, and have friends over, etc).

Seeing how sick she is, and worse, how scared she is, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  And I certainly wouldn't risk myself or anyone else by going out to a theater.  I wish people would realize that even if you're OK, or your friend feels just fine, chances are you're giving it to someone who won't be OK.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Nov 25, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Even if the theaters are open, no way I'm going.  My partner and I have been doing everything right: never going out, social distancing, masks when we do, etc.  And on Friday she got really sick.  Fever, all over body rash, body ache, cough, and headache.  On Sunday her temp dropped to 95 degrees but no urgent care could see her because they are all overwhelmed already.  Her oxygen levels are still good thankfully, and last night she finally was able to get a test.  Test results aren't back yet, but she's still sick today.  So far the kid and I feel normal, but we are on self lockdown and have been since she first showed symptoms.  Best we can tell, the only place she could have gotten sick from was from her 5 year old after he got back from his dad's (he doesn't take this as serious as we do, and they still go to the park to play, and have friends over, etc).
> 
> Seeing how sick she is, and worse, how scared she is, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  And I certainly wouldn't risk myself or anyone else by going out to a theater.  I wish people would realize that even if you're OK, or your friend feels just fine, chances are you're giving it to someone who won't be OK.



My thoughts are with you!


----------



## Eric V (Nov 25, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> I don't see myself going to a theatre for this, either. We're back into lockdown because my region is responsible for roughly a third of the new cases in the entire Province, so I also don't see theatres being open, anyway.



Which region is that?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 25, 2020)

Eric V said:


> Which region is that?



Peel.









						Ford defends decision to suspend in-person shopping as Toronto and Peel officially enter lockdown
					

Premier Doug Ford is standing behind his government’s decision to suspend in-person shopping at all non-essential retailers in Toronto and Peel amid criticism from small business owners who say they are being unfairly singled out.




					www.cp24.com


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 25, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I can't imagine going to a theater right now, but I'll be happy to check it out on streaming. Pixar's Soul is also coming to Disney+ on the same day.
> 
> One wonders if this represents the breaking of the floodgates, if we'll see Black Widow, Dune, and others released in a similar model? I think it unlikely (Marvel has said "we're focusing on the TV series right now"), but if there's enough revenue, maybe?



We may have an answer on black widow Black Widow Is Going Direct To Streaming, Revealed In Leaked Promo


----------



## Khelon Testudo (Nov 26, 2020)

@Sacrosanct : I feel for you, and I hope your partner's illness is short. But the fact her temperature is below normal implies to me that she may have something other than Covid-19. That might affect your thinking about how she got it? But I'm a nobody on the internet, so you should certainly do what you think best.

As for the movie, I'll certainly try and see it in cinemas, since I'm lucky enough to live in Australia. Through luck and good management we've managed to mostly get rid of the bastard disease. (cross fingers!)


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 27, 2020)

With the Vaccine around the corner, as long as theaters can survive till then, I would have thought they would have triedt to push it back until at least May.  If we can get the vaccine and it is effective, I think people may be sick enough of being cooped up that the theaters will have a rush on them like nothing else.

PS:  Unsure, we'll see...Black Widow may be a simultaneous release in both Theaters and streaming.  Streaming may be better/cheaper for families while theater would be cheaper for the individual.


----------



## Rabulias (Nov 27, 2020)

Yes, I think that there will be pent-up demand for movies in theaters once the vaccines have had their expected effect.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2020)

GreyLord said:


> With the Vaccine around the corner, as long as theaters can survive till then, I would have thought they would have triedt to push it back until at least May.  If we can get the vaccine and it is effective, I think people may be sick enough of being cooped up that the theaters will have a rush on them like nothing else.




If you are correct, I daresay that, for movies that are actually good, a theatrical re-release would still do the trick.  

Sell you the movie now, for streaming.  Put it in a few theaters so that you can be up for awards this year.  When the theater experience is a viable option again, release the movies again in theaters and get your money a second time.

Sheer elegance in its simplicity.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2020)

For stuff that goes streaming like Wonder Woman, I’ll do my part to see them and help make them a success.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2020)

billd91 said:


> For stuff that goes streaming like Wonder Woman, I’ll do my part to see them and help make them a success.




Definitely.  Quality content right now can be hard to come by.  And, I daresay that it can be a bit of shared experience for people around the holiday - even if they aren't all physically together, they can watch and share thoughts afterwards, which is a goodness.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 1, 2020)

While it could certainly happen, there are a number of other reports indicating the opposite of this. Of course, Disney could certainly be keeping their cards close to their proverbial chest. My feeling is that trying to hold off until going to a movie theater is a thing again will involve waiting for a long darn time. Even with a vaccine, I suspect that Box office takes will remain lower for years to come. Even after a vaccine, people aren't going to be coming out in numbers like before.



trappedslider said:


> We may have an answer on black widow Black Widow Is Going Direct To Streaming, Revealed In Leaked Promo


----------



## MarkB (Dec 1, 2020)

Maybe it's just me, maybe it's the timing of COVID bringing new movies to a halt compared to Avengers Endgame, but the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe feels kind-of 'done' to me at this point, and it feels like it'd take a lot to get the franchise's momentum rolling again.

_Black Widow_ doesn't feel like the movie that's going to do it, either - I'm sure it'll be good fun, and I'll almost certainly stream it when it comes out, but it's a movie about a character who's already dead in the franchise continuity. Not exactly open-ended.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Maybe it's just me, maybe it's the timing of COVID bringing new movies to a halt compared to Avengers Endgame, but the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe feels kind-of 'done' to me at this point, and it feels like it'd take a lot to get the franchise's momentum rolling again.
> 
> _Black Widow_ doesn't feel like the movie that's going to do it, either




They have an Ant-Man 3, a Spider-Man 3, Doctor Strange 2, and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 coming to do that.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 1, 2020)

With the end of the Infinity Stones cycle, it was always going to be a major shift in momentum.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2020)

Honestly, I think we _want_ a change in momentum.  Narratives cannot be all rising tension and momentum.  They need a rise and fall as elements come up, are resolved and new ones develop.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 1, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Honestly, I think we _want_ a change in momentum.  Narratives cannot be all rising tension and momentum.  They need a rise and fall as elements come up, are resolved and new ones develop.



Also, it allows them to diversify the heroes to reflect how they've become more diverse in the comics.  The original Avengers series (from the past decade or so) were largely how the original heroes were.  Now they have an opportunity to change that, and focus on diverse versions, like Miles Morales, Riri Williams, and Jane Foster.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 1, 2020)

Morrus said:


> If it’s only streaming in the US



The few Regal cinemas closed voluntarily in my area, possibly all of NYS just because it was lucrative to stay open.  Im not even sure what the executive orders in the state are concerning theaters staying open, but they were the last places to reopen after the first wave of shut downs were lifted.  

Ive said this even before the pandemic shut down everything that movie theaters are going to be few and far between as more options are available to watch movies in your own home.  I used to like going to the movies when I was younger but the older I get I go very little anymore, once a year if that.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 1, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Ive said this even before the pandemic shut down everything that movie theaters are going to be few and far between as more options are available to watch movies in your own home.  I used to like going to the movies when I was younger but the older I get I go very little anymore, once a year if that.



Same here. I was pretty much done with cinemas even before this year. It's not just the going out aspect - I've become so used to on-demand programmes that the idea of needing to watch something continuously, all the way through, at a specified time seems positively archaic.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 1, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Same here. I was pretty much done with cinemas even before this year. It's not just the going out aspect - I've become so used to on-demand programmes that the idea of needing to watch something continuously, all the way through, at a specified time seems positively archaic.



Not to mention the cost is astronomical even for a matinee.  For myself just for a ticket and concessions its probably $30.  

There used to be cheap drive ins and $1 theaters but they are pretty much extinct.  In the last 5-10 years niche theaters have begun opening which showed less mainstream movies, sold alcohol and dinner.  Those were fun but I doubt they'll survive the pandemic, as they had limited showings and small capacity.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Now they have an opportunity to change that, and focus on diverse versions, like Miles Morales, Riri Williams, and Jane Foster.




Jane Foster Thor is supposed to show up in _Thor: Love and Thunder_.  However, I wouldn't expect that to be a continuing thing past that movie.  Miles Morales currently has his home in animation - Into the Spiderverse is getting a sequel.  

Riri Williams may be a ways off yet - I think they'd want to see how the Shuri-led Black Panther does.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 1, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Not to mention the cost is astronomical even for a matinee.  For myself just for a ticket and concessions its probably $30.
> 
> There used to be cheap drive ins and $1 theaters but they are pretty much extinct.  In the last 5-10 years niche theaters have begun opening which showed less mainstream movies, sold alcohol and dinner.  Those were fun but I doubt they'll survive the pandemic, as they had limited showings and small capacity.




 If you want big budget movies though you might want to make an effort to go and buy popcorn. 

 Streaming atm can't replace the revenue stream of theaters.

 It was a once a year thing for me but last year started going out more to see movies.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 1, 2020)

Wouldn't mind seeing it, but I still haven't seen the first one, or most of the other DC movies. Feel like I need to watch them first before moving onto the sequel which almost always means I end up not seeing the sequel since I don't get around to watching the earlier movies.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> If you want big budget movies though you might want to make an effort to go and buy popcorn.
> 
> Streaming atm can't replace the revenue stream of theaters.
> 
> It was a once a year thing for me but last year started going out more to see movies.



Cant remember where I saw it but it was on TV within the few last years.  Anyhow you are correct that iirc from that program a huge amount of a movie theaters revenue is from concessions and not ticket sales. 

Even before the pandemic more VOD/PPV movies that just released or werent even in the theater yet were available for $19.99 at home.  Now that cost is even cheaper in some cases.  For example, I rented "Stardust" for $6.99 last week, (wasnt worth even the $6.99).  As people change the way they consume movies I think theaters are going to have to change their business model post-pandemic to compete.  But I dont follow the industry numbers enough to know if they were down pre-pandemic, Im basing my opinion on my viewing habits and friends of mine.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 1, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Cant remember where I saw it but it was on TV within the few last years.  Anyhow you are correct that iirc from that program a huge amount of a movie theaters revenue is from concessions and not ticket sales.
> 
> Even before the pandemic more VOD/PPV movies that just released or werent even in the theater yet were available for $19.99 at home.  Now that cost is even cheaper in some cases.  For example, I rented "Stardust" for $6.99 last week, (wasnt worth even the $6.99).  As people change the way they consume movies I think theaters are going to have to change their business model post-pandemic to compete.  But I dont follow the industry numbers enough to know if they were down pre-pandemic, Im basing my opinion on my viewing habits and friends of mine.




 You can pay for streaming but it's not enough for the studios. 

 I think Bond failed to sell for 300 million to a streaming service they wanted 600 million for it. 

 They trialed some releases earlier and "only" got 90 odd million in first couple of weeks. 

 Popcorn and movies about $14 usd here and there's a ticket combo. 

 There's also fast food and the premium seats have these tables so you can by a  burger combo for $10 whatever and eat it watching the movie. 

 You're really paying for the experience.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> You're really paying for the experience.



You are right.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 3, 2020)

Well, WB is going for both Warner Bros. will release all of its new 2021 movies simultaneously on HBO Max


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 3, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Well, WB is going for both Warner Bros. will release all of its new 2021 movies simultaneously on HBO Max




Matrix 4 too?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Well, WB is going for both Warner Bros. will release all of its new 2021 movies simultaneously on HBO Max



Still all just US then. No mention of anywhere else.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 3, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Matrix 4 too?




 Is there much demand for a Matrix 4? After 2 and 3 who really wants to see more? I'm sure there's someone but....


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Is there much demand for a Matrix 4? After 2 and 3 who really wants to see more? I'm sure there's someone but....




It's on HBO Max, which means it will be free to me!

I re-watched the trilogy a little while ago. So the first one ... well, it's been copied a lot, but it still held up. What was surprising to me is that while the sequels were disappointing compared to the original, they were better than I remembered. 

I think people had unrealistic expectations at the time. But, yeah, I'd like to see what they are going to do with it. I enjoyed Sense8.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2020)

Khelon Testudo said:


> @Sacrosanct : I feel for you, and I hope your partner's illness is short. But the fact her temperature is below normal implies to me that she may have something other than Covid-19. That might affect your thinking about how she got it? But I'm a nobody on the internet, so you should certainly do what you think best.



Tests finally came back.  She did test negative, so that's good.  however, they think she had meningitis.  Which sucks.  but since she's feeling better, they won't bring her in to test her completely because they are swamped with COVID patients.  That's where we're at.  Unless you're dying, just get over it on your own because there aren't resources to help you.

a lot of people view this as a COVID only thing.  I.e., if you don't have covid, you're not impacted.  The truth is everyone is impacted, from getting sick with something else, to injuries; you won't get proper care.

Wear your mask and stay home please.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 3, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah. I mean, the results of the writer's strike were not an improvement, so... that doesn't bode well.



There might be a bright spot here.  Changes in Hollywood's business model prompted a lot of talented people to move over to streaming services and television.  We might see this trend continue and it might be for the best.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Not to mention the cost is astronomical even for a matinee. For myself just for a ticket and concessions its probably $30.



When I went to see Watchman I planned on buying popcorn and a drink but I had to promise myself I wouldn't look at the price as I approached the counter.  Well, I couldn't keep my promise and I was unwilling to spend $13 on a Coke and popcorn.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 3, 2020)

MGibster said:


> When I went to see Watchman I planned on buying popcorn and a drink but I had to promise myself I wouldn't look at the price as I approached the counter.  Well, I couldn't keep my promise and I was unwilling to spend $13 on a Coke and popcorn.




 Damn movies are reasonably cheap here. $8 for the movies and I think a $14 combo gets you ticket, popcorn, coke.

 Everything else imported costs a bomb.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Damn movies are reasonably cheap here. $8 for the movies and I think a $14 combo gets you ticket, popcorn, coke.
> 
> Everything else imported costs a bomb.



That is cheap, but time spent on a crappy movie...priceless.  Honestly that's why I go by myself 9 out of 10 times anymore, I don't care how much it cost, if its not good I leave.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 3, 2020)

MGibster said:


> When I went to see Watchman I planned on buying popcorn and a drink but I had to promise myself I wouldn't look at the price as I approached the counter.  Well, I couldn't keep my promise and I was unwilling to spend $13 on a Coke and popcorn.



I did the exact same thing last few times I went to the movie.  I didn't get anything on the way in but then I was jonesing for some popcorn for the whole movie from all the 45 minutes of previews and the popcorn smell they pump into the theater.  There should be a 12 step program for that.  Probably is...Popcorns Anonymous.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 3, 2020)

FYI... I just read Wonder Woman 1984 will stream in 4K HDR on HBO Max.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> I did the exact same thing last few times I went to the movie.  I didn't get anything on the way in but then I was jonesing for some popcorn for the whole movie from all the 45 minutes of previews and the popcorn smell they pump into the theater.  There should be a 12 step program for that.  Probably is...Popcorns Anonymous.



I count myself lucky that I don't like popcorn. Actually, pretty much any traditional cinema fare I'm not keen on - I don't drink soft drinks anymore, and even back when I did, if I got one of those big buckets they sold at cinemas, half of it would still be left by the end of the movie. Never liked nachos, and while I do enjoy a good hot dog, the ones they sell in UK cinemas don't qualify.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 3, 2020)

MarkB said:


> if I got one of those big buckets they sold at cinemas, half of it would still be left by the end of the movie. Never liked nachos, and while I do enjoy a good hot dog, the ones they sell in UK cinemas don't qualify.



You mean the 50 gallon drum of Pepsi?  The last time I bought popcorn and pop I remember thinking to myself as Im struggling to give my ticket to the usher and open the door to the theater, "What the hell am I doing, who needs this much pop and popcorn"?  They get you to buy a large because its about $0.50 difference between the small and large.  

Its totally a local regional thing in Buffalo but Sahlen's hot dogs are great.  I've not found much that compares outside of maybe Nathans Famous.  They've grown quite popular elsewhere across the states.

Home - Sahlen Packing Co.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 3, 2020)

MarkB said:


> I count myself lucky that I don't like popcorn. Actually, pretty much any traditional cinema fare I'm not keen on - I don't drink soft drinks anymore, and even back when I did, if I got one of those big buckets they sold at cinemas, half of it would still be left by the end of the movie. Never liked nachos, and while I do enjoy a good hot dog, the ones they sell in UK cinemas don't qualify.




 One here got refurbished and they serve takeaway type good so you can get a pizza or burger and fries and have a beer.

 Want to go see a Christmas cat movie so see what happens.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Just came across this WB 2021 release plans.









						Warner Bros. Smashes Box Office Windows, Will Send Entire 2021 Slate to HBO Max and Theaters
					

The studio will send 17 films — including ‘The Matrix 4,’ ‘The Suicide Squad’ and ‘Dune’ to its streaming service for 31 days the same day they hit theater…




					www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 4, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Well, WB is going for both Warner Bros. will release all of its new 2021 movies simultaneously on HBO Max






R_J_K75 said:


> Just came across this WB 2021 release plans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

Well someone has to dip their toe in the water first.

 If I had to guess a few movies are gonna come up short just due to their budgets. 

 Maybe they can't wait it out or the theaters can't which means much the same thing.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Well someone has to dip their toe in the water first.



Think its smart.  Theres sometimes movies that I want to see but dont want to go opening weekend so I wait, never end up going and then never bother watching it when it comes out on PPV.  Something like this may actually get me to buy a PPV like WW84 or Dune in the first few days.  I can even have all the free popcorn, pepsi, hotdogs, pizza and beer I want.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Think its smart.  Theres sometimes movies that I want to see but dont want to go opening weekend so I wait, never end up going and then never bother watching it when it comes out on PPV.  Something like this may actually get me to buy a PPV like WW84 or Dune in the first few days.  I can even have all the free popcorn, pepsi, hotdogs, pizza and beer I want.




 Dunes the one I'm interested in. 

 Might be willing to pay for it if it's available on the Xbox store or Playstation store. 

 HBO means theater or just wait.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> HBO means theater or just wait.



Back in the 80s I thought it meant "Hey Beastmasters On".


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Back in the 80s I thought it meant "Hey Beastmasters On".



I don't think I knew what it was until the Rome TV show. 

 Some shows on it were freebies here iirc (Sopranos?).


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think I knew what it was until the Rome TV show.
> 
> Some shows on it were freebies here iirc (Sopranos?).



