Wonder Woman 1984 Thoughts SPOILERS

[kingaliencracker]

I liked parts of it better than the first. I generally HATE fish-out-of-water stories. I'm pretty much cringing almost the entire time Diana is in London, especially when she starts lecturing the men planning out the war. And honestly, watching how Diana acted for most of the movie, so sure that killing Ares would stop the war (which I guess it did), I thought of a line from, of all things, Age of Ultron: "You're unbearably naïve." And finally, the villains were fairly weak- Dr. Poison wasn't a physical threat, Ludendorf was only a threat thanks to the magical cocaine that Dr. Poison made for him, and he didn't last long; and Ares was underwhelming.

In this movie, I actually found Steve's fish-out-of-water story endearing, and I really started thinking 'how WOULD someone who died in the early 1900's react to seeing the future?' I liked seeing each of the three main characters reacting to their wishes. But I do think it was a bit long- and apparently, so did the studio as they wanted to cut one of the opening scenes, either the Amazon Games or the Mall. I felt the story was a bit weaker, and while the hope speech at the end was in character for Diana, it wasn't exactly exciting. And there wasn't a lot of fight scenes, but it was a bit shocking to see Diana take so much damage.

If you could take the best parts of both Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 84 to make one Wonder Woman movie, I really think you'd have the best super hero film of all time. Both movies are enormously entertaining and Gal Gadot nails the characterization. And there are some really amazing scenes in both films. But yeah, both films have some clunker moments too.

Specifically with WW84, where it really fails is Cheetah's arc, which also seems to be the general consensus. I actually liked Maxwell Lord because they captured the essence of the character from the comics. But most of the scenes with Barbara were my least favorite and the climatic battle was a let down, not to mention the terrible look they gave her.

[Killerbee911]

So I finally finished watching the movie tonight I fell alseep the first time trying to watch it (I was just tired the movie wasn't boring) but I realize why a certain crowd hates the movie. My timeline on facebook I have some friends who are killing the movie. Now that I have finished it I get why people hate or dislike this movie.

They went a power of friendship or power of love ending

I am less bother by this power of friendship ending compare to New Mutants but I am familiar with the books and tv show so I get it. But unless people actually connect with your characters that style isn't going to work. Plus some people want to "see them hands" not Wonder Woman talk down the enemy. