Wonder Woman - General Discussion

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6113203]I hated Love and Thunder and put WW84 above it. If I had to choose between directors...Id choose Patty lol. Though both had way to much power over their sequels.[/QUOTE]

I raved when I first saw WW 1984 because it was reminiscent of the WW tv series, but now in hindsight it was severly lacking, not just in action but the overall storylines too. Jenkins couldn't even write the quiet parts so they weren't problematic (scarf guy) and she made a mockery out of Cheetah. I've lost all faith in her abilities, she's just not the right director for superhero movies. The general public wants loud, bombastic and FUN and she doesn't do any of that well.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6113212]Just from looking at the clip, Maeve looks like she was pretty evenly matched with Homelander. They both tank each other's blows, he takes her eye, but she stabs him in the ear. Looks like it could've gone either way before she sacrifices herself to take out Soldier Boy.

Correct me if I'm wrong--because, again, I don't watch [I]The Boys[/I]--but isn't Maeve NOT a trained warrior? Even though she's a Wonder Woman analogue, she's just a super-powered woman the corporation she works for dressed up in an Amazon costume and made that her gimmick?[/QUOTE]

Maeve is shown in a sparring session with some trainers at one point in season 1. Unlike Homelander, she actually knows how to fight. But yeah, she's also a corporate sponsored hero.

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6113203]I hated Love and Thunder and put WW84 above it. If I had to choose between directors...Id choose Patty lol. Though both had way to much power over their sequels.[/QUOTE]

Almost anybody can do action scenes better than jenkins. WW84 had terrible action. Bad cgi, a terrible Cheetah and plot holes. A mess.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6113219]I raved when I first saw WW 1984 because it was reminiscent of the WW tv series, but now in hindsight it was severly lacking, not just in action but the overall storylines too. Jenkins couldn't even write the quiet parts so they weren't problematic (scarf guy) and she made a mockery out of Cheetah. I've lost all faith in her abilities, she's just not the right director for superhero movies. The general public wants loud, bombastic and FUN and she doesn't do any of that well.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The tone had some good ideas. But they weren't well executed. Lousy action, dialogue, too slow pace. The treatment Cheetah got was just terrible. Jenkins couldn't make a WW movie where her lore and powerhouse status is respected and shown, even if her life depended on it. She just can't do it. Anybody having big expectations for WW3 are in for a big let down.

[QUOTE=Nyssane;6112985]The Boys comic is definitely a stupid cliche show designed for edgy 13 year olds, but the TV show is [I]so much better[/I]. The title is super misleading because the show is just as much about the women as it is about the "boys". Starlight has easily become my favorite character in the most recent season and is arguably more important to the show now than Hughie is.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, the comic and a lot of the other properties are pretty much edge lord crap, but the Show is actually well written and directed. Do I think the sex and inuendos get too exausting in season 3, yeah, but it's surrounded by everything else that's so well a reflection of our society.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6113212]Just from looking at the clip, Maeve looks like she was pretty evenly matched with Homelander. They both tank each other's blows, he takes her eye, but she stabs him in the ear. Looks like it could've gone either way before she sacrifices herself to take out Soldier Boy.

Correct me if I'm wrong--because, again, I don't watch [I]The Boys[/I]--but isn't Maeve NOT a trained warrior? Even though she's a Wonder Woman analogue, she's just a super-powered woman the corporation she works for dressed up in an Amazon costume and made that her gimmick?[/QUOTE]

She does actually train and is probably the best fighter on the show, when she sobered up. Maeve was NEVER going to solo Homelander, that needs to be said, she was willing to fight him to her death if it meant 1) getting some good hits and 2) having the Boys kill him via whatever they found with solider boy. (this was before the finale)

again, Maeve's story ark in the show is vastly superior and more inpactful than in the comic, it is no contest.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6113212]Just from looking at the clip, Maeve looks like she was pretty evenly matched with Homelander. They both tank each other's blows, he takes her eye, but she stabs him in the ear. Looks like it could've gone either way before she sacrifices herself to take out Soldier Boy.