Not sure I havent had HBO or any premium channel in quite some years.  I have Prime Video and only rented Disney+ for a month last year for the Mandolorian.  Probably do the same to watch the entire second season later this year.


----------



## Khelon Testudo (Dec 4, 2020)

cbwjm said:


> Wouldn't mind seeing it, but I still haven't seen the first one, or most of the other DC movies. Feel like I need to watch them first before moving onto the sequel which almost always means I end up not seeing the sequel since I don't get around to watching the earlier movies.



I think you only need to see the first one. DC hasn't really done the continuity thing Marvel did.


Morrus said:


> Still all just US then. No mention of anywhere else.



Well, some countries (like mine, Australia) may actually be able to have cinemas open. I'm sure Hollywood doesn't want to miss those dollars - they'll need every dollar they can get.


Sacrosanct said:


> Tests finally came back.  She did test negative, so that's good.  however, they think she had meningitis.  Which sucks.  but since she's feeling better, they won't bring her in to test her completely because they are swamped with COVID patients.  That's where we're at.  Unless you're dying, just get over it on your own because there aren't resources to help you.
> 
> a lot of people view this as a COVID only thing.  I.e., if you don't have covid, you're not impacted.  The truth is everyone is impacted, from getting sick with something else, to injuries; you won't get proper care.
> 
> Wear your mask and stay home please.



I'm glad she didn't have Covid-19, but meningitis is pretty serious! Glad she's getting better. And yeah, if covid19 is bad enough to swamp your hospitals, then everyone who gets something else serious is in more danger.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

Khelon Testudo said:


> I think you only need to see the first one. DC hasn't really done the continuity thing Marvel did.
> 
> Well, some countries (like mine, Australia) may actually be able to have cinemas open. I'm sure Hollywood doesn't want to miss those dollars - they'll need every dollar they can get.
> 
> I'm glad she didn't have Covid-19, but meningitis is pretty serious! Glad she's getting better. And yeah, if covid19 is bad enough to swamp your hospitals, then everyone who gets something else serious is in more danger.




 Australia and NZ kinda exceptional with the theatres though. 

 Outside of Asia we're the only ones doing something close to the old normal. 

 I looked at the theatre here couple of weeks ago they had 5 or 6 movies on but didn't recognize any.

 I want to see this though. Looks cheesy but yeah F 2020. 


 Hmmn it's out already. 





__





						Movie Information | Tickets | Showtimes
					

Visit Cinemas online for movie tickets, theater locations, showtimes, trailers, gift cards and more. Join our membership to access fantastic competitions and special member offers. Gold Lounges offer the ultimate luxury cinema experience.




					readingcinemas.co.nz


----------



## Goliath Coins (Dec 4, 2020)

Warner also just announced that all of their 2021 releases will be in theaters and HBO Max.  AMC stock took a hit.  Hopefully the theaters recover.  It would be a pretty boring world if you could not go out to the movies.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

Mythic Nation said:


> Warner also just announced that all of their 2021 releases will be in theaters and HBO Max.  AMC stock took a hit.  Hopefully the theaters recover.  It would be a pretty boring world if you could not go out to the movies.




 AMC and some others really hurting. If they don't release might not be much left to release to.

 Just checked the arty farty cinema is doing British movie marathon. Flash Gordon, Monty Python etc $10.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> AMC and some others really hurting. If they don't release might not be much left to release to.
> 
> Just checked the arty farty cinema is doing British movie marathon. Flash Gordon, Monty Python etc $10.



Dont quote me on this but I think AMC here in NYS either filed for Bankruptcy or are merging with/being bought out another cinema chain. Regardless dont think theyre doing well.  

A theater not far from me have been playing the Holy Grail, the Excorcist and other movies on weekends for at least 15 years.  So they either knew something everyone else didnt or have been in financial dire straights for a long time.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Dont quote me on this but I think AMC here in NYS either filed for Bankruptcy or are merging with/being bought out another cinema chain. Regardless dont think theyre doing well.
> 
> A theater not far from me have been playing the Holy Grail, the Excorcist and other movies on weekends for at least 15 years.  So they either knew something everyone else didnt or have been in financial dire straights for a long time.




 AMC was something like 5 billion in debt before Covid landed iirc. 

 It's possible a few go under, streaming doesn't pay the bills yet for the blockbuster films.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> AMC was something like 5 billion in debt before Covid landed iirc.
> 
> It's possible a few go under, streaming doesn't pay the bills yet for the blockbuster films.



When I was young General Cinemas was the major cinema chain around here, with there being one or two AMC theaters.  Dipson opened one theater in the mid 80s downtown.  Then in the late 80s Regal came in a took over and General Cinemas seemed to disappear over night, the Dipson downtown became rundown but survived, a Flix opened in a suburb and there was one maybe 2 drive-ins left I can remember.  Before the pandemic hit, Regal upgraded all their theaters, the downtown Dipson was renovated and started serving higher scale food and alcohol, the drive-in and Flix were barely hanging on.  As of the pandemic the drive-in did well this summer, Regals re-opened in August and closed again the middle of November and I bet everything else Im guessing never re-opened and probably never will.  It'll be interesting to see how things turn out post pandemic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> When I was young General Cinemas was the major cinema chain around here, with there being one or two AMC theaters.  Dipson opened one theater in the mid 80s downtown.  Then in the late 80s Regal came in a took over and General Cinemas seemed to disappear over night, the Dipson downtown became rundown but survived, a Flix opened in a suburb and there was one maybe 2 drive-ins left I can remember.  Before the pandemic hit, Regal upgraded all their theaters, the downtown Dipson was renovated and started serving higher scale food and alcohol, the drive-in and Flix were barely hanging on.  As of the pandemic the drive-in did well this summer, Regals re-opened in August and closed again the middle of November and I bet everything else Im guessing never re-opened and probably never will.  It'll be interesting to see how things turn out post pandemic.




 Yeah if the movie theaters fall over the studios are kinda stuffed. 

 There's two local movies on. One has Sam Neil (Jurassic Park) and sheep, the others a documentary.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Think its smart.  Theres sometimes movies that I want to see but dont want to go opening weekend so I wait, never end up going and then never bother watching it when it comes out on PPV.  Something like this may actually get me to buy a PPV like WW84 or Dune in the first few days.  I can even have all the free popcorn, pepsi, hotdogs, pizza and beer I want.




I don't believe what they are talking about is PPV.  HBO Max is subscription-based.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah if the movie theaters fall over the studios are kinda stuffed.




With respect, no.  For one thing, the streaming services exist.  HBO Max is likely going to get a ton of subscriptions - which are like your household buying at least one ticket a month.

For another, even if some theater chains do collapse, with vaccines we are probably looking at return to something approaching normalcy in, say, a year.  Those theaters _WILL_ be bought and re-opened by someone who wants to cash in on all the folks who have been cooped up and are yearning for experiences outside the home.  I don't think there's a credible chance that they'll remain closed for long beyond broad community vaccination.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 4, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I don't believe what they are talking about is PPV.



True, you are correct in the traditional sense of PPV/VOD. I probably used the wrong word but to me if Im subscribing Im paying to view.


----------



## Zsong (Dec 4, 2020)

Maybe we can have kickstarters with stretch goals that go over 1 billion dollars.  Stranger things have happened in 2020.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> True, you are correct in the traditional sense of PPV/VOD. I probably used the wrong word but to me if Im subscribing Im paying to view.



 Yeah, PPV is "Pay Per View" - meaning you pay a fee for each individual thing you watch.  VOD is video on demand - the program starts when you want it, not on a timed schedule.

HBO Max is VOD, but not PPV.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2020)

Umbran said:


> With respect, no.  For one thing, the streaming services exist.  HBO Max is likely going to get a ton of subscriptions - which are like your household buying at least one ticket a month.
> 
> For another, even if some theater chains do collapse, with vaccines we are probably looking at return to something approaching normalcy in, say, a year.  Those theaters _WILL_ be bought and re-opened by someone who wants to cash in on all the folks who have been cooped up and are yearning for experiences outside the home.  I don't think there's a credible chance that they'll remain closed for long beyond broad community vaccination.




 John Campea covered it but basically streaming didn't pull in enough money. 

 They tried selling Bond for 600 million the streamers weren't willing to pay more than 300. 

  They trialed a couple of movies couldn't make it work at least for the big budget movies.

I think Mulan was one of them. 

 Your not going to make a billion dollars streaming, probably not even half that or a quarter. 

 And highest offer they got for Bond was 300 million no one's even got that streaming pov yet.

They either need to figure it out, make cheaper movies or hope things get back to normal with the vaccine fairly fast which probably won't be next 6 months as they're looking at March/April to vaccinate en masse and that's just the start.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Your not going to make a billion dollars streaming, probably not even half that or a quarter.




So, nobody said that they'd do _the same_ on streaming.  Your claim was that they, "were stuffed".  Given the entirely unclear meaning of that uncommon phrasing, I took a stab at it.  Let me try more simply:

The studios will survive.


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 5, 2020)

Umbran said:


> For another, even if some theater chains do collapse, with vaccines we are probably looking at return to something approaching normalcy in, say, a year.  Those theaters _WILL_ be bought and re-opened by someone who wants to cash in on all the folks who have been cooped up and are yearning for experiences outside the home.  I don't think there's a credible chance that they'll remain closed for long beyond broad community vaccination.



Agreed. If theater chains go out of business, there will be buildings with space, furniture, fixtures, equipment, etc., geared to showing movies that will be available for sale. Unless things take an unforeseen bad turn with the vaccines, those assets will not sit idle too long, and someone will invest in them to take advantage of the rebound in movie-going by the public. So a year from now, instead of talking about AMC and Regal, we may be talking about "BND" and "Royal" as the prominent movie theater chains, but I believe there will be movie theaters, and I plan to be going to them.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 5, 2020)

Rabulias said:


> Agreed. If theater chains go out of business, there will be buildings with space, furniture, fixtures, equipment, etc., geared to showing movies that will be available for sale. Unless things take an unforeseen bad turn with the vaccines, those assets will not sit idle too long, and someone will invest in them to take advantage of the rebound in movie-going by the public. So a year from now, instead of talking about AMC and Regal, we may be talking about "BND" and "Royal" as the prominent movie theater chains, but I believe there will be movie theaters, and I plan to be going to them.



Or they'll be bought up by property developers, and torn down to be replaced with overpriced housing.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Or they'll be bought up by property developers, and torn down to be replaced with overpriced housing.




Unlikely, given the timescales involved.  Major theaters will be zoned for commercial use, not residential.  Getting re-zoned is a notable process, and is apt to take longer than the pandemic will last (given effective vaccines, fingers crossed).


----------



## MarkB (Dec 5, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Unlikely, given the timescales involved.  Major theaters will be zoned for commercial use, not residential.  Getting re-zoned is a notable process, and is apt to take longer than the pandemic will last (given effective vaccines, fingers crossed).



So, mini-malls and cubicle farms, then.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2020)

MarkB said:


> So, mini-malls and cubicle farms, then.



In this economy?  Malls and retail were on the ropes before the pandemic.  And it isn't clear that office-space use is going to be booming after it is over.


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 5, 2020)

Umbran understands what I meant. Yeah, the vaccines might be too late for current theater chains, but there won't be enough time for those properties to be converted to anything other than movie theaters before there are people ready, willing, and able to go out to movies.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 5, 2020)

Why would you invest in movie theaters though when they're probably on the way out anyway?


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 6, 2020)

The demise of movie theaters, much like the end of the world and the falling of the sky, has often been predicted, but not yet realized. Some of the points where this was touted:

The advent of television
Cable TV
Pay TV channels like HBO and Showtime
VCRs and movies on VHS
Netflix (when they first started, renting DVDs by mail)
Internet streaming in general
And now streaming services
I believe the idea of seeing movies on large screens and with larger audiences than one can have in the home will still have appeal. I admit that there are some people who will prefer viewing all movies at home, but there are still grognards like me who like to see films on massive IMAX screens (really - I cannot understand how people want to want to watch movies on their phones). Until we die off (or until I can get an IMAX-sized TV in my non-IMAX-sized home), theaters will still do OK.


----------



## Wishbone (Dec 6, 2020)

Given the obsolescence of the Paramount Consent Decrees as well I imagine there might be some studios who purchase theater chains to serve as marquee venues for their films on the other end of things as well. Theaters are really in a bind.



Rabulias said:


> The demise of movie theaters, much like the end of the world and the falling of the sky, has often been predicted, but not yet realized. Some of the points where this was touted:
> 
> The advent of television
> Cable TV
> ...




Indeed, Michael T. Osterholm predicted the impact of a pandemic on the industry in Foreign Affairs in 2005: "Many industries not critical to survival—electronics, automobile, and clothing, for example—would suffer or even close. Activities that require close human contact—school, seeing movies in theaters, or eating at restaurants—would be avoided, maybe even banned."


----------



## Zsong (Dec 6, 2020)

Rabulias said:


> The demise of movie theaters, much like the end of the world and the falling of the sky, has often been predicted, but not yet realized. Some of the points where this was touted:
> 
> The advent of television
> Cable TV
> ...



The cherry coke and popcorn at the cinemas is so goood!


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 6, 2020)

Disney still has Black Widow in their back pocket to do something with....


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 6, 2020)

Future probably will be streaming but it might kill off the big budget movie. 

 When you can film an entire season for half the price of said movie. And it's the weekly model that keeps people addicted.

 Netflix original movies tend to suck but they're doing great with series.

 This breaks down the financials and how things work. 


 Basically if Disney+ grows and is similar in size to Netflix it will make more money than the rest of the corporation put togather.

 On current growth projections they will get there in a few years. 

 Netflix is losing money because they're paying to much for licensing but that will change as the develop more in house.

 I'm not expecting WW84 to do that well through no fault of its own.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 6, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Future probably will be streaming but it might kill off the big budget movie.



I don't think that's a bad thing. Spearheaded by the likes of Disney, mid-budget movies have pretty much been stamped out in recent years. A pendulum swing would be welcomed by me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 6, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I don't think that's a bad thing. Spearheaded by the likes of Disney, mid-budget movies have pretty much been stamped out in recent years. A pendulum swing would be welcomed by me.




 Yeah might not be a bad thing if it happens it is what it is. 

 Alot if those 80s hit movies were filmed reasonably cheap even adjusted for inflation. More variety, diversity and innovation would be nice.


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 7, 2020)

I was thinking the opposite. Big budget, "experience" movies might be the only movies that draw the streaming people in to theaters. People could watch the _Downton Abbey_ movie or a low-budget comedy film on a TV, but I think more would want to watch _Avengers: Endgame_ or _Dune_ on a big screen.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

Rabulias said:


> I was thinking the opposite. Big budget, "experience" movies might be the only movies that draw the streaming people in to theaters. People could watch the _Downton Abbey_ movie or a low-budget comedy film on a TV, but I think more would want to watch _Avengers: Endgame_ or _Dune_ on a big screen.




 Those big budget movies also have big budget advertising budgets. 

 Means they have to break 500 million or so to break even. 

 And looks like more theatres are going to be closed.

 Tenet got $300 iirc at the box office and I think Mulan got 90 million on streaming. 

 Those were the biggest hits post Covid. 

  They tried selling Bond to streamers for $600 million best offer was $300 million.

 Wonder Women 84 is the next Canary in the coalmine to test it out. We'll know more once it's released.


----------



## ccs (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Why would you invest in movie theaters though when they're probably on the way out anyway?



Because there's still enough $ to be made before that fully happens.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

ccs said:


> Because there's still enough $ to be made before that fully happens.




 Guess we will find out in a few more days.


----------



## ccs (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Guess we will find out in a few more days.



No, I meant in general before streaming completely kills theatres.

WW84 is going to do terribly theatre wise here in the US.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 7, 2020)

Note the big market is still China.......


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Note the big market is still China.......




 I think they take a much larger slice of the pie than US cinemas. 

 US box office still the most profitable.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 7, 2020)

i think we've drifted a bit far from the opening topic....like a whole city away..... Disney's next investor meeting is on the 10th,and the focuses is on streaming, so we may get an idea as to what they will be planning...

If i have the money, i'll re-sub to HBO Max, unlike CBS (need to resub for The Stand too) or Peacock, they actually have other stuff to hold me on to for a month.

AMC has a response AMC Theatres boss criticizes Warner Bros. for HBO Max 2021 release plans


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Is there much demand for a Matrix 4? After 2 and 3 who really wants to see more? I'm sure there's someone but....




Yeah, I'm here for it. I mean, the sequels weren't great and they tied the story off pretty thoroughly-- but I like the universe, and more importantly, I like the Wachowskis. I couldn't see _Jupiter Ascending _enough times in the theaters for it to get a sequel, but checking out Matrix 4 is about the only way to tell Hollywood to keep throwing them money.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Note the big market is still China.......




China is a big market, but not THE big market.  _Not a single one_ of the top ten highest grossing movies of 2019 got more in China than they did domestically. 

Of the next 20, there are 4 from Chinese movie studios that did better in China than the US.  The only top-20 movie that year made by a US studio that did better in China was Fast & Furious: Hobbes and Shaw.


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Those big budget movies also have big budget advertising budgets.
> 
> Means they have to break 500 million or so to break even.
> 
> ...



I was unclear. My speculation about big budget movies being successful in theaters is for the post-vaccine scenario where a large portion of the audience continues to stay home and watch streamed content and films. I don't think any movie released during the pandemic, or in the next two months, will be a good indicator yay or nay on this.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

Rabulias said:


> I was unclear. My speculation about big budget movies being successful in theaters is for the post-vaccine scenario where a large portion of the audience continues to stay home and watch streamed content and films. I don't think any movie released during the pandemic, or in the next two months, will be a good indicator yay or nay on this.




 By then the theaters may have gone under and idk if anyone would bother spending the money to reopen them if the studios are moving content online. 

  Disney has a investors thing on Dec 10 I think it's half expected they're going to follow WB and announce they putting their content online. 

Btw. 
 Early reviews apparently very positive for Wonder Women 84.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> By then the theaters may have gone under and idk if anyone would bother spending the money to reopen them if the studios are moving content online.





You yourself were noting how online was not going to make nearly as much money.  The studios will want butts back in seats as soon as possible.  They're moving content online for now because they are hemorrhaging cash and would like to stem the tide at least somewhat.  But that's only for now.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You yourself were noting how online was not going to make nearly as much money.  The studios will want butts back in seats as soon as possible.  They're moving content online for now because they are hemorrhaging cash and would like to stem the tide at least somewhat.  But that's only for now.




