-
[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;5296368]Just got finished watching it. Overall, I liked it, but it's definitely flawed and a step down from the first one.
I've been noticing Geoff Johns getting singled out for a lot of the film's problems, and honestly, I can see why. His fingerprints are all over the script in a bad way: overstuffed plot, wonky pacing, and too much dwelling on lore that really doesn't matter (way too much time is spent on explaining/figuring out what the wishing stone is when it's functionally just a McGuffin).
Remembers, Johns is the guy who thought the [I]Green Lantern[/I] movie needed to be his origin, Hector Hammond, Sinestro turning evil, AND Parallax all in one movie. [B]His "throw as much in as possible" can work for his comic book event stories (sometimes) but it doesn't work in a movie.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
So how did It work with Aquaman? which is the most successful movie of the DCEU franchise, based on his comic run!! From the seven kingdoms to the Trench its all Johns.
It worked with the first WW movie.
As for the Green Lantern movie, its more difficult because its a convulsed story, not easily for the audience to relate or understand it, besides even the Green lantern fanbase itself is riddled with factions of different characters Hal, Jessica, Kyle etc.
This WW movie is a different take from what we are used about superhero movies. Its about making Diana more human than ever. One flaw superhero characters often tend to have, that they seem to perfect too much aloof. I liked this Diana she felt real in her wanting the only thing that she wished.
-
[QUOTE=Rang10;5296433]So the first was good not because of Geoff Johns, but the seond is awful because of Johns haha makes no sense
The story was made by Jenkins and Johns, the script was these 2 + a third writer.
As a producer Johns had limited power, executives and director had the last say on GL movie[/QUOTE]
Geoff Johns does not have a writing or producing credit on the first WW film, according to Wikipedia.
He has a story and screenplay credit on the sequel. If someone wants to single him out in their critique...seems fair to me.
-
[QUOTE=Rang10;5296433]So the first was good not because of Geoff Johns, but the seond is awful because of Johns haha makes no sense
The story was made by Jenkins and Johns, the script was these 2 + a third writer.
As a producer Johns had limited power, executives and director had the last say on GL movie[/QUOTE]
Given Johns' record of writing Diana in the comics, I don't see much in the first film to credit him for. I think you can make a good case that the first film succeeded in spite of his involvement. Also, Heinberg wrote the screen play; it looks like the decision to not bring him back for 84 was a mistake.
[QUOTE=MarFarr;5296435]It worked with Aquaman, which is the most successful movie of the DCEU franchise, based on his comic run!! From the seven kingdoms to the Trench its all Johns.
It worked with the first WW movie.
As for the Green Lantern movie, its more difficult because its a convulsed story, not easily for the audience to relate or understand it, besides even the Green lantern fanbase itself is riddled with factions of different characters Hal, Jessica, Kyle etc.
This WW movie is a different take from what we are used about superhero movies. Its about making Diana more human than ever. One flaw superhero characters often tend to have, that they seem to perfect too much aloof. I liked this Diana she felt real in her wanting the only thing that she wished.[/QUOTE]
Aquaman succeeded, largely, on the strength of its visuals, not the story itself. This was particularly true in China.
-
[QUOTE=Largo161;5296453]Geoff Johns does not have a writing or producing credit on the first WW film, according to Wikipedia.
He has a story and screenplay credit on the sequel. If someone wants to single him out in their critique...seems fair to me.[/QUOTE]
From Wikipedia..................
[I]in 2015, Patty Jenkins accepted an offer to direct Wonder Woman,[96] based on a screenplay by Allan Heinberg and a story co-written by Heinberg, Zack Snyder, [B]Geoff Johns[/B] and Jason Fuchs.[97]
[/I]
-
[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;5296368]I've been noticing Geoff Johns getting singled out for a lot of the film's problems, and honestly, I can see why. His fingerprints are all over the script in a bad way: overstuffed plot, wonky pacing, and too much dwelling on lore that really doesn't matter (way too much time is spent on explaining/figuring out what the wishing stone is when it's functionally just a McGuffin).
Remembers, Johns is the guy who thought the [I]Green Lantern[/I] movie needed to be his origin, Hector Hammond, Sinestro turning evil, AND Parallax all in one movie. His "throw as much in as possible" can work for his comic book event stories (sometimes) but it doesn't work in a movie.[/QUOTE]
Well, it arguably worked for Aquaman but there was much more going on behind the probelms with GL than it just being an origin story and not instantly starting Sinestro out as a villain.
[QUOTE=Awonder;5296459]Given Johns' record of writing Diana in the comics, I don't see much in the first film to credit him for. I think you can make a good case that the first film succeeded in spite of his involvement. Also, Heinberg wrote the screen play; it looks like the decision to not bring him back for 84 was a mistake.[/QUOTE]
Diana's love of ice cream.
-
[QUOTE=MarFarr;5296462]From Wikipedia..................
[I]in 2015, Patty Jenkins accepted an offer to direct Wonder Woman,[96] based on a screenplay by Allan Heinberg and a story co-written by Heinberg, Zack Snyder, [B]Geoff Johns[/B] and Jason Fuchs.[97]
[/I][/QUOTE]
The credits [B]in the movie[/B] do not give Geoff Johns a story credit. Make of that what you will.