[B]Correct me if I'm wrong--because, again, I don't watch [I]The Boys[/I]--but isn't Maeve NOT a trained warrior? Even though she's a Wonder Woman analogue, she's just a super-powered woman the corporation she works for dressed up in an Amazon costume and made that her gimmick?[/B][/QUOTE]

You'd be correct. Everything about the Supes is a lie.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6113219]I raved when I first saw WW 1984 because it was reminiscent of the WW tv series, but now in hindsight it was severly lacking, not just in action but the overall storylines too. Jenkins couldn't even write the quiet parts so they weren't problematic (scarf guy) and she made a mockery out of Cheetah. I've lost all faith in her abilities, she's just not the right director for superhero movies. The general public wants loud, bombastic and FUN and she doesn't do any of that well.[/QUOTE]

They got that with Love and Thunder and its one of the poorest reviewed Marvel films. I havent so much lost faith in her director abilities as I have in her scripting. 1984 suffers in the same exact way Love and Thunder did. The directors first films were a mega success and they were given complete creative control over the 2nd and they took things to far to one side. Taiki wrote the script for L&T w/another writer just as Patty did.

Now would I mind if we got another director for the third? I wouldnt be opposed to it and think its probably smart to swap out directors after 2 films since they usually underperform in their sequels (Whedon, Jenkins, Waititi, the list goes on)

[QUOTE=Gaius;6113036]Yeah, from what I heard Ennis has no involvement in The Boys so not surprised it's toned down. Though I don't think he's involved in any of the adaptions of his work.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Nyssane;6112985]The Boys comic is definitely a stupid cliche show designed for edgy 13 year olds, but the TV show is [I]so much better[/I]. The title is super misleading because the show is just as much about the women as it is about the "boys". Starlight has easily become my favorite character in the most recent season and is arguably more important to the show now than Hughie is.[/QUOTE]

I have only completed season 1 but I enjoyed it. I have only flipped through the comics, but what I have seen comes across as juvenile garbage, but I have seen many comments that the show takes the basic premise of the comic but tones down or removes Ennis's tendencies. And the end result is better

From scans I have seen, I think the Billy Butcher of the comics is not someone I would ever be able to stomach reading about. But the show version is helped by being played by Karl "Dredd/Julius Caesar/Eros/Eomer" Urban.

I'ts definitely one of those shows where deviating from the source material made the show better than the comic. That's what I expect when people deviate, you better make it better.

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6113305]I have only completed season 1 but I enjoyed it. I have only flipped through the comics, but what I have seen comes across as juvenile garbage, but I have seen many comments that the show takes the basic premise of the comic but tones down or removes Ennis's tendencies. And the end result is better

From scans I have seen, I think the Billy Butcher of the comics is not someone I would ever be able to stomach reading about. But the show version is helped by being played by Karl "Dredd/Julius Caesar/Eros/Eomer" Urban.[/QUOTE]

It's not just the casting (which is great), it's also the writing. The show is way better than the comics on every level - it takes out a lot of the edgelord crap and misogyny and it still has a lot of over-the-top gore/sex but it also has a lot of really solid, timely social commentary. Definitely one of the more feminist works I've seen in the genre, surprisingly enough.

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6113305]I have only completed season 1 but I enjoyed it. I have only flipped through the comics, but what I have seen comes across as juvenile garbage, but I have seen many comments that the show takes the basic premise of the comic but tones down or removes Ennis's tendencies. And the end result is better

From scans I have seen, I think the Billy Butcher of the comics is not someone I would ever be able to stomach reading about. But the show version is helped by being played by Karl "Dredd/Julius Caesar/Eros/Eomer" Urban.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, not too surprised. I like Ennis, despite himself a good chunk of the time, but the stuff I read of [I]The Boys[/I] comic was just him at his worst.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6113212]Just from looking at the clip, Maeve looks like she was pretty evenly matched with Homelander. They both tank each other's blows, he takes her eye, but she stabs him in the ear. Looks like it could've gone either way before she sacrifices herself to take out Soldier Boy.

Correct me if I'm wrong--because, again, I don't watch [I]The Boys[/I]--but isn't Maeve NOT a trained warrior? Even though she's a Wonder Woman analogue, she's just a super-powered woman the corporation she works for dressed up in an Amazon costume and made that her gimmick?[/QUOTE]

Well in the show she does know hand-to-hand and, unlike the comics, actually partakes in superheroes but I don't think she really fights a lot of superpowered people. But yeah in the show, I wouldn't call her a warrior. She was born and raised on a farm in Modesto, went to Vought's "Super Hero" college and was the second hero to be picked for the Seven.

In the comics it's 100% a front, she never gets into a fight besides the one with Homelander where he punches her head off in one hit, and spends 95% of the comic on her sofa drunk as a skunk.

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6113305]I have only completed season 1 but I enjoyed it. I have only flipped through the comics, but what I have seen comes across as juvenile garbage, but I have seen many comments that the show takes the basic premise of the comic but tones down or removes Ennis's tendencies. And the end result is better

From scans I have seen, I think the Billy Butcher of the comics is not someone I would ever be able to stomach reading about. But the show version is helped by being played by Karl "Dredd/Julius Caesar/Eros/Eomer" Urban.[/QUOTE]

Being as fair as one can be to Ennis, Butcher is not meant to be someone people like.