 They're trying simultaneous release which is different to the 90 day thing. 

 Idk if they can make it work as they were charginging $30 for a movie on ppv. 

 Not bad if you can fill your house to watch movie. Not so great in a pandemic. 

 WW84 will be first big budget AAA title to test the theory. 

 Idk how long AMC, Regal etc can hold out for. AMCs stock plummeted when WB announced the HBO deal.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> They're trying simultaneous release which is different to the 90 day thing.




Simultaneous... for a month.  Then it'll leave the streaming service for a while.



Zardnaar said:


> Idk if they can make it work as they were charginging $30 for a movie on ppv.
> 
> Not bad if you can fill your house to watch movie. Not so great in a pandemic.




$30 PPV was not a great deal for the consumer.  But HBO Max costs $15/month.  For new subscribers, it's $12/month for the first six months right now.  In a major metropolitan area in the US, that's about the price of one movie ticket, and will get you not just the big movie of the month, but a bunch of other stuff.  If you are going to want to watch those movies, HBO Max is a steal.



Zardnaar said:


> Idk how long AMC, Regal etc can hold out for. AMCs stock plummeted when WB announced the HBO deal.




As previously noted - if AMC, Regal, etc fail, someone else will buy the theaters and put them into business once we have control of the thing.  There is too much money on the line for that to not happen.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Simultaneous... for a month.  Then it'll leave the streaming service for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 4 weeks is plenty of time movies make most if their money first 3 weekends anyway. 

  HBO Max isn't available in a lot of places and you'll be able to pirate it almost as soon as it goes up. 

 Most pirated movie of all time? 

 In terrible with superhero movies. Only saw WW, Aquaman and MCU last year or so when they turned up on Netflix and Disney +.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 7, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> They're trying simultaneous release which is different to the 90 day thing.



back in July there was  an  announcement that Universal Studios and AMC had come to terms with a deal that allowed the studio to make their films available for home viewing 17 days after their theatrical release sent shock waves through the industry.

I think the 90 days is over....









						The Screening Room | New release strategy a stake in heart of theaters
					

The year 2020 has been disastrous for many industries, film exhibitors among them. However, things got much worse for AMC, Marcus Theaters, Regal Cinemas and their brethren on Thursday with




					www.news-gazette.com


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 7, 2020)

My neighborhood's theater is indeed being converted into office space. The commercial development it's been in has long struggled to keep tenants, though. About the only thing that's lasted is a Cheesecake Factory. And well, until now the movie theater.



Umbran said:


> Unlikely, given the timescales involved.  Major theaters will be zoned for commercial use, not residential.  Getting re-zoned is a notable process, and is apt to take longer than the pandemic will last (given effective vaccines, fingers crossed).


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 7, 2020)

Let the legal battles begin Legendary Set to Challenge Warner Bros.’ Move of ‘Dune’ and ‘Godzilla’ to HBO Max — Report


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> back in July there was  an  announcement that Universal Studios and AMC had come to terms with a deal that allowed the studio to make their films available for home viewing 17 days after their theatrical release sent shock waves through the industry.
> 
> I think the 90 days is over....
> 
> ...




 Yeah without the 90 day things it looks bad for movie theatres. 

 If Disney goes down the screw the theatres path?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> My neighborhood's theater is indeed being converted into office space. The commercial development it's been in has long struggled to keep tenants, though. About the only thing that's lasted is a Cheesecake Factory. And well, until now the movie theater.




Yeah, my point doesn't speak to properties that have been troubled for long periods of time before the pandemic.  I'm talking about theaters owned by theater chains that go under entirely, not individually troubled locations.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 7, 2020)

__





						Redirect Notice
					





					www.google.com
				




 Couple of months ago. No real surprises covers a few topics bit yeah streaming alone at $30 price point doesn't work (so far).


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 9, 2020)

Patty Jenkins On ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Move To HBO Max And Theatrical: “There Was No Good Option”
					

Before WarnerMedia’s decision last week to move Warner Bros’ entire 2021 feature film slate to HBO Max along with their theatrical releases, the company made the same move with its DC tentpole Wonder Woman 1984. The sequel to the 2017 hit will still premiere in cinemas on December 25, but now...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 10, 2020)

Looks like Patty is ignoring Justice League Patty Jenkins ‘Tossed Out’ Joss Whedon’s ‘Justice League’: It Contradicted ‘Wonder Woman’


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 10, 2020)

Disney has announced 10 new MCU and Star Wars shows. 

 Without directly saying it looks lovely he the focus won't be on movies. 

 So yeah theatres huh?


----------



## Rabulias (Dec 11, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> So yeah theatres huh?



Before the pandemic, the general performance and reception of the Disney-era Star Wars films was not great. They had cancelled plans for any more Han Solo films, the Boba Fett movie, and the Obi-Wan movie, as well as a rumored new trilogy by Rian Johnson. Disney was clearly taking a break from Star Wars films in theaters long before Covid 19. So I would not take this as a solid data point regarding the future of theaters. Time will tell. Let's look at how theaters are doing in August 2021.


----------



## ccs (Dec 11, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Disney has announced 10 new MCU and Star Wars shows.
> 
> Without directly saying it looks lovely he the focus won't be on movies.
> 
> So yeah theatres huh?




For SW this isn't really news.  Disney told us nearly a year ago that for SW the focus for the near future was going to be tv/streaming.
And we already knew they had a bunch of Marvel shows planned.
But even without such statements, why do you imagine they went to all the expense of building thier own streaming service?  Surely they were planning on filling it with more than just thier back catolog....


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 11, 2020)

ccs said:


> For SW this isn't really news.  Disney told us nearly a year ago that for SW the focus for the near future was going to be tv/streaming.
> And we already knew they had a bunch of Marvel shows planned.
> But even without such statements, why do you imagine they went to all the expense of building thier own streaming service?  Surely they were planning on filling it with more than just thier back catolog....




 No their plan is to turn it into the same size as Netflix by 2023.

 It will make as much money as everything else combined by that point. 

 That's gonna accelerate movie geddon.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 12, 2020)

Well splashed out to see A Christmas Gift from Bob. 

 They spent a lot revamping a while ago so bought cheeseburger meal and a beer at the theater. 

 Atm got whole theater to ourselves so see who busy it is. Wouldn't mind coming back for WW84.


----------



## ccs (Dec 12, 2020)

Just found out the local Cinemark is actually open.
Last I knew it was completely closed except for private $99 group parties (good if you've got enough people to justify the cost, not so good for groups of 1_2...)
I ran into the one manager at the grocery store. 
I guess their turnout for anything has been super low.  Like 20 people for the same evening showing last sat.  And low single digits for anything during the day.

So maybe I will get to see WW on the big screen vs adding HBOmax just yet.
I'll just wait until the 1st/2nd week of Jan & hit an early- mid afternoon showing on a Tuesday or something.
If there's even 5 other people that day there'll still be an acre of space between any of us.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 12, 2020)

ccs said:


> Just found out the local Cinemark is actually open.
> Last I knew it was completely closed except for private $99 group parties (good if you've got enough people to justify the cost, not so good for groups of 1_2...)
> I ran into the one manager at the grocery store.
> I guess their turnout for anything has been super low.  Like 20 people for the same evening showing last sat.  And low single digits for anything during the day.
> ...




 I noticed my one was offering rent a theatre private group bring your on game console $250 NZD ($175 approx). Only 2 hours though. 

Or hire a theatre up to 20 friends and watch some older movies.

 Ended up with 6 people in it but it wasn't  a AAA or even new release. 

 Apparently it's made less than 100k and it was a great movie so it's sad.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 19, 2020)

Finally info on when we in the UK can watch it via digital on-demand rental services (doesn't say which).









						WONDER WOMAN 1984: Warner Bros. Reveals When The DC Sequel Hits PVOD Platforms In The UK
					

Wonder Woman 1984 is currently only playing in cinemas in the UK, but with the U.S. getting the DC Comics sequel on HBO Max on Christmas Day, a PVOD debut has finally been confirmed for the country...




					www.comicbookmovie.com
				




January 13th. That's nearly 3 weeks after the US, so I still predict this will be the most pirated movie in history.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2020)

And Roku and HBO have worked out their differences, so Roku-users can now get HBO Max, so that WW1984 (and all the other WB films coming up) will be accessible.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2020)

Yeah, they really need to figure out a better strategy for getting these streaming offerings to people outside the US. These days, people aren't prepared to wait 3 weeks and get it completely spoiled (while not being able to discuss it with their US-based online friends until it's too late). With an entire year with all of their movies? They'll lose _so_ much money worldwide to piracy unless they come up with something better.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, they really need to figure out a better strategy for getting these streaming offerings to people outside the US. These days, people aren't prepared to wait 3 weeks and get it completely spoiled (while not being able to discuss it with their US-based online friends until it's too late). With an entire year with all of their movies? They'll lose _so_ much money worldwide to piracy unless they come up with something better.



I'm just glad Lower Decks has finally been picked up in the UK. I've no idea why that one took so much longer than the other new Trek shows, and while I've long since grown out of pirating content, I was sorely tempted in this case.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2020)

MarkB said:


> I'm just glad Lower Decks has finally been picked up in the UK. I've no idea why that one took so much longer than the other new Trek shows, and while I've long since grown out of pirating content, I was sorely tempted in this case.



Oh has it? Where and when?


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, they really need to figure out a better strategy for getting these streaming offerings to people outside the US. These days, people aren't prepared to wait 3 weeks and get it completely spoiled (while not being able to discuss it with their US-based online friends until it's too late). With an entire year with all of their movies? They'll lose _so_ much money worldwide to piracy unless they come up with something better.



I'm with you on this one.  As an American, this doesn't affect me all that often, but I still haven't see _Juan of the Dead _and it's a movie that's right up my alley. It's a Spanish-Cuban produced movie and I don't know if it's ever been available here in the states. It's 2020! Let's not have our distribution network set up like it's still 1992.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, they really need to figure out a better strategy for getting these streaming offerings to people outside the US.




The decision to make WW 1984 available on streaming platforms was made public about one month prior to its release, and is a direct response to covid-19.  This isn't part of normal corporate strategy.

You figure it is easy to negotiate and execute goodness-knows how many international contracts, hopefully worth hundreds of millions of dollars, for distribution in one month?  I don't. They only just got their issues worked out with a domestic provider (Roku) a few days ago.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2020)

Umbran said:


> The decision to make WW 1984 available on streaming platforms was made public about one month prior to its release, and is a direct response to covid-19.  This isn't part of normal corporate strategy.
> 
> You figure it is easy to negotiate and execute goodness-knows how many international contracts, hopefully worth hundreds of millions of dollars, for distribution in one month?  I don't. They only just got their issues worked out with a domestic provider (Roku) a few days ago.



I do not figure it is easy, no. Where did you get that idea? I'm sure it's incredibly difficult. But I predict that if they don't manage it they'll lose a ton of money to piracy. I'm not _advocating_ piracy, I'm predicting it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I do not figure it is easy, no. Where did you get that idea? I'm sure it's incredibly difficult.




Your wording led me to think you felt the basic time issue was in the strategy, not in the nature of large international contracts - that they could be executed faster with some change in approach.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Your wording led me to think you felt the basic time issue was in the strategy, not in the nature of large international contracts - that they could be executed faster with some change in approach.



That is not an opinion that I hold. They have an incoming problem, and I've merely mentioned the problem.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Oh has it? Where and when?



Amazon Prime, 22nd January.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Amazon Prime, 22nd January.



Woohoo!


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 22, 2020)

speaking of piracy Covid relief bill to make illegal streaming a felony with up to 10-year prison sentence, in landmark victory for Hollywood studios


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> speaking of piracy Covid relief bill to make illegal streaming a felony with up to 10-year prison sentence, in landmark victory for Hollywood studios



That’ll totally scare all the people not in America who will be pirating Wonder Woman!


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2020)

Make stuff cheap and easily available......


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 22, 2020)

maybe if they got more from the UK at the box office than they do here in the US ,they would care more


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> maybe if they got more from the UK at the box office than they do here in the US ,they would care more




 But it called Great Britain. They wouldn't lie about the great part right?


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2020)

Made 18 million in China, 38 million worldwide so far. Not great though but Covid.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 22, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> speaking of piracy Covid relief bill to make illegal streaming a felony with up to 10-year prison sentence, in landmark victory for Hollywood studios




What has illegal streaming to do with covid relief? Nothing at all. They just found an excuse to squeeze this into the bill and help out the entertainment industry, who are now considered essential workers for some reason. At this rate what is an essential worker any more? Can people not survive without the movie and music industry being super rich?


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> What has illegal streaming to do with covid relief? Nothing at all. They just found an excuse to squeeze this into the bill and help out the entertainment industry, who are now considered essential workers for some reason. At this rate what is an essential worker any more? Can people not survive without the movie and music industry being super rich?




 It has SFA but a few congress critters likely threw in some freebies for themselves.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> But it called Great Britain. They wouldn't lie about the great part right?



I assure you that this isn’t the forum where you want to make derogatory comments about other countries. Knock it off.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 23, 2020)

ugh posted something that already been posted


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2020)

Hm.  Apropos of nothing but the carrier...

HBO Max is going to have _Babylon 5_ starting January 26th, which is nice.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 24, 2020)

Babylon 5 really deserves either a reboot, or a full on remaster with updated special effects. I remember hearing that a lot of the original effect shots are really low resolution, so they would have to redo them from scratch to update it for HD. And I wouldn't be against that, since a lot of it looks really dated now.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> I remember hearing that a lot of the original effect shots are really low resolution, so they would have to redo them from scratch to update it for HD.




By word of JMS himself, this is _entirely incorrect_. The original shots are high quality. Warner Brothers cut corners on transferring those to DVD, and then those DVD masters were given a cheap upscale to HD, resulting in what we see now.

If WB took the time and effort to go back to the broadcast masters, you'd have a wonderful show to watch.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 24, 2020)

Then it truly is a crime that this hasn't happened yet. B5 is a fantastic show that deserves a proper release.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> Then it truly is a crime that this hasn't happened yet. B5 is a fantastic show that deserves a proper release.




As I understand it, WB just hasn't felt it is worth the price - though the originals are of high quality, there would still be a remastering step that would not be cheap for a five-year series.

I hold a small hope that maybe they've taken the plunge for the HBO Max release.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 24, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I hold a small hope that maybe they've taken the plunge for the HBO Max release.



And I hold a small hope that maybe it will be picked up by a UK streaming service.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 24, 2020)

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, WB just hasn't felt it is worth the price - though the originals are of high quality, there would still be a remastering step that would not be cheap for a five-year series.



My understanding,which aligns with yours more or less is that it's internal politics/hostility towards the show that in part prevents it.

Here's a two year old article that talks about it ‘Babylon 5’ is great, so why does it look so bad?


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 24, 2020)

It's quite expensive to do though and not worth the money.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> My understanding,which aligns with yours more or less is that it's internal politics/hostility towards the show that in part prevents it.




Supposedly, yes, there's someone in the halls of power that has decided that B5 needs to be shoved in a drawer, the drawer locked, and the key thrown away.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 24, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Supposedly, yes, there's someone in the halls of power that has decided that B5 needs to be shoved in a drawer, the drawer locked, and the key thrown away.



To be fair, much as he made a great show, I get the impression JMS tended to have that effect on people.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 24, 2020)

MarkB said:


> To be fair, much as he made a great show, I get the impression JMS tended to have that effect on people.



I remember his falling out publicly online with Mongoose Publishing over the RPG.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 24, 2020)

From memory he did V in the 80's.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 24, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> From memory he did V in the 80's.




Pretty sure he also did the original She-ra.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> From memory he did V in the 80's.




No, he did not.



cmad1977 said:


> Pretty sure he also did the original She-ra.




Yes, he did.  Also He-Man.  Also The Real Ghostbusters (the cartoon), and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> No, he did not.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did.  Also He-Man.  Also The Real Ghostbusters (the cartoon), and a bunch of other stuff.




 Epic brain fart got that mixed up lol.

 I think Trek spent millions on HDing some episodes. It's not cheap so I doubt they'll ever do it for B5.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 25, 2020)

Well, I just got done watching and it was okay.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 25, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Well, I just got done watching and it was okay.



You're very generous.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're very generous.



I didn't want to spoil it for those who live elsewhere, it had some issues 



Spoiler



like what happened to the plane?


 Several bits of CGI were iffy.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 26, 2020)

I thought it was a fun movie with good heart that needed a script doctor and some tighter editing.



Spoiler



The villains were both fun to watch, and to empathize with. I really dug Max Lord's desperate suaveness. Though him flying to Egypt and back was an odd whiplash.

Also, one small line would've fixed a bit where I had trouble suspending disbelief. When they get the jet, just have Diana say that this is cutting edge Wayne Tech, able to fly around the world twice on one tank of fuel. (Or insert appropriate DC-Universe arms manufacturer; I know Bruce would be a kid in 1984, but his family's company might have developed nifty fuel tech.)

The 'moral lesson' climax worked for me, and I teared up at the emotional beat. But the 'physical conflict' element of the climax fell flat, in my opinion. Fighting Barbara just felt like any other CG vs CG action scene, with no real payoff to their relationship. And I wish they'd spent more of the denouement showing a bit of the aftermath for the various characters.

Honestly, I wonder if the movie might have benefited from somehow getting Barbara and Diana to work together in one action scene. I'm not sure where you would have put that, though.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 26, 2020)

Waiting for movie to start. Went to the flash theater huge screen converted from a 19th century opera house.

 Mate had free tickets so spent $20 on snacks.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're very generous.




Nah, I think that take was about right.  It was okay.  Not amazing, but good enough.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 26, 2020)

Overall was good, loved the first half.

Liked the cameo from Megatron and Luke Skywalker.


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 26, 2020)

I loved it! The first movie was better, IMO, but I still loved '84!

The movie started off too slowly for me, with too much _wink-at-the-camera_ '80s cheese (_with Gadot literally winking at the camera at one point_) . . . but there was good reason to set this story in the '80s. As the stakes ramped up, I really began to enjoy the film.

The early battle against the mall-jewelry-store robbers was silly, annoyingly so. The flashback scenes of Themiscrya were breathtaking, again. The little girl who played young Diana in both films (Lilly Aspell) was again adorable and believable as the headstrong and arrogant young goddess.

Din Djarin, er, Pedro Pascal, was cheesy as Max Lord for the most part, but pulled off some really good stuff at the very end of the film. For most of the film his villain was very, well, comic-book and melodramatic. Kristin Wiig played a very believable transformation from nerdy scientist to sexy-dangerous Cheetah. Chris Pine was, well, he's one of the best Chrises for a reason, great as always.

Despite the '80s cheese surrounding her, I felt Gadot did a good job portraying Diana's heroism and sadness. The villain's motivations were understandable, although you didn't fully get Max Lord's until the final chapter in the movie. The action sequences were pretty awesome, although again, not quite to the same level as the first film.

Steve's return was fun, but ultimately tragic and sad. We got some fun cameos . . . Simon Stagg, Bialya, the invisible jet, the "Kingdom Come" golden armor (which looked fantastic on screen), the mid-credits scene . . . FUN!

The film also stayed true to the themes of the first film, that love and truth will save the day, which was put up against the VERY '80s greed and selfishness of Maxwell Lord, and also Barbara Minerva

I watched WW84 on HBOMax, and made the foolish decision to watch the DC Fandome half-hour special before the film . . . that was awful, skip that!


----------



## Mallus (Dec 26, 2020)

I loved it, too!

It's not just set in 1984, it's a modern day recreation of a summer blockbuster from the mid-1980s. You could slot a Ghostbuster or Eddie Murphy and the Golden Child in and it would be a perfect fit. Heck, it has more in common with Disney live-action movies from the 1970s (see Friday, Freaky) than a Snyder DC film (which I _like_, BTW).

Wiig and Pascal are fantastic (as are Gadot & Pine, of course).


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 26, 2020)

Mallus said:


> I loved it, too!
> 
> It's not just set in 1984, it's a modern day recreation of a summer blockbuster from the mid-1980s. You could slot a Ghostbuster or Eddie Murphy and the Golden Child in and it would be a perfect it. Heck, it has more in common with Disney live-action movies from the 1970s (see Friday, Freaky) than a Snyder DC film (which I _like_, BTW).
> 
> Wiig and Pascal are fantastic (as are Gadot & Pine, of course).



Yeah, I agree that they were trying to make the film in the style of an 80s family blockbuster film . . . . but having grown up in the 80s, I think there are things we can leave behind . . . .


----------



## Aeson (Dec 27, 2020)

I actually caught a continuity error. It's the first time I noticed one. After they pick up the papers, some are sticking out of the briefcase. It goes back and forth with papers sticking out and not.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2020)

There's a bit of an issue over consent in there that they probably really should have addressed.  I'm rather surprised they didn't, as it could likely have been dealt with in a sentence or two.


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 27, 2020)

Umbran said:


> There's a bit of an issue over consent in there that they probably really should have addressed.  I'm rather surprised they didn't, as it could likely have been dealt with in a sentence or two.



That bothered me a bit, the random dude Steve magically took over . . . neither Steve nor Diana seemed to give it much thought. Granted, the action takes place rather quickly, perhaps they could have discussed the issue if they had any calm moments. But in Diana's agonizing over renouncing her wish and losing Steve again, you'd think at least Steve would have reminded her about the poor guy whose body he "stole".


----------



## Mallus (Dec 27, 2020)

It did bug me not a line of dialog was spent addressing the fact Trevor was displacing another person. Which was made a bit better by the fact he seemed to understand the arrangement was temporary.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 27, 2020)

Dire Bare said:


> I think there are things we can leave behind . . . .



Parachute pants for one.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 27, 2020)

I think it was okay, but I wouldn't say that I think it was good. 

Both of the WW movies seem to have the same problem (to me): they start strong but start to go downhill after about the 30-40 minute mark; the endings and villains tend to be pretty blah.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 27, 2020)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think it was okay, but I wouldn't say that I think it was good.
> 
> Both of the WW movies seem to have the same problem (to me): they start strong but start to go downhill after about the 30-40 minute mark; the endings and villains tend to be pretty blah.




 Yeah it was around 2.5 hours. Start was great by the end just wanted out of the theatre. 

 7.5/10 for me liked the first one better.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2020)

Mallus said:


> It did bug me not a line of dialog was spent addressing the fact Trevor was displacing another person.




Yeah.  Especially when, clearly, it wasn't necessary for the plot.  The magic could create matter out of thin air - it could manage a body for Steve.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 27, 2020)

Wiig's transformation reminds me of Pfeiffer's transformation in Batman returns.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Dec 28, 2020)

WW3 gets fast tracked









						Warner Bros. Is Fast-Tracking Wonder Woman 3 After 1984's Success
					

After a remarkably successful debut,  Warner Bros. is fast-tracking Wonder Woman 3. This third film in the series, the fifth to feature Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, will be made with Patty Jenkins directing. According to Jenkins, it may be her last in the series.




					io9.gizmodo.com


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

They are probably smart to consider it in terms of the current situation, rather than the normal metrics used.  The question isn't if it made money, but _if it would have_ done so, if times were normal.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 28, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Not to mention the cost is astronomical even for a matinee.  For myself just for a ticket and concessions its probably $30.



I've never spent 30 bucks to see a movie, unless it came with a beer and actual dinner.


R_J_K75 said:


> There used to be cheap drive ins and $1 theaters but they are pretty much extinct.  In the last 5-10 years niche theaters have begun opening which showed less mainstream movies, sold alcohol and dinner.  Those were fun but I doubt they'll survive the pandemic, as they had limited showings and small capacity.



I'm nearly positive that drive-ins will come back, in the next few years. The tech for such a thing is _much_ better than it used to be, and comparatively cheap, and allows for the social aspects of movies that people have always loved, without being packed into a room full of people.


Umbran said:


> Jane Foster Thor is supposed to show up in _Thor: Love and Thunder_.  However, I wouldn't expect that to be a continuing thing past that movie.  Miles Morales currently has his home in animation - Into the Spiderverse is getting a sequel.
> 
> Riri Williams may be a ways off yet - I think they'd want to see how the Shuri-led Black Panther does.



Since no one elsee brought it up, Riri Williams is getting a whole show (Ironheart), pretty soon. They aren't waiting for anything on that one. I see no reason whatsoeverr that Jane FosThor wouldn't show up beyond one movie, unless they decide to give her a tragic end. There can straight up be two Thors.


Umbran said:


> Those theaters _WILL_ be bought and re-opened by someone who wants to cash in on all the folks who have been cooped up and are yearning for experiences outside the home. I don't think there's a credible chance that they'll remain closed for long beyond broad community vaccination.



Yep. They probably will have to put fewer people in the same spaces, though.


MarkB said:


> So, mini-malls and cubicle farms, then.



In a few cases, sure. And then new theaters will be built.


trappedslider said:


> speaking of piracy Covid relief bill to make illegal streaming a felony with up to 10-year prison sentence, in landmark victory for Hollywood studios



I genuinely despise everything about that. Copyright law is completely out of control.


Dire Bare said:


> cheesy as Max Lord for the most part, but pulled off some really good stuff at the very end of the film



Really? I felt some genuine sympathy for the character pretty early on. The whole scene in his office building was all I needed to wish the character could get a break and not feel the need to steal a magical artifact to get what he wants.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm nearly positive that drive-ins will come back, in the next few years.




Drive-ins have already started popping up in my area - restaurants with big parking lots and fairgrounds, for example were already putting up screens and showing movies in the summer.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Since no one elsee brought it up, Riri Williams is getting a whole show (Ironheart), pretty soon.




Yep.  That announcement came after my post.  Word on the street is the RDJ is going to lend his voice as well - which makes sense, given that in the comics, Riri is supported by an AI of himself Stark left behind before dying....



doctorbadwolf said:


> They aren't waiting for anything on that one. I see no reason whatsoeverr that Jane FosThor wouldn't show up beyond one movie, unless they decide to give her a tragic end. There can straight up be two Thors.




There can be, but I expect there won't be for any extended period.  In the comics line, Foster picks up the hammer when Odinson falls from worthiness (because Fury tells Odinson a secret he has a _really hard time_ digesting).  In the comics, Foster is suffering from cancer, and her time in the role is thus limited.

In the real world, comic movie plots have restricted lifetimes as well, as actors age.  Hemsworth, at 37, had already mentioned a couple years ago that keeping up with the physical regimen of keeping up a superhero body is taxing.  Portman's 40.  When movies come several years apart, you only get a few before you're done.  I don't expect we'll see Foster as Thor beyond this movie.




doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. They probably will have to put fewer people in the same spaces, though.




Only if vaccination turns out to not work so well.  But then we have bigger problems than what's going to happen to the movie industry.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 28, 2020)

I watched WW84 on Christmas Day; here are my tentative thoughts.

1. Absolutely love Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. It's just about perfect casting.

2. Chris Pine is amazing, as always. 

3. The whole "1984" thing was played up for some easy laughs (such as the obligatory breakdancing bit) but IMO they ended up using the themes fairly well (greed, cold war) as a backdrop.

4. DC movies, as a whole, are much more "hit or miss" than MCU movies; MCU movies are much more consistent and "tight" but lack the differences that the DC movies do. 

5. As an action movie, this wasn't great. Arguably, the best action sequence was the beginning (the flashback to Diana's childhood).

6. As a movie movie, I enjoyed it. The biggest problem was that by having two "villains" neither of them as given the attention that I was hoping for. And the final combat, despite the awesome reveal of WW's gold suit, was really lame. 

Overall, it was a good movie, and I was genuinely moved by the end. Kinda sappy, but it worked for me. So long as you didn't think about it too much (wait ... no one was greedy enough not to renounce ... no one?).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Drive-ins have already started popping up in my area - restaurants with big parking lots and fairgrounds, for example were already putting up screens and showing movies in the summer.



Yeah for sure. In Santa Barbara I’ve heard, as well, from family down there. I’ve got a buddy with a burger joint where he is allowed to have live music in the parking lot, and he’s working on getting the landlord to allow movie nights as well. 


Umbran said:


> Yep.  That announcement came after my post.  Word on the street is the RDJ is going to lend his voice as well - which makes sense, given that in the comics, Riri is supported by an AI of himself Stark left behind before dying....



Yep. I think we are gonna see a live action Miles in the next several years, as well. Maybe they’ll get Nova in someone else’s movie or show soon, as well, and we can have the three team up. 


Umbran said:


> There can be, but I expect there won't be for any extended period.  In the comics line, Foster picks up the hammer when Odinson falls from worthiness (because Fury tells Odinson a secret he has a _really hard time_ digesting).  In the comics, Foster is suffering from cancer, and her time in the role is thus limited.



It’s limited in universe, but that can week a single run or several, with crossovers. It ended up meaning a pretty long run. 


Umbran said:


> In the real world, comic movie plots have restricted lifetimes as well, as actors age.  Hemsworth, at 37, had already mentioned a couple years ago that keeping up with the physical regimen of keeping up a superhero body is taxing.  Portman's 40.  When movies come several years apart, you only get a few before you're done.  I don't expect we'll see Foster as Thor beyond this movie.



I disagree, but it doesn’t really matter. 


Umbran said:


> Only if vaccination turns out to not work so well.  But then we have bigger problems than what's going to happen to the movie industry.



I wouldn’t bank on the vaccine putting things back to normal. This likely won’t be the last pandemic this decade.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 28, 2020)

Still haven't seen it but you all are MUCH more positive than my friends who have (most of whom love these types of movies).....


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. I think we are gonna see a live action Miles in the next several years, as well.




Maybe.  He's doing really well in animation, though, so I am not sure of Sony's going to change up a winning thing just because.



doctorbadwolf said:


> I wouldn’t bank on the vaccine putting things back to normal. This likely won’t be the last pandemic this decade.




I don't think the public has a lot of patience for such controls without a clear and present danger.  If covid-19 gets under control I don't expect folks to stay home.  If and when another pandemic comes along, then maybe they'll be have learned to respond more appropriately, but until that next issue comes along, they're not going to stay home "just in case".


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Maybe.  He's doing really well in animation, though, so I am not sure of Sony's going to change up a winning thing just because.



I mean, they can do both. 


Umbran said:


> I don't think the public has a lot of patience for such controls without a clear and present danger.  If covid-19 gets under control I don't expect folks to stay home.  If and when another pandemic comes along, then maybe they'll be have learned to respond more appropriately, but until that next issue comes along, they're not going to stay home "just in case".



I didn’t suggest any such thing. I didn’t even vaguely kinda hint at any such thing. I don’t normally have to worry about this sort of hyperbolic reply when discussing things with you. If I’d said anything about people “staying home just in case”, this might be a

But people’s behaviors will change for a while. We won’t go back to normal overnight, even if we ignore all the people who likely just cannot ever get the vaccine, and the people who will refuse it.

People will be more reluctant to be in a small room that can’t fit any more people than are in it for a while. 

Businesses will be more reluctant to try to cram as many people in the establishment as the fire code allows, for a while.

And every time a flu is a little harder to make a vaccine for in a given year, or a new virus looks like it might go pandemic, for the next several years if not longer, people will react by pulling back and restricting how many strangers can be near them.

And there will likely be another pandemic. And some restrictions will become permanent when that happens. We accept fire code occupancy limits. Surely you don’t think we would refuse to accept slightly stricter limits?

But to the thing _I actually said_, crowded venues like theaters already made a lot of people uncomfortable before the pandemic. That discomfort won’t go back to pre-COVID levels any time soon, nor will willingness to ignore it. Theaters with smaller numbers of seats per theater room will have an easier time selling tickets, for a good while.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 28, 2020)

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's just DCEU films being graded on a curve. The first film coasted basically on the fact that it really _needed_ to succeed, because otherwise it was barely passable. This one is just plain _bad, _offensively so, in spite of having more interesting villains (which again, low bar and all).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> The first film coasted basically on the fact that it really _needed_ to succeed, because otherwise it was barely passable.




The first film grossed $822+ million dollars worldwide.  Your suggestion that it was "barely passable" does not seem aligned with that reality.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> The first film grossed $822+ million dollars worldwide.  Your suggestion that it was "barely passable" does not seem aligned with that reality.



Do I really need to make the Michael Bay argument here? Success and quality are two very different metrics. For what it's worth, I'm quite pleased the film did as well as it did, knowing how much was riding on its success (never mind that should never have been the case in the first place, but alas and alack, the world we have is very imperfect). I just would have also preferred it had been a good movie on top of that.


----------



## Marc_C (Dec 28, 2020)

Saw it. I give it a 6.5 on 10. The only part I really liked was the beginning when Diana is young. The script and fight scenes were lacklustre. A movie on auto-pilot. Flying on a fighter plane from NY to Cairo was silly. I much prefer the first one which was entertaining and funny.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I didn’t suggest any such thing. I didn’t even vaguely kinda hint at any such thing. I don’t normally have to worry about this sort of hyperbolic reply




There was nothing hyperbolic in my reply.  



doctorbadwolf said:


> And there will likely be another pandemic. And some restrictions will become permanent when that happens. We accept fire code occupancy limits. Surely you don’t think we would refuse to accept slightly stricter limits?




They _should_ refuse to accept them, because they would not be a smart, _science-based response_ to the issue.  But that's probably a discussion for the pandemic thread, not this one.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> Do I really need to make the Michael Bay argument here? Success and quality are two very different metrics.




Fine.  The Tomatometer then - the 2017 Wonder Woman got a 95% positive critical score, and an 84% positive audience rating.

WW84 is doing much less well on both fronts.  I would agree it is not as good a movie.  But broadly speaking, the first one was broadly well-accepted, and you're just going to have to deal with that.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Fine.  The Tomatometer then - the 2017 Wonder Woman got a 95% positive critical score, and an 84% positive audience rating.
> 
> WW84 is doing much less well on both fronts.  I would agree it is not as good a movie.  But broadly speaking, the first one was broadly well-accepted, and you're just going to have to deal with that.



I didn't say that it wasn't well accepted. I said that it wasn't very good, so the former was a little puzzling to me. I, again,  chalked it up to at least being quite a bit better than any previous DCEU efforts, the moment in which it came out, and how much it really _needed_ to be successful. I suspect that history will be less kind to it, but that is mere speculation.

As to the Tomato, well, there's no accounting for taste. I'd imagine that that 84% audience rating is even lower than it ought to be, given the nature of review bombing and the types of products those actions tend to target. But they're also similar to the Tomato scores for Skyfall, an incredibly beloved Bond film that I considered to be total rubbish. So maybe I'm the weirdo (fwiw, I only thought the first WW was so-so, my partner _loathed_ it).

Or maybe I'm bitter that it stole all the acclaim and adoration that the previous year's far superior but never given half a chance Ghostbusters reboot. Maybe the world was more ready to accept a female-led genre action movie with an incredibly physically attractive actress despite barely being able to emote while speaking. Maybe Feig hired the wrong Chris. Maybe they needed even more stupidly cartoonish villains. Maybe the action in the climax was a little too easy to follow. Maybe the world wasn't (and still isn't) ready to accept Kristen Wiig as a major star. Or maybe the intervening year and all that happened in it led audiences to be much more committed to allowing the movie to succeed.

I'd _guess_ it's that last one, but the world will probably never know.

In any case, now that the future of female led (and female directed) genre films is more or less secure at this point, it does offer a bit of schadenfreude to watch the sequel taken to task for many of the same issues that, frankly, were wrong with the first one too (hell, WW84 even has actual somewhat compelling villains, rather than the Saturday morning cartoon villains of its predecessor,  this time around too!) If it hadn't gone out of its way to crap all over the Middle East for no adequately explored reason, it might have even been better. By a little bit. Again, low bar


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> I didn't say that it wasn't well accepted. I said that it wasn't very good, so the former was a little puzzling to me. I, again,  chalked it up to at least being quite a bit better than any previous DCEU efforts, the moment in which it came out, and how much it really _needed_ to be successful. I suspect that history will be less kind to it, but that is mere speculation.
> 
> As to the Tomato, well, there's no accounting for taste.




Okay, so maybe I am missing something.  This started with you saying:

_"Yeah, I'm wondering if it's just DCEU films being graded on a curve. The first film coasted basically on the fact that it really needed to succeed..."_

Perhaps I got the wrong thing.  So, let me ask explicitly:

What is IT?  You are wondering if WHAT is just DCEU films being graded on a curve?  

And what did the first film coast by, on the fact that it needed to succeed?  