-
[QUOTE=Awonder;5296459]Given Johns' record of writing Diana in the comics, I don't see much in the first film to credit him for. I think you can make a good case that the first film succeeded in spite of his involvement. Also, Heinberg wrote the screen play; it looks like the decision to not bring him back for 84 was a mistake.
Aquaman succeeded, largely, on the strength of its visuals, not the story itself. This was particularly true in China.[/QUOTE]
I expected honestly that answer, seems a standard reply. Pick and choose accordingly.
Take out China and it would still have been a huge success just the same. It would still have have topped the flops of a certain director who despite having the most celebrated characters in comics couldn't even get near a billion dollar BO.
Aquaman succeeded because it had, yes visuals, but it was fun, positive, colorful, romance, horror, adventure in one movie etc Keep in mind that to the general public Aquaman was a joke.
-
[QUOTE=Largo161;5296453]He has a story and screenplay credit on the sequel. If someone wants to single him out in their critique...seems fair to me.[/QUOTE]
I can't disagree with you, not when you add in that Johns has always struggled a bit when writing Wonder Woman. Putting him on the script for the movie seemed like a bad idea at the time, and, well, here we are.
Maybe with "1984" it was just too many cooks in the kitchen. Because the story was [I]bad[/I]. Not even a little bit bad, but, like, massively bad. Something went badly wrong between the first one and this one.
-
I haven’t been able to get through the movie. I watched the first hour and fell asleep. (Granted, it was late at night.) The next day I rewatched from the beginning and made it through an hour and a half. Later I returned to finish watching but I can’t fast forward to where I left off. What’s up with that? I can’t rewatch it from the beginning [I]again[/I].
I’ve only skimmed a few posts in this thread, but are some folks earnestly arguing that the problem is a lack of sword and shield?
-
[QUOTE=OrangeRangerPete;5296495]... Because the story was [I]bad[/I]. Not even a little bit bad, but, like, massively bad. Something went badly wrong between the first one and this one.[/QUOTE]
I like many of the story ideas and what they seem to be going for, but it feels half-baked.
[QUOTE=MarFarr;5296471]I expected honestly that answer, seems a standard reply.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's a "standard reply," because there's merit it to it? ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I like the Aquaman movie; you're right, it's a fun adventure. That does not make it particularly well written.
[QUOTE=Frontier;5296465]Diana's love of ice cream.[/QUOTE]
Was that Johns' or the animated movie? I can't remember.
-
The Duke of Deception mention seems like one of Johns' ideas.
And while we're on some controversial topics like the Steve-body-hijacking stuff, it seems the scene with Barbara beating up her attacker didn't quite land with a lot of people. It was supposed to show her going dark and too far, but it's hard not root for her against a sexual harasser/potential (and likely) rapist. I don't think the film expects us to feel an ounce of sympathy for the guy, but be more concerned with Barbara losing her empathy, but I can see why it'd not signaling to audiences that we should start to view her as seriously in the wrong. One of my roommates said last night, not knowing much about the character beyond knowing she's a WW baddie, said "wait, how is Cheetah a villain? She's awesome and that guy deserved it!" during that scene.
-
[QUOTE=Largo161;5296506]
I’ve only skimmed a few posts in this thread, but are some folks earnestly arguing that the problem [with WW84] is a lack of sword and shield?[/QUOTE]
In the same way some folks are saying that Diana's "problems" in general are too much sword and shield.
-
Honestly I wouldn't mind a different director for WW3. If Circe is the villain then it has to deliver the spectacle and I'm not sure if Patty Jenkins can. And definitely no bringing Steve back, that would just be comical at this point. Give Diana a new love interest and show that she's moved on.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5296538]... One of my roommates said last night, not knowing much about the character beyond knowing she's a WW baddie, said "wait, how is Cheetah a villain? She's awesome and that guy deserved it!" during that scene.[/QUOTE]
That's one of the difficulties of having multiple 'villains.' In this case, I do think Cheetah could have used some more time showing her becoming increasingly dark and violent.
[QUOTE=Psy-lock;5296549]Honestly I wouldn't mind a different director for WW3. If Circe is the villain then it has to deliver the spectacle and I'm not sure if Patty Jenkins can. And definitely no bringing Steve back, that would just be comical at this point. Give Diana a new love interest and show that she's moved on.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Jenkins has done a (mostly) wonderful job with the character of Diana, but I want more big spectacle, especially from a character like Circe.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5296538]The Duke of Deception mention seems like one of Johns' ideas.
And while we're on some controversial topics like the Steve-body-hijacking stuff, it seems the scene with Barbara beating up her attacker didn't quite land with a lot of people. It was supposed to show her going dark and too far, but it's hard not root for her against a sexual harasser/potential (and likely) rapist. I don't think the film expects us to feel an ounce of sympathy for the guy, but be more concerned with Barbara losing her empathy, but I can see why it'd not signaling to audiences that we should start to view her as seriously in the wrong. One of my roommates said last night, not knowing much about the character beyond knowing she's a WW baddie, said "wait, how is Cheetah a villain? She's awesome and that guy deserved it!" during that scene.[/QUOTE]
The bigger tell in that scene of just what is happening to Barbara Minerva is how she treats the homeless guy at the end. That's the same guy she gave food to, and was kind and friendly with, earlier in the movie. Seeing her utterly, and cruelly dismiss him is the clue that the scene has truly gone a darker route.