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6113268]They got that with Love and Thunder and its one of the poorest reviewed Marvel films. [/QUOTE]

I think that's an exaggeration. The worst I've heard is that is isn't as good as Ragnarok, but that itself isn't saying much given how much people liked Ragnarok.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;6113732]I think that's an exaggeration. The worst I've heard is that is isn't as good as Ragnarok, but that itself isn't saying much given how much people liked Ragnarok.[/QUOTE]

Except its not. It's in the 68% for its RT score vs Ragnaroks 90s. It got a B+ cinemascore making it one of 4 Marvel films to get anything below A. Plenty of reviews have trashed it

The movie was just released. Give it some time before we know how it really does. I haven't seen it yet but it's gotten mixed reviews.

It's funny how so many people are taking this opportunity to prop up WW84. I saw a meme on someone's IG stories about how WW84 was better than Thor 4. The two movies aren't remotely similar in any way and while it's fair to compare the merits and flaws of both, this kind of polarized thinking of trying to pit the two against each other or exaggerating either movies strengths or flaws doesn't result in a healthy. Just bitter bickering.

Actually, there are weirdly enough some narrative similarities. Thor and Diana have quite similar arcs in both movies. And both movies explore the same theme about your deepest desires being fulfilled by divine entities. I still wouldn't compare them, both it's not irrational. I quite like Thor L&T. I also quite liked WW84.

[QUOTE=John Venus;6113821]It's funny how so many people are taking this opportunity to prop up WW84. I saw a meme on someone's IG stories about how WW84 was better than Thor 4. The two movies aren't remotely similar in any way and while it's fair to compare the merits and flaws of both, this kind of polarized thinking of trying to pit the two against each other or exaggerating either movies strengths or flaws doesn't result in a healthy. Just bitter bickering.[/QUOTE]

I also haven't seen it yet but regardless of whether or not the films are similar, it actually seems like a VERY similar situation to WW84. Acclaimed auteur director gets brought on to make a big franchise film and knocks it out of the park, studio sees that success and lets said director do whatever they want with the sequel, director uses that creative control to make something totally self-indulgent and winds up with a huge disappointment.

It's almost uncanny, right down to both directors getting tapped to do Star Wars movies after the first one. Though we'll see if Taika's Star Wars gets canceled like Patty's...

Ragnarok is my favorite MCU entry and I love Taika Waititi's movies, but the stuff people have been saying about Love and Thunder has made me lose all interest. People whose film opinions I respect have been absolutely trashing it and I've seen a lot of people on Twitter say it's one of the worst movies they've ever seen (again, very reminiscent of WW84).

I haven't seen [I]Love & Thunder[/I] yet and I haven't read any reviews, but just looking at Twitter, there does seem to be a hyperbole to the backlash that's similar to what [I]WW84[/I] suffered. Declarations that it's the worst ever...total embarrassment with no redeeming value...the director should've be allowed to work again...

I don't know...[I]Love & Thunder[/I] might not be that good, but it would have to work pretty hard to be the worst superhero movie ever. Similarly, for all [I]WW84[/I]'s faults, I cannot accept it's the worst DCEU movie when [I]Justice League[/I] and the first [I]Suicide Squad[/I] exist.

Maybe [I]L&T[/I] and [I]WW84[/I] have similar problems as films, and I'm sure there's plenty of valid criticism...can't say because, again, haven't seen it yet...but I'm going to guess a lot of the angriest and loudest backlash is probably due to the camp. [I]Love & Thunder[/I], like [I]WW84[/I], seems to be leaning pretty hard into camp, and if there's one thing the loudest & angriest comic book nerds hate it's camp.

These are the guys still holding a grudge against [I]Batman & Robin[/I]. Like, come on, it's been almost twenty-five years and there have been five Batman movies since...each grayer and more joyless than the last. You won.

Wonder Woman 1984 had much bigger problems than camp and most criticisms weren't even about that. In fact, some pointed out that the movie was pretty cynical once you got past the superficially colorful facade.

As for comic fans hating camp, the past several years of discourse has me convinced that either the pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction or comic fans are just impossible to please. The grudge against Batman & Robin was pretty much fading away even before Joel Schumacher's death and if anything it's more of a cold take to be against the "gray and joyless" Batman.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;6114009]Wonder Woman 1984 had much bigger problems than camp and most criticisms weren't even about that.[/QUOTE]
I never said otherwise. I simply pointed out that there was a hyperbolic backlash to the movie and speculated that was related to the overly campy tone.