Because from where I sit, you seem to be basically complaining that there's some mystery in how millions of people can like a movie you don't.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> I didn't say that it wasn't well accepted. I said that it wasn't very good, so the former was a little puzzling to me. I, again,  chalked it up to at least being quite a bit better than any previous DCEU efforts, the moment in which it came out, and how much it really _needed_ to be successful. I suspect that history will be less kind to it, but that is mere speculation.
> 
> As to the Tomato, well, there's no accounting for taste. I'd imagine that that 84% audience rating is even lower than it ought to be, given the nature of review bombing and the types of products those actions tend to target. But they're also similar to the Tomato scores for Skyfall, an incredibly beloved Bond film that I considered to be total rubbish. So maybe I'm the weirdo (fwiw, I only thought the first WW was so-so, my partner _loathed_ it).
> 
> ...




Rotten Tomatoes is crap lol. Ghostbusters was rubbish and a reboot while we was somewhat original. 

 First one was fun, second one ok. 

 You're gonna have your hits and misses much like any other genre.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> There was nothing hyperbolic in my reply.



I made a comment that we won’t return to exactly the status quo pre-COVID, and you replied as if I’d suggested that everyone will still be quarantining themselves post-COVID, for no real reason. That’s hyperbolic, at best. 


Umbran said:


> They _should_ refuse to accept them, because they would not be a smart, _science-based response_ to the issue.  But that's probably a discussion for the pandemic thread, not this one.



Should has no relationship whatsoever with what will happen, especially if your definition of should in relation to human activity is, somewhat absurdly, centered on logical responses to experiences that have been varying tiers of traumatic, for large swaths of the population.

Which is what my laughing reply is aimed at, if you were wondering. The silly notion that people will, much less should, respond to a vaccine being widely spread by getting over a years worth of trauma and caution, and go back to pre-COVID disregard for the dangers of gathering densely in public with strangers on a regular basis.

And feel free to argue seriously that people _should_ return to what was _already a dangerous level of apathy toward the dangers of such gatherings. _


----------



## Gradine (Dec 28, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Okay, so maybe I am missing something.  This started with you saying:
> 
> _"Yeah, I'm wondering if it's just DCEU films being graded on a curve. The first film coasted basically on the fact that it really needed to succeed..."_
> 
> ...



My confusion is the mystery of how millions of people can like a movie that really isn't very good. Like I said, I've got a number of theories, one of those being ME being the weirdo


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2020)

Gradine said:


> My confusion is the mystery of how millions of people can like a movie that really isn't very good. Like I said, I've got a number of theories, one of those being ME being the weirdo



I mean, I wouldn't use that term, but when you're the lone voice crying out in the wilderness, that usually means it's you not everybody else.

WW1 was pretty good (until the end fight, which I think we can all agree was a CGI mess). It may not have been a masterpiece, but it was a decent flick.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 29, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I mean, I wouldn't use that term, but when you're the lone voice crying out in the wilderness, that usually means it's you not everybody else.
> 
> WW1 was pretty good (until the end fight, which I think we can all agree was a CGI mess). It may not have been a masterpiece, but it was a decent flick.



I mean, I know quite a few people who were as lukewarm on it as me, and several more that hated it as much as my partner. Doesn't mean we aren't still puzzled by it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 29, 2020)

Gradine said:


> My confusion is the mystery of how millions of people can like a movie that really isn't very good. Like I said, I've got a number of theories, one of those being ME being the weirdo




 You're not the weirdo, movies, beer and pizza for example very subjective.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 29, 2020)

I think WW1 (which was okay*) also benefited from being the first DC movie which was widely seen as enjoyable. Arguably, it also benefitted from coming out at a time when offering criticism toward the movie may have marked someone with some sort of negative label: for reference, look at Captain Marvel**. 

The disappointing thing for me about WW84 is that I thought it would take the momentum (and good things) from the first movie and push further. Instead, I see it as a step backward. With Aquaman and Shazam having been enjoyable, I was hoping that WW would be part of a new direction forward for DC (especially at a time when I suspect Marvel movies might start to fall in quality).

*I enjoyed it. Though -like many others- I felt the ending was pretty bad. In hindsight, I still view it as an alright movie, but (for me) it gets less good as I think about it more. 
**Which I felt was a lesser quality of movie than WW by far, but saying that (or much of anything negative about CM) allegedly meant that the person making the criticism was anti-women or some other cultural scarlet letter.


----------



## pming (Dec 29, 2020)

Hiya!

I had high hopes for it. Then I watched Angry Joe's review (Angry Joe is a guy on Youtube I watch every now and then; his movie and video game takes align fairly often with mine).

After watching AJ... I'm not touching WW'84 with a 84' pole!

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2020)

Gradine said:


> I mean, I know quite a few people who were as lukewarm on it as me, and several more that hated it as much as my partner. Doesn't mean we aren't still puzzled by it.



Well now the story's changing! But millions vs. several, the principle still applies; the scale hasn't really changed there. I mean, it just means you and your friends don't have mainstream tastes, I guess. Maybe that's why you're friends?

I really like _Man of Steel_ and it's in my top 5 superhero movies. I'm aware that not many people seem to share my opinion. People like different things!


----------



## payn (Dec 29, 2020)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> I had high hopes for it. Then I watched Angry Joe's review (Angry Joe is a guy on Youtube I watch every now and then; his movie and video game takes align fairly often with mine).
> 
> ...



I didnt think much of WW84, but man, Id rather watch it all over again than take another 5 min of Angry Joe screaming about nothing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 29, 2020)

RE drive-ins, there's a nearby town where I live, Newberg, that has had a drive in for decades, and is pretty popular.

As for the movie, I found it meh, for many of the same reasons everyone else did.  I liked the first, but this one ranks towards the bottom of DC movies (which isn't a high bar).

As a veteran, I also got bugged by things many probably didn't catch, like how a fighter jet can't fly to Cairo from the US, let alone make it back in a few hours.  Or how when the MK-19 fired grenades and went to slow mo, the entire grenade, including cartridge, was shot through the air from the barrel.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> As a veteran, I also got bugged by things many probably didn't catch, like how a fighter jet can't fly to Cairo from the US, let alone make it back in a few hours.  Or how when the MK-19 fired grenades and went to slow mo, the entire grenade, including cartridge, was shot through the air from the barrel.




I enjoyed the movie. But the jet scene bugged me in so many ways. Stealing a jet? WW1 pilot able to just grok how to fly a modern fighter? Someone who doesn't know what fireworks are (and, um, they were around back then) deciding to steer into them? Flying to Cairo on a single tank of fuel??? And the timing was way, way, way off both ways.

I mentioned this to a friend yesterday and he was like, "It's an action movie. Are you counting the bullets in the gun?"


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 29, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mentioned this to a friend yesterday and he was like, "It's an action movie. Are you counting the bullets in the gun?"



Answer: No, but you should at least hear the casings hit the ground.

Been hearing similar comments, and more, about the movie. At this point I'm on the fence as to whether I watch it now, or just wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime/Hulu instead. The comments are coming from people whose opinions frequently mirror my own.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2020)

Gradine said:


> My confusion is the mystery of how millions of people can like a movie that really isn't very good.




There really isn't much of a mystery.  I demonstrate the solution to the mystery thus:  Define, "good".


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mentioned this to a friend yesterday and he was like, "It's an action movie. Are you counting the bullets in the gun?"




Yeah.  I noted all those issues with their stealing a jet, and then... just didn't worry about it.


----------



## payn (Dec 29, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  I noted all those issues with their stealing a jet, and then... just didn't worry about it.



I had a number of issues with that scene that I just didnt worry about too. However, I did google to find out if side by side seater jets existed. I was glad to find out they do, although it seems weird as hell.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 29, 2020)

payn said:


> I had a number of issues with that scene that I just didnt worry about too. However, I did google to find out if side by side seater jets existed. I was glad to find out they do, although it seems weird as hell.




They're almost all trainer aircraft.  For an instructor and trainee pilot.

*Edit the only exception I'm aware of is the F-111, where they are side by side so that both people can share the radar screen


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 29, 2020)

payn said:


> I had a number of issues with that scene that I just didnt worry about too. However, I did google to find out if side by side seater jets existed. I was glad to find out they do, although it seems weird as hell.



I did wonder what jet it is, fridge horror kicks when you realize that some of those wishes were to get out of an abusive environment.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 29, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> I did wonder what jet it is, fridge horror kicks when you realize that some of those wishes were to get out of an abusive environment.




Apparently based off of the Panavia Tornado from what I could find, but moved it to a side by side instead of tandem seating.  Also, a weird choice because what is a plane doing at the Smithsonian fully fueled ready to go that has only been in service 4 years at that point?  (the tornado came into service in 1980 and saw its high point during the first Gulf War).

Then again, in the video game scene there were video games not invented  yet in 1984, and Steve (WWI pilot) wouldn't have any idea how to fly a modern jet, and it would be impossible to fly to Cairo, and MK19 grenade launchers apparently fire the entire cartridge in 1984,...and...and...     You'd think with that budget, they could afford to at least talk to a military consultant first.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Apparently based off of the Panavia Tornado from what I could find, but moved it to a side by side instead of tandem seating.  Also, a weird choice because what is a plane doing at the Smithsonian fully fueled ready to go that has only been in service 4 years at that point?  (the tornado came into service in 1980 and saw its high point during the first Gulf War).
> 
> Then again, in the video game scene there were video games not invented  yet in 1984, and Steve (WWI pilot) wouldn't have any idea how to fly a modern jet, and it would be impossible to fly to Cairo, and MK19 grenade launchers apparently fire the entire cartridge in 1984,...and...and...     You'd think with that budget, they could afford to at least talk to a military consultant first.



They were fueled up for the 4th July celebration display event.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 29, 2020)

Morrus said:


> They were fueled up for the 4th July celebration display event.



A museum fuels up its donated jets for 4th of July?  Does that actually happen?  As a former aviation crewchief myself, there's a lot of checks and prep work (preflight checks) that have to be done with any aircraft before you can just take off.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> A museum fuels up its donated jets for 4th of July?  Does that actually happen?  As a former aviation crewchief myself, there's a lot of checks and prep work (preflight checks) that have to be done with any aircraft before you can just take off.



I assume people stealing planes ignore the checks on account of the fact that they’re stealing the plane?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 29, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I assume people stealing planes ignore the checks on account of the fact that they’re stealing the plane?



What I'm getting at is that you can't skip them.  There are plugs and blocks placed everywhere on an aircraft until right before you take off when the pilot does their pre flight check.  and in the case of many aircraft with turbine engines (like the UH-60s I crewed), you have to kick on the APU before starting the engines.  There isn't a self respecting air crewmember who would leave an aircraft alone without any of the safety features in place.  It's be a huge violation of the FAA rules for one, not to mention just general safety.

Again, I get that with my background, I'm probably picking up on things that most people don't even notice.  And it's not limited to this movie (I could only make it 5 minutes into that movie with the Rock, San Andreas I think).  I just wish big budget movies would at least talk to a consultant first.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> What I'm getting at is that you can't skip them.  There are plugs and blocks placed everywhere on an aircraft until right before you take off when the pilot does their pre flight check.  and in the case of many aircraft with turbine engines (like the UH-60s I crewed), you have to kick on the APU before starting the engines.  There isn't a self respecting air crewmember who would leave an aircraft alone without any of the safety features in place.  It's be a huge violation of the FAA rules for one, not to mention just general safety.
> 
> Again, I get that with my background, I'm probably picking up on things that most people don't even notice.  And it's not limited to this movie (I could only make it 5 minutes into that movie with the Rock, San Andreas I think).  I just wish big budget movies would at least talk to a consultant first.



Try being a doctor, lawyer, cop, physicist, martial artist, soldier, hacker, or, well, anything! Movies be movies.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> They're almost all trainer aircraft.  For an instructor and trainee pilot.




The tandem seating arrangement is used in fighters, to keep the slim aerodynamic profile  Side-by-side shows up in trainers, and anything big - cargo and bomber aircraft, f'rex - where being slim isn't a major design issue.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> RE drive-ins, there's a nearby town where I live, Newberg, that has had a drive in for decades, and is pretty popular.
> 
> As for the movie, I found it meh, for many of the same reasons everyone else did.  I liked the first, but this one ranks towards the bottom of DC movies (which isn't a high bar).
> 
> As a veteran, I also got bugged by things many probably didn't catch, like how a fighter jet can't fly to Cairo from the US, let alone make it back in a few hours.  Or how when the MK-19 fired grenades and went to slow mo, the entire grenade, including cartridge, was shot through the air from the barrel.



you in Portland also?........my friends are now about 50/50 on it, rather than 70/30 saying the movie is bad.....we'll see if I pony up for it or not.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 29, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Apparently based off of the Panavia Tornado from what I could find, but moved it to a side by side instead of tandem seating.  Also, a weird choice because what is a plane doing at the Smithsonian fully fueled ready to go that has only been in service 4 years at that point?  (the tornado came into service in 1980 and saw its high point during the first Gulf War).
> 
> Then again, in the video game scene there were video games not invented  yet in 1984, and Steve (WWI pilot) wouldn't have any idea how to fly a modern jet, and it would be impossible to fly to Cairo, and MK19 grenade launchers apparently fire the entire cartridge in 1984,...and...and...     You'd think with that budget, they could afford to at least talk to a military consultant first.



I've seen lots of people complain about the jet, but you're the only one I've seen who've noticed the grenade launcher thing. I'd guess it's something along the lines of the scraping sound they add when pulling a sword from a leather scabbard. Doing it right is realistic for those in the know, but would be confusing to the average moviegoers.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 29, 2020)

Umbran said:


> The tandem seating arrangement is used in fighters, to keep the slim aerodynamic profile  Side-by-side shows up in trainers, and anything big - cargo and bomber aircraft, f'rex - where being slim isn't a major design issue.



Also Grumman A6 Intruder ground support/strike aircraft. Only other one that I can think of at the moment.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 30, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Apparently based off of the Panavia Tornado from what I could find, but moved it to a side by side instead of tandem seating.



Found it,it's  F-111 Aardvark


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 30, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Found it,it's  F-111 Aardvark



Lol, if you read my earlier post you could have saved yourself some time lol


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 30, 2020)

I liked the movie overall, but there were an awful lot of little niggly problems. Enough that I can understand why someone wouldn't like it, if they want to focus on those things. I can see the internet having a field day with 



Spoiler: Spoiler



Steve stealing some poor guy's body and sleeping with Diana. Isn't that basically against his will? Not that your average guy would probably _mind_ it exactly, but still. A bit problematic, isn't it? In particular because neither of them ever even gave it a second thought.



I can see how someone with aviation experience would have a problem with the jet. My 13-year old scoffed at the idea that a WW1 pilot could fly a jet. I have to agree. Steve's knowledge is only one-step removed from flying a BIPLANE. Literally - he would have learned to fly on a biplane. It would probably be hard enough for a WW2 pilot to fly. 

...But I still liked it, well enough.


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 30, 2020)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I can see how someone with aviation experience would have a problem with the jet. My 13-year old scoffed at the idea that a WW1 pilot could fly a jet. I have to agree. Steve's knowledge is only one-step removed from flying a BIPLANE. Literally - he would have learned to fly on a biplane. It would probably be hard enough for a WW2 pilot to fly.



Has anyone with aviation experience of both WW1 and modern style aircraft weighed in on that? I would think there are a lot of differences between the two, but . . . . when watching, I assumed that the basics of piloting were the same. But I have next to zero knowledge of aviation outside of watching movies!

Of course, outside of that, as has been pointed out . . . there's no way Steve could have flown an F-111 from DC to Cairo non-stop. Is there? This is also something that seems ridiculous, but . . . I don't actually know if that is possible.

The first film felt very grounded to me, and this film did not. Lots of errors that by themselves were small, but add up to detract from the film.

I still enjoyed the film quite a bit, but it does not compare well to the first film. Of course, most sequels in the 80s were pretty disappointing, maybe this was deliberate? (kidding)


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2020)

Dire Bare said:


> Has anyone with aviation experience of both WW1 and modern style aircraft weighed in on that? I would think there are a lot of differences between the two, but . . . . when watching, I assumed that the basics of piloting were the same. But I have next to zero knowledge of aviation outside of watching movies!
> 
> Of course, outside of that, as has been pointed out . . . there's no way Steve could have flown an F-111 from DC to Cairo non-stop. Is there? This is also something that seems ridiculous, but . . . I don't actually know if that is possible.
> 
> ...



Here's an image of a Spad 7 cockpit and a F111 cockpit, for comparison. Sheer mental overload would have stopped him from even getting the jet rolling down the runway. Sensory overload can even effect trained fighter pilots, when things get dicey.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 30, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Here's an image of a Spad 7 cockpit and a F111 cockpit, for comparison. Sheer mental overload would have stopped him from even getting the jet rolling down the runway. Sensory overload can even effect trained fighter pilots, when things get dicey.



Yep. Also, for things like: starting the rotary engine on a wwi plane means manually turning the propeller. Steve wouldn’t even know to look for a switch, let alone start it. 1915 rotary engines are nothing like a jet engine. He would have been lost. Electric starters didn’t exist on planes until 1930.  The only similarities are basic aerodynamics, and controls like roll, pitch, and yaw 

Now I know these seem like petty things, but I guess my feeling is that the film is LOADED with errors like this, which is lazy and not good for a big budget film.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2020)

Plane thing got commented on at the theater. I got asked if a plane could go from east coast to Cairo non stop. Some can I doubt that one could. 

 Just lots of small absurdities in the movie even by super hero standards.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2020)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I liked the movie overall, but there were an awful lot of little niggly problems. Enough that I can understand why someone wouldn't like it, if they want to focus on those things. I can see the internet having a field day with
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 My brothers a pilot flies Jets. He learnt on a biplane..

 Quite a few more steps from tiger moth to passenger jet.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 30, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  Especially when, clearly, it wasn't necessary for the plot.  The magic could create matter out of thin air - it could manage a body for Steve.



Inanimate matter - sure, we saw that. Life? I think the evidence may be lacking in that regard - we don't know if it could or couldn't.
But from a narrative perspective, if it hadn't created a body for Steve - what's the downside? Where's the corruption in her wish? Her wish needed a downside and, in this case, it was because it wasn't *really* Steve's life and it undermined her powers that are at least partially based on truth.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Inanimate matter - sure, we saw that. Life? I think the evidence may be lacking in that regard - we don't know if it could or couldn't.



If the writers had decided to make it do that, then it would be able to by definition.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 30, 2020)

Morrus said:


> If the writers had decided to make it do that, then it would be able to by definition.



Sure, but right now, we can't reliably infer whether they made that decision or not, so it's kind of a difficult point to argue that, because it created a wall out of nothing, that it could create a fully functioning human body out of nothing.
And either way, it's irrelevant. The writers chose to have Steve inhabit someone else's body as the downside to Diana's wish.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Sure, but right now, we can't reliably infer whether they made that decision or not, so it's kind of a difficult point to argue that, because it created a wall out of nothing, that it could create a fully functioning human body out of nothing.



They made the decision not to give him a new body, so we don't need to know if it could. If they'd made the decision to give him a new body, then we'd know it could. I mean, it's a self-solving non-problem. Claiming the writers couldn't make it give him new body because the object can't do that makes no sense. Of course they could; they just chose not to.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> My brothers a pilot flies Jets. He learnt on a biplane..
> 
> Quite a few more steps from tiger moth to passenger jet.




Sure, but I guarantee he had many many hours of lessons in between the two.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 30, 2020)

Morrus said:


> They made the decision not to give him a new body, so we don't need to know if it could. If they'd made the decision to give him a new body, then we'd know it could. I mean, it's a self-solving non-problem. Claiming the writers couldn't make it give him new body because the object can't do that makes no sense. Of course they could; they just chose not to.



Yeah, fine, whatever. The *point* of this all is that it *didn't* create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so. Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, fine, whatever. The *point* of this all is that it *didn't* create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so. Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.



I don’t see the problem. So write something different.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, fine, whatever. The *point* of this all is that it *didn't* create a new body for Steve because, narratively, it served the story more to not do so.




But, it didn't really serve the story.  They _pointedly ignored_ the fact that his body was stolen.  A new body and a stolen body, plot-wise, are pretty much the same. 



> Had it done so, they would have had to write something else to be the downside of her wish.




No.  You seem to have missed this. 



Spoiler: Probably not necessary, but...



The wish gave you what you wanted, but took the thing most valuable to you in return.  The wish took _her powers_.  Whether Steve was in a new body or a stolen one, she had to renounce her wish to get her powers back.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2020)

Umbran said:


> But, it didn't really serve the story.  They _pointedly ignored_ the fact that his body was stolen.  A new body and a stolen body, plot-wise, are pretty much the same.



They aren't the same when you're talking about an incredibly honourable super hero, who should consider that someone innocent person's life has just been stolen.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2020)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Sure, but I guarantee he had many many hours of lessons in between the two.




Took him something like 20 years to do it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> They aren't the same when you're talking about an incredibly honourable super hero, who should consider that someone innocent person's life has just been stolen.




Well, that is a major criticism of the movie. She is _supposed_ to be honorable, but they _ignored_ the stolen life and consent issue. It is a potential character point they failed to use. If you aren't going to use it, don't put it in.

Given what is presented in the film, with them ignoring that point, they could just as easily have been a created body, and the movie would play out exactly as presented, without dishonoring her, and that would have been okay.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Well, that is a major criticism of the movie. She is _supposed_ to be honorable, but they _ignored_ the stolen life and consent issue. It is a potential character point they failed to use. If you aren't going to use it, don't put it in.
> 
> Given what is presented in the film, with them ignoring that point, they could just as easily have been a created body, and the movie would play out exactly as presented, without dishonoring her, and that would have been okay.




 Well they created nukes so yeah new body easy enough.


----------



## payn (Dec 30, 2020)

They missed a real opportunity here to have a consistent theme in WW84. Jenkins was talking about WB brass wanting to drop the double opening (as is, it probably should have been dropped). We are treated to this valuable life lessen Diana learns about winning without truth being bad. Instead of Diana spending most of the movie fighting the urge to keep Steve (shortcut), she should eventually decide she cannot, because the truth is Steve is living in a borrowed body. This truth lessen could have been paralleled into the Barbra and Max stories for a consistent message. A pretty heroic one too. Instead, WW84 is a meandering story about stuff.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 31, 2020)

That was just a bad film in so many ways. IMO, of course. Of the DCEU films, my favorites were Man of Steel and Batman v Superman (despite popular opinion); the first WW was pretty good, Aquaman OK. This one, I'd say, ranks there with Justice League and Suicide Squad in the stinker category. Didn't see Shazam or Birds of Prey.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 31, 2020)

What the Year in Blockbuster Cinema (Should Have) Looked Like
					

Somewhere in an alternate timeline, on a version of Earth you might call Earth-2, the year 2020 bestowed an embarrassment of riches in blockbuster cinema. There was no pandemic, no bungled U.S. government response, no near-death blow to the movie theater industry, and no delay after indefinite...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## generic (Dec 31, 2020)

Ugh, another overproduced money sequel, made for profit.


----------



## wicked cool (Dec 31, 2020)

is pines character in the comics? Did it happen this way if so or could they have handled it much better


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2020)

wicked cool said:


> is pines character in the comics? Did it happen this way if so or could they have handled it much better



Steve Trevor has been in WW comics since the 1940s.









						Steve Trevor - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Just watched it, and I was very disappointed. Gal Gadot is amazing, and Chris Pine and her still have great chemistry. But the movie feels tonally off. It doesn't even come close to the first movie, which also had a lame finale with a CGI villain. It also surprised me that although the movie is set in the eighties, it never feels like it.

As others have stated, there is a distinct lack of action. But even what little action there is, lacks punch. It all feels floaty, like a giant wirework ballet.

They do surprisingly little with the time period, and several of Chris Pine's reactions seem weird. He's never seen a train before? Seriously? He's not from the dark ages, they had trains in his time period. And which US President was that supposed to be? If you are going to have your movie be set in the 80s, you've got to show that president. Its just weird when you just show some unnamed fictional president. Also, the idea that a WWI pilot can just fly a modern jet is laughable. And I guess it also has unlimited fuel and can just fly from NY to Cairo. I guess we have Aircraft Carriers for other things then? The movie assumes its audience is a lot more stupid than it really is. The movie is filled with so many sloppy blunders like that, that it constantly took me out of the movie. Kudos for some how working an invisible jet into the plot though, that takes guts.

The movie's biggest issue are the pacing, plot and tone however. I just didn't feel any stakes. The 2nd villain is introduced awkwardly, and Pedro Pascal is a weak primary villain, despite all his talents. The few things I feel that did work, are the chemistry between the two leads, and Wonder Womans' crisis of conscience.

But this movie could have been a lot shorter, and I'm glad I didn't see this in a theater.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Its just weird when you just show some unnamed fictional president.




I agree with all your points, but wasn't that just supposed to be Reagan? He wasn't as good casting as the time Bruce Campbell played Reagan, but he kinda looked like him (aside from the wide-eyes).


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 1, 2021)

He was supposed to be a faux Reagan, I think. But yeah, the 80s stuff was lame. At least Stranger Things feels like a love letter to 80s nostalgia. This felt very much like trying to depict the 80s on a surface level, yet without any real qualities of what made the 80s the 80s.

The whole film felt like it was rushed to make a quick buck. Kind of weird, really.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 1, 2021)

Operation Wolf raised an eyebrow. I remember that arcade game. Not sure what year it came out but I knew it wasn't 84.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I agree with all your points, but wasn't that just supposed to be Reagan? He wasn't as good casting as the time Bruce Campbell played Reagan, but he kinda looked like him (aside from the wide-eyes).



I think it was supposed to be someone LIKE Reagan. There was even a jar of candy in the background, which I assume was a nod to Reagan’s jelly beans


Zardnaar said:


> Operation Wolf raised an eyebrow. I remember that arcade game. Not sure what year it came out but I knew it wasn't 84.



There were a few video games in the arcade that were after 84. If you’re gonna make a big deal about the date, like putting it into the title, then I’d hope at least someone should have checked these things. But again, that’s my chief complaint. Not just the date, but so many things just wrong that could have been solved by a simple google search first. It’s lazy.


----------



## Zsong (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Babylon 5 really deserves either a reboot, or a full on remaster with updated special effects. I remember hearing that a lot of the original effect shots are really low resolution, so they would have to redo them from scratch to update it for HD. And I wouldn't be against that, since a lot of it looks really dated now.



That series is perfect the way it is.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 1, 2021)

Had the opportunity to watch this the other day but ended up watching The Croods 2. It was a fun movie and when trying to decide between the two, I ended up choosing the movie I felt would be more fun.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Just watched it, and I was very disappointed. Gal Gadot is amazing, and Chris Pine and her still have great chemistry. But the movie feels tonally off. It doesn't even come close to the first movie, which also had a lame finale with a CGI villain. It also surprised me that although the movie is set in the eighties, it never feels like it.
> 
> They do surprisingly little with the time period, and several of Chris Pine's reactions seem weird. He's never seen a train before? Seriously? He's not from the dark ages, they had trains in his time period. And which US President was that supposed to be? If you are going to have your movie be set in the 80s, you've got to show that president. I



They combined a few different WW villians for the movies version of Lord, but my understanding is that he's supposed to be like Gordon Gecko or J.R. Ewing  oily/greasy of the 80s,and yeah the president is meant to be Reagan,

and as for the 80s..the film doesn't play up the glamour of the 80s or how so many great things came from that era. Instead, it shows the 80s as a time where people were senselessly greedy and resentful of one another. isn't that how it earned the nickname The "me" decade? Also his hair...is that a helmet or actual hair?

And honestly, Pedro looks like he's enjoying himself towards the end, i think he might have chipped a tooth on that podium.

A shrinking violet who is reborn via supernatural means as feline-themed enemy.  Am I describing Catwoman from Batman Returns or Barbara?


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think it was supposed to be someone LIKE Reagan. There was even a jar of candy in the background, which I assume was a nod to Reagan’s jelly beans




That looked nothing like Reagan imo. Didn't talk like Reagan either. It is like they didn't even try.



trappedslider said:


> and as for the 80s..the film doesn't play up the glamour of the 80s or how so many great things came from that era. Instead, it shows the 80s as a time where people were senselessly greedy and resentful of one another. isn't that how it earned the nickname The "me" decade?




This is a wonderful point. The movie doesn't seem to like the 80's very much, when this could have been a wonderful opportunity to explore a different era. It feels like a missed opportunity.

It seems to me like they could have had so much fun with Diana showing the 80's to her WWI era lover, and showing him how the war is remembered now. WWII isn't even mentioned!

I also feel like the nonsensical detour that the movie takes to Egypt is redundant, since the plot curves back to the USA in the end.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think it was supposed to be someone LIKE Reagan. There was even a jar of candy in the background, which I assume was a nod to Reagan’s jelly beans
> 
> There were a few video games in the arcade that were after 84. If you’re gonna make a big deal about the date, like putting it into the title, then I’d hope at least someone should have checked these things. But again, that’s my chief complaint. Not just the date, but so many things just wrong that could have been solved by a simple google search first. It’s lazy.



Writing up TV tropes? lol Honestly,with everything else in the movie,it feels like you're the guy who just wants to keep pouring fuel on the fire despite it already being good enough lol


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

Does anyone remember the motivations of the first movies villains  or was it just for the evulz? As a Dad, I can see Lord's motivation for his actions, wanting his son to be proud of him.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Writing up TV tropes? lol Honestly,with everything else in the movie,it feels like you're the guy who just wants to keep pouring fuel on the fire despite it already being good enough lol



I have no idea what you're trying to say


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say



you're being nitpicky considering the movie's number of other issues.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> It also surprised me that although the movie is set in the eighties, it never feels like it.



It...what? There are movies from the 80’s that feel less like they’re set in the 80’s. 


Imaculata said:


> The movie doesn't seem to like the 80's very much, when this could have been a wonderful opportunity to explore a different era. It feels like a missed opportunity.



Ah, so it’s just that it’s not especially _nostalgic _about the 80s?

Thank god. I mean, a missed opportunity to what? Do what every other of a thousand nostalgia pieces set in the 80s do, and glamorize a decade that wasn’t actually that great? That would have been a wasted opportunity, and has been in a thousand other works. The opportunity to actually bother to say literally anything at all about the 80s other than “lol look at the famous thing you all remember from back then.”


trappedslider said:


> Does anyone remember the motivations of the first movies villains  or was it just for the evulz? As a Dad, I can see Lord's motivation for his actions, wanting his son to be proud of him.



Destroy the pesky mortals, maybe? Waste of a great actor. 

Someone said soemthing about Pascal being cheesy and not much else in the first act and I just...what movie did they watch? I felt for him more than any other DCEU villain so far. Right in the first act.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> you're being nitpicky considering the movie's number of other issues.



I have issues with everything else as well. But these are not nit picky. One or two continuity issues?  Fine. But this film is loaded with them, and for a blockbuster movie budget, it’s not acceptable.  On top of the other issues, and this is just a meh film at best IMO


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Someone said soemthing about Pascal being cheesy and not much else in the first act and I just...what movie did they watch? I felt for him more than any other DCEU villain so far. Right in the first act.



I don't think I will ever be able to get the mental image of him as Agent Peña from Narcos out of my head and the stach he had lol.


----------



## ccs (Jan 1, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> Apparently based off of the Panavia Tornado from what I could find, but moved it to a side by side instead of tandem seating.  Also, a weird choice because what is a plane doing at the Smithsonian fully fueled ready to go that has only been in service 4 years at that point?  (the tornado came into service in 1980 and saw its high point during the first Gulf War).
> 
> Then again, in the video game scene there were video games not invented  yet in 1984, and Steve (WWI pilot) wouldn't have any idea how to fly a modern jet, and it would be impossible to fly to Cairo, and MK19 grenade launchers apparently fire the entire cartridge in 1984,...and...and...     You'd think with that budget, they could afford to at least talk to a military consultant first.



1) You.... realize that this is a comic book movie, not a documentary about 1984, right?
2) In 1984 the tech being used on the comics book pages could at best be described as "inspired by...."
3) It is an established fact that the DC film Universe is in fact a Multiverse.  So maaaaybe, just maybe, the mundane stuff in the 1984 we're seeing on screen developed slightly differently/earlier than it did here on our own world.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

ccs said:


> 1) You.... realize that this is a comic book movie, not a documentary about 1984, right?
> 2) In 1984 the tech being used on the comics book pages could at best be described as "inspired by...."
> 3) It is an established fact that the DC film Universe is in fact a Multiverse.  So maaaaybe, just maybe, the mundane stuff in the 1984 we're seeing on screen developed slightly differently/earlier than it did here on our own world.



They developed things in a mirror universe where entire cartridges are fired out of barrels, and fighter jets can fly around the globe non stop, and someone from 1918 knows how to fire up a jet fighter?  Yeah, OK. I’d sure like to know how they developed those things.


----------



## ccs (Jan 1, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> They developed things in a mirror universe where entire cartridges are fired out of barrels, and fighter jets can fly around the globe non stop, and someone from 1918 knows how to fire up a jet fighter?  Yeah, OK. I’d sure like to know how they developed those things.



I'll assume you've never read a comic book in your life.  I assure you that these are NOT the strangest things ever to grace the pages of the 4 color world.  Nor are they even the strangest things to appear in superhero films/TV shows.
And a guy from 1918 stealing & firing up a jet?  While poorly-not explained &/or a missed chance for some dialog, completely plausible in comic-world.

On the cartridges...  Stop.  Now your sounding like my friend Tom & his rants about the 1st Matrix movie..
Way back when The Matrix came out several of us went & saw it.  We come out discussing how it was one of the best action movies we'd seen in quite a while.  Tom chimes in that he thought it sucked.  We just stare at him...  He goes on to proclaim that the whole thing was ruined by the hallway scene where they're blowing the pillars apart during that shoot-out.  Because the wrong cartridges are being ejected from the guns.  That that Cal. would never fit, blah blah blah....  Whole movie ruined.
(Now Tom is very into guns. Ammo. Etc.  The rest of us are not.   So if he tells me those are the wrong cartridges?  OK, fine, they're wrong.  I don't need to waste my time fact checking him.  And right or wrong my enjoyment of the film isn't affected) 
Someone had to point out to him that that whole scene, indeed much of the movie, took place in the virtual world.  Even if he's correct & those were the wrong cartridges?  It didn't matter because the images don't HAVE to match reality.  
To date Tom still hates the 1st Matrix movie.

So in an alternate universe, who cares why/how they developed GLs that fire the whole shell at you?  Not a plot point.
The most obvious answer?  Because that's just what the Effects team though looked cool for the scene.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

ccs said:


> I'll assume you've never read a comic book in your life.  I assure you that these are NOT the strangest things ever to grace the pages of the 4 color world.  Nor are they even the strangest things to appear in superhero films/TV shows.
> And a guy from 1918 stealing & firing up a jet?  While poorly-not explained &/or a missed chance for some dialog, completely plausible in comic-world.
> 
> On the cartridges...  Stop.  Now your sounding like my friend Tom & his rants about the 1st Matrix movie..
> ...



These aren’t issues that “well, it’s a different universe, so...”. These are issues because they didn’t have a clue about how things work and were too lazy to bother to find out. And it’s not using the wrong bullets in a gun, it’s shooting out the entire cartridge, including casing, from the barrel. That’s just one example of many. Like I said, one or two isn’t that big of a deal, but the whole movie is like that, and they add up.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

So lazy writing is because its a mirror universe now? Ah, gotcha. In that case Batman & Robin was an interesting alternate universe as well: a universe with George Clooney as a terrible batman, Dr Freeze uttering nothing but cringy ice puns, and Uma being more cheesy than Swiss cheese.

While me and my gf were watching Wonder Woman 1984, even my gf looked at me in disbelief, and asked me if there were any jets that could fly straight from NY to Cairo. That sort of thing would normally not take her out of a movie. But this was just such a silly and sloppy mistake. It is jarring.

It's not just very sloppy writing. I think it is indicative of a greater problem with the film. For a large chunk it just fails to draw the viewer in, and so the viewer cannot suspend their disbelief, and starts analyzing all these mistakes. Pedro Pascal is so cheesy, that every single time he showed up, it took me out of the movie. Plus his look in this is just weird and off putting. I don't believe him in this role.

The pacing of the film is also just off. After the initial flashback scene with its muddled moral message, it has a lot of trouble getting started. It drags and drags. I kept wondering when it was going to get going, only to realize all of a sudden that perhaps it had, I just hadn't noticed. The introduction of the MacGuffin does not seem to carry much weight, and when Chris Pine shows up, it feels weirdly edited.