[QUOTE=John Venus;6113821]The movie was just released. Give it some time before we know how it really does. I haven't seen it yet but it's gotten mixed reviews.

It's funny how so many people are taking this opportunity to prop up WW84. I saw a meme on someone's IG stories about how WW84 was better than Thor 4. The two movies aren't remotely similar in any way and while it's fair to compare the merits and flaws of both, this kind of polarized thinking of trying to pit the two against each other or exaggerating either movies strengths or flaws doesn't result in a healthy. Just bitter bickering.[/QUOTE]

The audience score, reviews, and RT wont be making any comebacks.

Like others have said there are plenty of similarities.

Patty/Taiki were given these characters and delivered bangers for their films that brought the characters to new and refreshing places. After they were given complete creative control, Taiki wrote the script for L&T when he didnt have as much input into the Ragnarok. Patty aslo helped out with the script for 84 far more than she was able to in WW.

WW84 went to the extreme to go about peace & love. L&T went to the extreme with its over the top comedy where Thor at one point tells the villain he needs to see a dentist for his teeth. Diana is still dealing with being lonely after losing everyone and Thor is lost after losing everyone. It also deals with bringing their epic loves back into their lives.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;6113732]I think that's an exaggeration. The worst I've heard is that is isn't as good as Ragnarok, but that itself isn't saying much given how much people liked Ragnarok.[/QUOTE]
The worst I've heard is that it's too [B]much[/B] of Ragnarok, especially the comedy.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6114013]I never said otherwise. I simply pointed out that there was a hyperbolic backlash to the movie and speculated that was related to the overly campy tone.[/QUOTE]

As someone who kept up with the discourse surrounding the film, I found very few people actually had an issue with the tone by itself. In fact, when I saw the tone get brought up, it was mostly to point out how it made ill-suited choices like the tonedeaf depiction of non-white people, the victim-blaming implications of Barbara's arc or Diana's violation of a nameless guy's consent stick out even more.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;6114030]As someone who kept up with the discourse surrounding the film, I found very people actually had an issue with the tone by itself. In fact, when I saw the tone get brought up, it was mostly to point out how it made ill-suited choices like the tonedeaf depiction of non-white people, the victim-blaming implications of Barbara's arc or Diana's violation of a nameless guy's consent stick out even more.[/QUOTE]

What? People were upset about the body-swap thing?! NO! I never realized. And people were unhappy with Barbara's depiction, too?!

Clearly, I'm just a biased idiot living in my own world oblivious to the discourse. Thank you so much for educating me.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6114039]What? People were upset about the body-swap thing?! NO! I never realized. And people were unhappy with Barbara's depiction, too?!

Clearly, I'm just a biased idiot living in my own world oblivious to the discourse. Thank you so much for educating me.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I did not say any of this and you damn well know it. I've managed to engage with you without this kind of strawmanning, so I think it only fair you do the same.

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6114021]The audience score, reviews, and RT wont be making any comebacks.

Like others have said there are plenty of similarities.

Patty/Taiki were given these characters and delivered bangers for their films that brought the characters to new and refreshing places. After they were given complete creative control, Taiki wrote the script for L&T when he didnt have as much input into the Ragnarok. Patty aslo helped out with the script for 84 far more than she was able to in WW.

WW84 went to the extreme to go about peace & love. L&T went to the extreme with its over the top comedy where Thor at one point tells the villain he needs to see a dentist for his teeth. Diana is still dealing with being lonely after losing everyone and Thor is lost after losing everyone. It also deals with bringing their epic loves back into their lives.[/QUOTE]

L&T has and will keep a better RT score than WW84. And what new refreshing place did WW84 bring? The movie did nothing new and totally ruined Cheetah.

[QUOTE=mystical41;6114251]L&T has and will keep a better RT score than WW84. And what new refreshing place did WW84 bring? The movie did nothing new and totally ruined Cheetah.[/QUOTE]

Good thing nothing what I said was about their RT scores being the same. But since we wanna go there....WW has a 93% RT, Thor:R has a 93% RT. Their respective sequels...84 has a 58% RT, L&T currently sits at 68% RT. BOTH sequels took a HUGE dip in scores.