During the action scene at the mall, my gf asked me if this was the same director, because the tone felt very different from the first movie. She was right. Despite this being the same director, tonally the film felt very off. Something felt wrong right out of the gate.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It...what? There are movies from the 80’s that feel less like they’re set in the 80’s.




Look, this movie has 1984 in the title. It is literally the premise of the movie. I was born in 1981. I think I know what the 80's were like. This aint it. That is a pretty big flaw.

I don't know exactly where it is that the movie bungles its time period. Nitpicking aside about jetplanes and what videogames were released in what year, something feels off. I don't know if it is the clothes or the general production design. But everything about this movie screams like it is a movie that was shot in 2019/2020, with a few 80's cars and home devices thrown into the background. Right after the flashback, everything just doesn't feel like the 80's at all.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah, so it’s just that it’s not especially _nostalgic _about the 80s?
> 
> Thank god. I mean, a missed opportunity to what? Do what every other of a thousand nostalgia pieces set in the 80s do, and glamorize a decade that wasn’t actually that great? That would have been a wasted opportunity, and has been in a thousand other works. The opportunity to actually bother to say literally anything at all about the 80s other than “lol look at the famous thing you all remember from back then.”




There have been quite a few shows and movies lately that were set in the 80's. "Stranger Things" and the recent adaption of "It" come to mind. And while those also get minor details wrong, they do manage to feel like the 80's. I don't think it is just a matter of nostalgia exploitation that makes the difference. Wonder Woman 1984 got it wrong. It doesn't seem to nail the look, nor the mood or the political climate. It feels like they just didn't do their homework on the time period. It is surprising, because the 80's are not that long ago. There are plenty of people who remember the 80's.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Look, this movie has 1984 in the title. It is literally the premise of the movie. I was born in 1981. I think I know what the 80's were like. This aint it. That is a pretty big flaw.
> 
> I don't know exactly where it is that the movie bungles its time period. Nitpicking aside about jetplanes and what videogames were released in what year, something feels off. I don't know if it is the clothes or the general production design. But everything about this movie screams like it is a movie that was shot in 2019/2020, with a few 80's cars and home devices thrown into the background. Right after the flashback, everything just doesn't feel like the 80's at all.
> 
> ...




 Captain Marvel got the 90s vibe. 

 WW84 at the start sorta pulled it off but failed 80s vibe.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Captain Marvel got the 90s vibe.
> 
> WW84 at the start sorta pulled it off but failed 80s vibe.




I have not seen Captain Marvel yet, but the 90's should be easy to get right.
I personally felt WW84 never got the 80's right, not even at the start. In fact, I'd say especially not at the start. It is the first thing that took me out of the movie, along with the floaty action and the fighting with very little punch to it.


----------



## Eltab (Jan 1, 2021)

Were the _writers_ old enough to remember the 1980s? If not, did they talk to somebody who is?  I think we might be seeing the effects from some (relatively) young folks whose US History classes never made it past WWII trying to 'fake it til you make' it for an era they know little about (and have equal care about).

There was this TV show called 'Wonder Woman' in the late 70s / early 80s; I was hoping Linda Carter (played the title character) would be invited onto the movie for a cameo appearance "Diana ... I think I know you..." and a few words of good advice.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Eltab said:


> There was this TV show called 'Wonder Woman' in the late 70s / early 80s; I was hoping Linda Carter (played the title character) would be invited onto the movie for a cameo appearance "Diana ... I think I know you..." and a few words of good advice.




I doubt that would have saved the movie, but the writers could have done the bare minimum of research. Talking to someone from the 80's would have been a start. It feels like they didn't consult anyone.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

Eltab said:


> Were the _writers_ old enough to remember the 1980s?



Yes. Patty Jenkins, Geoff Johns, and Dave Callahan were all born in the 70s.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Talking to someone from the 80's would have been a start.



Like themselves!


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Like themselves!



Maybe they shouldn't have consulted only themselves. 

One odd thing I noticed, is how early on in the movie it seems Diana might be hooking up with Barbara. Which could have been interesting. But as soon as Steve enters the picture, that plotline is abandoned.

Also did anyone else feel uncomfortable during the whole middle east action scene? We have Diana in her sexy outfit amidst these fully covered Muslim women. It was just very awkward, and probably something that sounded better on paper than it did seeing it on screen.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2021)

The opening scene, with the trans am and arcade, felt like the 80s. Then it's like they dropped even trying for the rest of the movie, and you wouldn't have any idea it took place in the 80s. They had a ton of music they could have used from the 80s and didn't bother once. For example, many movies in the 80s had top current pop culture bands and artists do their soundtracks, which often were hits themselves. They weren't orchestra style music as the default like modern movies (with some exceptions). So to use an orchestra soundtrack just added to the feeling of being off for a movie that takes place in 1984. At the very least, they should have had a synthesizer lol.


----------



## Eltab (Jan 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Like themselves!



Isn't the problem that they did not seem to know enough - individually or collectively - to get the desired feel?  
Consulting yourself means that you never expand your boundaries or get into new ground
(especially if the 'yourself' you consult is you as a teen or a child).


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

Eltab said:


> Isn't the problem that they did not seem to know enough - individually or collectively - to get the desired feel?
> Consulting yourself means that you never expand your boundaries or get into new ground
> (especially if the 'yourself' you consult is you as a teen or a child).



Dunno. The line of conversation began with "Were the writers old enough to remember the 1980s?" and the answer is "yes". I was just providing the requested information.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 1, 2021)

Last night i was thinking back to a point @Morrus made a few years back about how a lot of the sups movies at the time all seemed to end in the same way invasion from above or huge fight scene and how a change would be nice,and with Lord there really wasn't a need for her to throw him around. She just needed him to see what his madness was costing him.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Look, this movie has 1984 in the title. It is literally the premise of the movie. I was born in 1981. I think I know what the 80's were like. This aint it. That is a pretty big flaw.
> 
> I don't know exactly where it is that the movie bungles its time period. Nitpicking aside about jetplanes and what videogames were released in what year, something feels off. I don't know if it is the clothes or the general production design. But everything about this movie screams like it is a movie that was shot in 2019/2020, with a few 80's cars and home devices thrown into the background. Right after the flashback, everything just doesn't feel like the 80's at all.
> 
> ...



Yeah, being 9 when the 80’s ended definitely doesn’t make you an objective source of 80’s information, or “feel”. 

It doesn’t feel like the 80’s to you, fine. It feels more like the 80s than Stranger Things does, to me. From the mall scene to the politics to the clothes and the way people talk, it’s a movie set in the 80s.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, being 9 when the 80’s ended definitely doesn’t make you an objective source of 80’s information, or “feel”.
> 
> It doesn’t feel like the 80’s to you, fine. It feels more like the 80s than Stranger Things does, to me. From the mall scene to the politics to the clothes and the way people talk, it’s a movie set in the 80s.




 She was 19 when 80s ended. 
 Opening scene felt 80s after that kinda got dropped for the most part imho.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> She was 19 when 80s ended.
> Opening scene felt 80s after that kinda got dropped for the most part imho.



She said she was born in 1981. That is 9 years before 1990, not 19 years.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, being 9 when the 80’s ended definitely doesn’t make you an objective source of 80’s information, or “feel”.
> 
> It doesn’t feel like the 80’s to you, fine. It feels more like the 80s than Stranger Things does, to me. From the mall scene to the politics to the clothes and the way people talk, it’s a movie set in the 80s.



As someone who was in his 20s, in the '80s, if they didn't show any Peggy Bundy hair/Brigette Nielsen flat tops, shoulder pads that you could land a plane on, or headbands, then it wasn't the '80s that I knew.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Opening scene felt 80s after that kinda got dropped for the most part imho.



I’ll agree that the opening scene felt the most 80’s, but the movie never once felt like it was set in any other time. It just didn’t beat the audience over the head with nostalgia-bait.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> As someone who was in his 20s, in the '80s, if they didn't show any Peggy Bundy hair/Brigette Nielsen flat tops, shoulder pads that you could land a plane on, or headbands, then it wasn't the '80s that I knew.



Those things stand out more in memory than in reality, though.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

I don’t feel the need to qualify myself by my age, but it felt 80s to me. More importantly, it was made in the _style_ of the 80s and felt like an early Richard Donner film. It wasn’t just set in the 80s, the film was _made_ like an 80s film. I don’t understand how people didn’t feel that, but it syncs well with my memories of the 80s and, presumably, the writers’ memories of the 80s.


----------



## Waller (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Look, this movie has 1984 in the title. It is literally the premise of the movie. I was born in 1981. I think I know what the 80's were like. This aint it. That is a pretty big flaw.



You were 3-years old in 1984.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Those things stand out more in memory than in reality, though.



Not where I was (Toronto).


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I don’t feel the need to qualify myself by my age, but it felt 80s to me. More importantly, it was made in the _style_ of the 80s and felt like an early Richard Donner film. It wasn’t just set in the 80s, the film was _made_ like an 80s film. I don’t understand how people didn’t feel that, but it syncs well with my memories of the 80s and, presumably, the writers’ memories of the 80s.



Actually, I kind of agree with you. I previously said that Stranger Things did the 80s better, but I think it did 80s _nostalgia_ better. WW84 felt kind of like a movie actually made in the 80s, warts and all (mostly warts, imo). 

I don't think it had a cheesy saxophone love scene, though, but can't remember the music when she got it on with Steve.


----------



## Rabulias (Jan 1, 2021)

Eltab said:


> I was hoping Linda Carter (played the title character) would be invited onto the movie for a cameo appearance "Diana ... I think I know you..." and a few words of good advice.



Did you watch through the credits?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Not where I was (Toronto).



Fair enough, that sort of thing is certainly regional.

But like Morrus said, is sure felt like I was in the 80’s watching a movie set in the 80’s, other than the picture quality.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Fair enough, that sort of thing is certainly regional.
> 
> But like Morrus said, is sure felt like I was in the 80’s watching a movie set in the 80’s, other than the picture quality.



Peggy Bundy hair is a bit of an exaggeration but if you look at the cover of the Lee Aaron albums "Metal Queen" or "Call of the Wild", it will give you a good idea. Lee Aaron used to hang around the same mall that I did and many of the local girls emulated her hair style.

Which reminds me: Were there any teens hanging around in the malls, in the movie?


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Which reminds me: Were there any teens hanging around in the malls, in the movie?



Yes. There was even an arcade scene which hit my nostalgic juices right in the nose. There’s something about those arcades that a PS4 doesn’t capture.

And Peggy Bundy was the decade from the late 80s-late 90s and only existed on a sitcom. This film is set in 1984.

I feel like a lot of people remember the 90s and think that was the 80s.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

One of the thoughts that kept going through my head while watching this movie, was how it kind of felt like the plot to a hokey D&D adventure, and not the plot to a big comicbook movie. In fact, I think a friend of mine ran an adventure with a similar premise.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 1, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> One of the thoughts that kept going through my head while watching this movie, was how it kind of felt like the plot to a hokey D&D adventure, and not the plot to a big comicbook movie. In fact, I think a friend of mine ran an adventure with a similar premise.



I don't think "plot to a big comic book movie" is something to aspire to.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Yes. There was even an arcade scene which hit my nostalgic juices right in the nose. There’s something about those arcades that a PS4 doesn’t capture.




Definitely. Arcades were a fixture and every major shopping mall that I was in, back then, had at least one that employed a bunch of high school kids.



Morrus said:


> And Peggy Bundy was the decade from ten llate 80s-late 90s and only existed on a sitcom. This film is set in 1984.
> 
> I feel like a lot of people remember the 90s and think that was the 80s.




Peggy Bundy was a decade behind the times  Here's the example I posted about, from 1985.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I don't think "plot to a big comic book movie" is something to aspire to.




What I mean is that the plot of WW84 didn't feel like it fit a blockbuster. It felt more like a simple D&D adventure. It didn't feel like it had high enough stakes and conflict to justify its length and budget.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> What I mean is that the plot of WW84 didn't feel like it fit a blockbuster. It felt more like a simple D&D adventure. It didn't feel like it had the right stakes and conflict to justify its length.



_Length?! _I mean, it has bigger stakes than _The Godfather,_ which was longer. I don't think we view movies as the same things.

I don't think the movie was great (it was OK), and I"m not trying to claim it was, but "it wasn't 80s enough" (I _do_ remember the 80s) and "the stakes didn't justify the length" (of all things) don't factor into it at all for me.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Definitely. Arcades were a fixture and every major shopping mall that I was in, back then, had at least one that employed a bunch of high school kids.



Well, you asked. That was the answer. Yes, there were teenagers in the malls.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Well, you asked. That was the answer. Yes, there were teenagers in the malls.



And that's why I asked, and I was agreeing that it was a defining element of life at the time. Not sure why you responded in an adversarial manner.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 2, 2021)

It didn't seem like the sort of plot I would expect from the 2nd installment of a big super hero property.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 2, 2021)

Since we’re throwing down our old people bona fides, I was born in 1969, making me between eleven and twenty in the 1980s. During which time I saw a _lot_ of movies. For bonus points, mostly at mall multiplexes (or on HBO!).

WW84 absolutely felt like a 80s summer movie — and not necessarily blockbuster — to me. The kind of high-concept action/comedy exemplified by films like Ghostbusters or Weird Science that eventually got supplanted by supers movies (exemplified by the MCU).


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Not sure why you responded in an adversarial manner.



Fair. It's an adversarial thread with a lot of nonsense being thrown around. Apologies!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> It didn't seem like the sort of plot I would expect from the 2nd installment of a big super hero property.



You're moving the goalposts. You were talking about justifying its length a minute ago.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> You're moving the goalposts. You were talking about justifying its length a minute ago.




No, I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm addressing multiple issues that I had with the movie. The length is but one issue. The plot meanders quite a bit for the first half, feeling like it isn't really going anywhere. It feels as if the main plot is not big enough to fill its run time, and it feels like a lot could have been cut (or have been scripted more tightly to be part of the main plot).

But the plot itself also feels hokey, and not befitting a big blockbuster. It feels like something more at home in an episode of supergirl. Thats not to say that everything in this movie is bad. Gal Gadot is still perfect as WW, and the idea of her having to sacrifice her one love all over again adds some much needed weight. But there is never really any doubt what choice Diana will ultimately make, because as a character she is simply written too perfectly for that. And I feel that undermines some of the plot's potential.

Cheetah's inclusion feels unnecessary. The movie already has one villain, although not one that WW can physically fight. Cheetah seems forced into the plot for that purpose only, and her sudden turn to the dark side comes completely out of left field. Ultimately, the movie kind of feels like Batman Returns. But without Burton's artsy style, or Michelle Pfeiffer's memorable performance.



Morrus said:


> Fair. It's an adversarial thread with a lot of nonsense being thrown around. Apologies!




Is there? :S

I mean, I may have been in the minority thinking The Mandalorian was poorly written, but on this movie it seems a lot of people seem to have similar criticism of the movie as me. There seems to be consensus.

Not that other people's opinions affect my own opinion of the movie. But it seems to me the arguments made against this movie are shared by a large portion of people who have seen it.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> No, I'm not moving the goal posts



And now you're editing your posts faster than I can reply to them (my quote doesn't match what's now there) so I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> And now you're editing your posts faster than I can reply to them (my quote doesn't match what's now there) so I'll leave you to it.




My apologies. I'm typing on a phone, so I tend to make lots of edits. And sometimes I'll think of something extra I'd like to say on the matter. But I consider it poor forum etiquette to make multiple posts in a row, rather than add to the post that is already there. I also have a habit of rereading my own posts multiple times, and fixing grammar and sentence structure.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 2, 2021)

From the mixed reception here and elsewhere it makes those advance critiic reviews fairly useless. 

 Lots of countries seem to have HBO or people going to movies theatres. I'll assume they used VPNs to access HBO Max right?


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 2, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> From the mixed reception here and elsewhere it makes those advance critic reviews fairly useless.




Indeed. I've even seen one of those advance reviews claim that the movie is better than the first WW. Even if you like WW84, I think that is a difficult position to hold. Makes you wonder if they saw the same movie.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Indeed. I've even seen one of those advance reviews claim that the movie is better than the first WW. Even if you like WW84, I think that is a difficult position to hold. Makes you wonder if they saw the same movie.




 Yeah advance reviews usually go to friendly critics. Makes their reviews completely pointless though if they're to positive. 

 First WW was quite fun so long tradition of disappointing sequel.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Indeed. I've even seen one of those advance reviews claim that the movie is better than the first WW. Even if you like WW84, I think that is a difficult position to hold. Makes you wonder if they saw the same movie.



I’d say it’s more fun than the first one, which is a huge factor for a lot of people.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 3, 2021)

I've been thinking a lot about why this movie didn't work for me. I think the wheels come off the bus the moment Chris Pine is added into the plot.

*The issue of consent*

For some reason, when Diana wishes to see her lover again, he reincarnates into someone elses body. I don't know why he doesn't just appear, as this plot point only creates a ton of moral dilemmas for the story that the movie ignores. It would have been so much easier if he had just appeared. But because he inhabits someone elses body, and because neither the movie nor Wonder Woman address this, Diana comes off as a monster.

First of all, she has sex with him. It isn't explicitly shown, but she shares her bed with him, and it is implied. This is nonconsensual sex that she is having with someone who is possessed by someone else. This is some Book of Vile Darkness level of atrocity, but she does not seem bothered by it in the least.

Then the movie takes a strange (and in my opinion unnecessary) detour to Cairo, where Chris Pine is involved in an attack on a military convoy, despite having no super powers himself. What makes this worse, is that it is someone elses body that is being endangered without their consent. Again, Diana seems unphased by this. Additionally, just the image of Chris Pine ramming a military vehicle with a normal car, and kicking guns atop said armored vehicle is just really silly. This is something Diana clearly can do on her own, and yet this innocent man's body is being risked for no good reason.

Having Diana doing her sky ballet in a skimpy outfit, while in a country where you would be immediately arrested and tortured for showing so much skin, seems especially tonedeath. It is made more jarring by her being side by side with these fully clothed people, who would be appalled by such an outfit in real life. The movie kind of expects the audience to ignore everything they know about modern Egypt.

*The problems with WW's wish*

The movie then makes another U-turn, back to the United States. It is here that the movie struggles the most with building towards its conclusion.

We have an action scene at the White House, where again Chris Pine's body is risked fatal injury, and Wonder Woman realizes how weak she has become. She is bested by Barbara at this point, which suggest to me that had she been at full power, she would have beaten her easily. The way it is shot, Chris Pine pretty much holds his own during this fight, and they are almost equal in power.