Also good thing I never said anything about WW84 bringing anything refreshing since I said Patty and Taiki brought new and refreshing places for their initial films.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6113872]I also haven't seen it yet but regardless of whether or not the films are similar, it actually seems like a VERY similar situation to WW84. Acclaimed auteur director gets brought on to make a big franchise film and knocks it out of the park, studio sees that success and lets said director do whatever they want with the sequel, director uses that creative control to make something totally self-indulgent and winds up with a huge disappointment.

It's almost uncanny, right down to both directors getting tapped to do Star Wars movies after the first one. Though we'll see if Taika's Star Wars gets canceled like Patty's...

Ragnarok is my favorite MCU entry and I love Taika Waititi's movies, but the stuff people have been saying about Love and Thunder has made me lose all interest. People whose film opinions I respect have been absolutely trashing it and I've seen a lot of people on Twitter say it's one of the worst movies they've ever seen (again, very reminiscent of WW84).[/QUOTE]

No, no, no, it's really GOOD! The major complaint is that there are too many jokes. Some don't land, true, but others are hilarious! Take Thor's goats Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder for instance, when they first appear their screams are annoying, but by the end they're one of the funniest parts of the movie.

In light of current events (Uvalde, Texas) some people like Grace Randolph took issue with the kidnapped Asgardian children in peril, but the resolution is so surprising, awesome and joyous you forgive the creepy cringe feeling you have at the beginning.

Despite the humor Thor has a powerful arc with an unexpected outcome as he finds himself again. His chemistry with Jane is stronger than in any previous film and you root for their love.

You end up leaving the theatre feeling about 8 years old and glad you saw it, I highly recommend it!

Or you leave thinking "did I watch a Thor movie or was this a parody film because 90% of it is just bad jokes"

[QUOTE=mystical41;6114251]L&T has and will keep a better RT score than WW84. And what new refreshing place did WW84 bring? The movie did nothing new and totally ruined Cheetah.[/QUOTE]

True and it's like a viewing a wake when compared to Thor Love & Thunder. Don't get me wrong, as a Wonder Woman fan I enjoyed WW84, but as a moviegoer there was A LOT of Diana moping around and being sad. Thor didn't have that problem, he faked it until he made it and had a robust optimism throughout. While his film was as comic book accurate as possible, WW84 took several liberties with the source material that basically destroyed Cheetah and hampered the overall project to a terrible degree.

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6114394]Or you leave thinking "did I watch a Thor movie or was this a parody film because 90% of it is just bad jokes"[/QUOTE]

No there's heart and depth to it too. Heck most of the plot is based on Jane trying to survive cancer and doing whatever it took to feel alive again in the midst of a staggering stage 4 diagnosis. Then it's all about loss and how best to cope with it.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6114412]No there's heart and depth to it too. Heck most of the plot is based on Jane trying to survive cancer and doing whatever it took to feel alive again in the midst of a staggering stage 4 diagnosis. Then it's all about loss and how best to cope with it.[/QUOTE]

I wanted to walk out feeling like that but the over the top comedy swallowed up what they were trying to convey imo. It took my out of the story. Thor acting like a glorified child throughout was...cringe.

What they did with Zeus? What Gods they showed....it was a glorified childrens movie

If people were able to love it, I love that for them but there's a clear disconnect for a lot of people with this film.

Wonder if all this Thor talk is how Superman fans feel when the Captain America movies are compared to the modern Superman films. :p

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6114416]I wanted to walk out feeling like that but the over the top comedy swallowed up what they were trying to convey imo. It took my out of the story. Thor acting like a glorified child throughout was...cringe.

What they did with Zeus? What Gods they showed....it was a glorified childrens movie

If people were able to love it, I love that for them but there's a clear disconnect for a lot of people with this film.[/QUOTE]

I hope I never get that old. That's part of the joy of comics, they keep you young at heart.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6114451]I hope I never get that old. That's part of the joy of comics, they keep you young at heart.[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do about getting old. What is enjoyable for others isnt enjoyable for everyone just as it doesnt make a comic book movie any better turning it up to a 10. If I wanted to watch Blues Clues, I'd be watching Nick Jr everyday, I dont need to see it in Thor.

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6114454]It has nothing to do about getting old. What is enjoyable for others isnt enjoyable for everyone just as it doesnt make a comic book movie any better turning it up to a 10. If I wanted to watch Blues Clues, I'd be watching Nick Jr everyday, I dont need to see it in Thor.[/QUOTE]

If it had nothing to do with getting old you wouldn't be deriding it for being too young.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6114483]If it had nothing to do with getting old you wouldn't be deriding it for being too young.[/QUOTE]

...not really. I was a child 20 years ago, I wouldnt have liked it then either so sorry to burst your bubble. Not all us kids had the same taste or humor.