The movie then has Wonder Woman forced to make a difficult decision; to give up her wish (and Chris Pine) and get her powers back. And this is where it all goes wrong. It doesn't really feel like she needs her powers to defeat Pedro Pascal, since he has no super powers of his own (and in the end, she doesn't, even when she has her powers back). And yet she chooses to give up Chris Pine, but we are never shown a scene of him disappearing. He kind of just vanishes from the movie inexplicitly, as if the actor simply walked off stage and never returned for further filming. It is really bizarre. Ultimately what could have been the movie's emotional climax is completely missing. As if a film reel got lost.

More plot problems arise as Pedro Pascal unfolds his hokey master plan. Basically the movie has established that Pedro Pascal needs to have physical contact with people to answer their wishes, and that plot point comes to bite them in the butt. They come up with a far fetched dialogue about satelites sending out particles, which are then kind of like touching people, despite it being absolutely not. But the movie expects us to kind of skim over that detail, after making such a big deal out of it.

Then the movie moves to the location of the satelites, where Wonder Woman faces off against Barbara. It is very obvious that Barbara has simply been inserted in order to give WW someone to fight, and to validate why she needs her powers back. It illustrates a problem with the main antagonist of the movie that could have been fixed with better writing.

She also shows up in her new golden armor. The armor is one of several instances in this film where something is just randomly introduced with very little explanation. WW just has this armor lying around, just as she can suddenly turn a jet invisible, and can fly all of a sudden.  Why does she need the armor, if she has her powers back? Also, where is her sword? Didn't she have a sword in the last movie?

* A silly incoherent ending*

Then we get our inevitable face off with Pedro Pascal, where the movie expect us to ignore that he speaks English, and most of the world would not be able to understand him anyway. There is an unexplained fan blowing really hard offscreen, making it impossible for WW to get near him, despite having all her powers back. There also is this weird blue beam in the center of the room, that kind of looks like a doomsday weapon of some sort.

Diana uses the Lasso of Truth to get Pedro to take his wish back. For some reason this also reverts everyone elses wishes, as WW delivers an extremely long tedious monologue filled with empty platitudes, that should have been cut down by 50%. The movie ignores the fact that there are probably a lot of people in the world who made none-selfish wishes; such as wishing for world peace, or a better environment, or a cure for cancer, or for the life of one of their loved ones to be saved. All of that is reverted, and no overly long speech filled with empty platitudes can undo all that suffering.

In a way, WW is a villain in this movie. Oh, and she can suddenly fly! Roll credits!

*In conclusion*

I think what bothers me the most, is that the first Wonder Woman movie was a pretty strong feminist film. It portrayed WW as a woman who didn't really need a man, while still having a male love interest. It showed the world that you can have both. It had some pretty strong representation. WW84 on the other hand, feels like several steps backward. Throughout the film she needs Chris Pine, and the movie kind of flirts with a relationship with Barbara briefly, before quickly walking it back. The movie is also filled with a lot of men harassing women. It is very unpleasant.

The movie also aludes in a not so subtle way, to Donald Trump. They go out of their way to make Pedro Pascal resemble him, not just with the hair, but by being a giant egomaniac and fraud. It is very obvious what they're doing here, but then to have Pedro be stopped by the love for his son, kind of breaks what ever comparison they were going for. What a mess.

Such a shame.


----------



## Older Beholder (Jan 4, 2021)

I liked the movie a lot. One of DC's better efforts for me.
It was a lot of fun, I thought it did a great job of capturing the 80's Saturday morning cartoon vibe. 

The plot was gonzo, but in a way that I enjoyed. 
I liked that the villain wasn't really any one single person, but rather the greed and selfishness in all of us.
Pretty relevant with everything happening in the world at the moment, and tied in perfectly with the 80's theme.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 29, 2021)




----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2021)

I watched the movie again during the past weekend. My date hadn't seen it, so we went to the theater.

I hesitated to call WW84 "bad" before, but (after a second viewing) I think I am leaning toward saying it's an overall below-average movie. 

There are a lot of things in the movie which work well. Chris Pine's fish-out-of-water comedy works well, and he has generally good chemistry with Gal Gadot. I also think that Pedro Pascal does a pretty good job of working with the material he was given.

At the same time, a lot of aspects of the movie seem disjointed. My impression (after watching the movie again) is that the movie tried to be too many different movies at once and fell somewhat short of doing any of them well. The opening sequel with young Dianna was pretty good; the movie was an okay-ish romantic comedy, an okay-ish "nerdy girl with glasses turns out to be hot" story, a somewhat less-than-good father-son story arc, and etc; but none of the component parts really stuck the landing. The parts which were good got lost in the shuffle of everything else going on. I'm not sure WW84 knows what kind of movie it is trying to be. 

Things which stuck out as bad to me: the method of turning the jet invisible, a surprising number of racial/cultural stereotypes being used to drive plot, "flying" by lassoing the clouds, and a bunch of stuff in the middle of the movie which dragged enough that I literally nodded off for a moment.

Things which stuck out as good: The girl who played Young Dianna did a really good job, Chris Pine and Gal Gadot both do well with the material they have to work with, and Pedro Pascal seemed believable as his character. (The mall robbery scene and Gal's pose toward the end would have made a pretty cool Coke commercial.)

Misc Thoughts: The Astera story was cool, but it seemed mostly pointless beyond just being an excuse to put WW in a different outfit (and presumably attempt to sell merch based on the golden armor); various parts of the movie would have been really good in isolation, but didn't seem to connect to each other in a coherent way; and (despite having component parts which are enjoyable) I think the end result of the film taken as a whole falls short of reaching the heights of the first film or films like Shazam. I still don't think I would say the film is "bad," but I certainly wouldn't call it "good" either. There are parts of the film which are well done, but the overall effort leaves a lot to be desired, and I'm inclined to say that it does more to tilt the public view of DCs efforts more toward negatives than positives.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 16, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> I watched the movie again during the past weekend. My date hadn't seen it, so we went to the theater.
> 
> I hesitated to call WW84 "bad" before, but (after a second viewing) I think I am leaning toward saying it's an overall below-average movie.
> 
> ...




 Fair review. I enjoyed it in the dumb fun category. Maybe it was the popcorn idk.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Fair review. I enjoyed it in the dumb fun category. Maybe it was the popcorn idk.




I think, for me, I'm left with a lot of curiosity about the movie. Was there some sort of internal conflict about what type of movie was being written or produced?

I think there is a lot of good in the movie, but (for me) it somehow seemed disjointed and unsure of what kind of movie it wanted to be. (FWIW, I feel similarly about Rogue One, but most people love that movie.)

Of the movies which are currently offered in the local theater (under limited Covid options,) I believe WW84 was likely my best option. There are simply aspects of it which seemed oddly constructed as an overall story.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 16, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> I think, for me, I'm left with a lot of curiosity about the movie. Was there some sort of internal conflict about what type of movie was being written or produced?
> 
> I think there is a lot of good in the movie, but (for me) it somehow seemed disjointed and unsure of what kind of movie it wanted to be. (FWIW, I feel similarly about Rogue One, but most people love that movie.)
> 
> Of the movies which are currently offered in the local theater (under limited Covid options,) I believe WW84 was likely my best option. There are simply aspects of it which seemed oddly constructed as an overall story.




 Messy film not as good a the first one. Seen two movies at the theatre somewhat recently options very limited. WW had maybe 100 people the other had 6.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 16, 2021)

I think some of you are being too kind. This movie was a mess from start to finish. It is tonally inconsistent. The story does not make much sense. The intro with young Diana goes on for far too long, and doesn't seem to have much relevance to the main plot of the film, nor does Diana learn any lesson from it. Pedro Pascal is terrible in this, and is much too goofy to feel like a threat. And if you think a bit longer on Chris Pine now inhabiting the body of someone else, it gets morally iffy as well. Sure, having sex with Gal Gadot against your will is probably not the worst thing in the world. But there is the issue of consent regardless. And the plot didn't need to be that way. I'm baffled that they wrote that in, and then never address the moral issues with it.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think some of you are being too kind. This movie was a mess from start to finish.



I wasn't being kind. I honestly found the movie to be delightful; a smart, conscious updating of the sort of high-budget, high-concept action-comedy Hollywood made during my teenage years. But I admit, this film probably reads differently if you don't have affection for 1980s pop culture.


Imaculata said:


> The story does not make much sense.



It makes Superfriends sense. It makes Ghostbusters sense. By design, I'd wager.


Imaculata said:


> Pedro Pascal is terrible in this, and is much too goofy to feel like a threat.



I think Pascal deserves an Oscar for making me feel a shred of sympathy for a partial-Donald Trump expy.


Imaculata said:


> But there is the issue of consent regardless. And the plot didn't need to be that way. I'm baffled that they wrote that in, and then never address the moral issues with it.



I don't think the film was obligated to address the moral/consent issue regarding the body-swapping/stealing any more than it did, ie Trevor acknowledging this had to end and Diana revoking her wish.

You certainly could use a similar fantastical conceit to explore issues of consent. Noah Hawley's show Legion did it, to devastating effect with the character of Sydney. But I don't think there is, again, an obligation to do so inherent in every body-swapping narrative. I'm not trying to criticize people who were legitimately made uncomfortable by WW84, but I don't think the consent criticism as criticism is particularly apt.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2021)

Mallus said:


> I wasn't being kind. I honestly found the movie to be delightful; a smart, conscious updating of the sort of high-budget, high-concept action-comedy Hollywood made during my teenage years. But I admit, this film probably reads differently if you don't have affection for 1980s pop culture.




This was what I was thinking while watching it.

You can set a movie in the 80s. Or you can make an 80s movie. There's a difference between the two.

This was a dayglo, pop-art movie playing in 80s tropes with a big budget.

I happen to agree that there were parts that were tonally a mess, but not the same things everyone else is criticizing; it was the attempts to force in certain requirements of modern superhero films and required Wonder Woman lore that made it less than it should have been.

(That said, there is a fine line between, "That's dumb because 80s movies are dumb in that specific way," and "That's dumb because the scriptwriters were not paying enough attention.")


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think some of you are being too kind. This movie was a mess from start to finish. It is tonally inconsistent. The story does not make much sense. The intro with young Diana goes on for far too long, and doesn't seem to have much relevance to the main plot of the film, nor does Diana learn any lesson from it. Pedro Pascal is terrible in this, and is much too goofy to feel like a threat. And if you think a bit longer on Chris Pine now inhabiting the body of someone else, it gets morally iffy as well. Sure, having sex with Gal Gadot against your will is probably not the worst thing in the world. But there is the issue of consent regardless. And the plot didn't need to be that way. I'm baffled that they wrote that in, and then never address the moral issues with it.




For me, it's far from the worst outing from DC. Despite many of the flaws, I would still put WW84 above many of the other DC movies.

Aside from that, I've been trying to be more open-minded about what other people like and not so quickly jumping to negatives. 

I think there was potential for it to be a good film, and I can see some promise in the various pieces, but the overall product fell short for me. As said above, I feel similarly about Rogue One: a lot of good individual pieces, but the pieces never seem to connect in a way which makes an overall good movie.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 16, 2021)

The previous two superhero movies I watched not to long ago were Wonder Women and Aquaman on Netflix. So yeah WW84 doesn't hold up comparatively. 

  This was also better.


 My other December movie. Had a budget of around $3 and a bag of fries.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 16, 2021)

I recently caught up with Captain Marvel, which I skipped when it was in theaters.

It was... passable. Kind of forgettable, and a carbon copy of previous Marvel movies. The worst thing about it was the unlikeable actress. I really did try to like her, but she just gives off the worst Karen vibe, making it hard to root for her. Also, during a fight scene they play No Doubt's I'm just a girl, which was just cringe. It's a fine song, but just a dreadful choice for that scene.

The movie feels as if Disney is trying to come up with the formula for a strong female super hero flick that will print them lots of dollars. But it ultimately feels very hollow and forced. It is also an odd choice, since the MCU already has several female super heroes that are far more likeable. When a movie tries so hard to push an idea that feels insincere, it is at risk of turning the audience against it. And I strongly feel that is the case here.

The formula to create a strong female lead superhero movie, is just a matter of making a good movie. You don't need to constantly remind us that she is "Just a girl" and that she needs no man. Just give us a likeable character and a fun plot, and thats it. Better yet, give us that Black Widow movie instead. Scarlet Jo is infinitely more likeable.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 17, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I recently caught up with Captain Marvel, which I skipped when it was in theaters.
> 
> It was... passable. Kind of forgettable, and a carbon copy of previous Marvel movies. The worst thing about it was the unlikeable actress. I really did try to like her, but she just gives off the worst Karen vibe, making it hard to root for her. Also, during a fight scene they play No Doubt's I'm just a girl, which was just cringe. It's a fine song, but just a dreadful choice for that scene.
> 
> ...




 I thought the movie was ok somewhere in the middle of the MCU maybe a bit lower. Better than stuff like Ironman 3 and later Thor movies perhaps. Brie wasn't great bit of a charisma void.

 Before Mandalorian landed I had only seen 3 or 4 MCU movies.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 17, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> I thought the movie was ok somewhere in the middle of the MCU maybe a bit lower. Better than stuff like Ironman 3 and later Thor movies perhaps.




I liked Ironman 3 a lot better, but I think everyone will agree Thor the Dark World was a dud. Thor Ragnarok on the other hand was fantastic.

I don't know what it is exactly that makes Brie give off such negative charisma. Could be that charisma is her dump stat. Could also be that a bit of her actual personality as an actress 'shines' through. And by shine, I mean a black hole from which no light can escape.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 17, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I liked Ironman 3 a lot better, but I think everyone will agree Thor the Dark World was a dud. Thor Ragnarok on the other hand was fantastic.
> 
> I don't know what it is exactly that makes Brie give off such negative charisma. Could be that charisma is her dump stat. Could also be that a bit of her actual personality as an actress 'shines' through. And by shine, I mean a black hole from which no light can escape.




 I haven't seen her in anything else to compare with. Her movie was better than a few MCU movies though. I've got no idea what the good MCU movies are supposed to be. I liked Iron Man/Thor/GotG first installmentscand The Avengers. 

 I like some superhero movies but don't love the genre as such. Unlike some of the old batman's, Blade 1&2, some of the MCU etc. Superman never really got him.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 17, 2021)

In my opinion, the good MCU movies are:

Iron Man 1, Captain America The Winter Soldier, Captain America Civil War, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2, Doctor Strange, Thor Ragnarok, Avengers Infinity War + Endgame.

The bad are: 

Ironman 2, Avengers Age of Ultron, Captain Marvel, Thor the Dark World, Captain America the First Avenger. All of the Hulk movies.

Everything else imo falls somewhere in between. But even the bad MCU movies have enjoyable parts, and are easily more fun than Jack Snyders dour Superman flicks. And I'm happy to have seen most MCU movies, including the bad ones, even if just for the sake of understanding the continuety. Also, Ironman 2 has a fantastic fight scene with Black Widow that is worth watching.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 17, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> In my opinion, the good MCU movies are:
> 
> Iron Man 1, Captain America The Winter Soldier, Captain America Civil War, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2, Doctor Strange, Thor Ragnarok, Avengers Infinity War + Endgame.
> 
> ...




 Not a bad list. Captain America doesn't do much for me though. Might be a cultural thing there.

 I would probably bputbblack panther into top third marvel superheroes into the middle and would move GotG2 and most of the Captain America stuff into the middle. 

 Just kinda lost focus with to many characters imho.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 17, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Not a bad list. Captain America doesn't do much for me though. Might be a cultural thing there.




Captain America as a character is pretty boring. That is why his first movie is a bit of a dud for me. Plus Hydra laser-tanks during WWII kind of rub me the wrong way as a European. I appreciate that these are the comicbook origins of the character, and that they are staying true to that. But whenever Hydra shows up as a quasi-Nazi stand in, I groan a bit on the inside. And I really don't like adding fictional elements to WWII.

However, I think it is fair to say that Captain America is only 50% in the Winter Soldier movie. The rest is Nicky Fury and Black Widow, who are so much more fun. And even Steve Rogers himself gets some much needed character development. It is honestly fun to watch him react and adapt to the modern world. Plus the movie itself has a very unique espionage vibe going for it. It is a very suspensful movie full of twists and turns.  

Civil War on the other hand is barely a Captain America movie at all. It is pretty much an Avengers type of ensemble movie. It could just as well be considered an Iron Movie, considering how central Tony Stark is to the plot. But I think you do need to see the Winter Soldier first, to fully appreciate Civil War. I saw Civil War in theaters, and I was most surprised that people in the audience were very divided in regards to the central conflict of the movie. Not everyone was on Captain America's side, myself included. I did not expect to be watching a Captain America movie, in which Steve Rogers is kind of a bad guy, depending on how you look at it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 17, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Captain America as a character is pretty boring. That is why his first movie is a bit of a dud for me. Plus Hydra laser-tanks during WWII kind of rub me the wrong way as a European. I appreciate that these are the comicbook origins of the character, and that they are staying true to that. But whenever Hydra shows up as a quasi-Nazi stand in, I groan a bit on the inside. And I really don't like adding fictional elements to WWII.
> 
> However, I think it is fair to say that Captain America is only 50% in the Winter Soldier movie. The rest is Nicky Fury and Black Widow, who are so much more fun. And even Steve Rogers himself gets some much needed character development. It is honestly fun to watch him react and adapt to the modern world. Plus the movie itself has a very unique espionage vibe going.  Civil War on the other hand is barely a Captain America movie at all. It is pretty much an Avengers type of ensemble movie. It could just as well be considered an Iron Movie, considering how central Tony Stark is to the plot. But I think you do need to see the Winter Soldier first, to fully appreciate Civil War.




 Seen both neither did much for me. Civil War was a bit of a wet fart for me. Bad CGI in places, knew no one would die and nothing seemed to matter.

 Captain America and Super bite me. Maybe it's the red white and blue thing zzzzzz.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 20, 2021)

I enjoyed Winter Soldier in that it examines the psychological/ideological struggle that a soldier faces upon returning home and realizing that the country for which you fought is controlled by a government which adheres to very different ideals. Being a patriot and supporting a regime may be at odds with each other, and that's a tough struggle for a combat veteran to come to terms with.

I also find that Winter Soldier manages to simply be a good movie. Even if there were no super hero elements at all, I feel that the underlying structure of the story would be compelling.


----------

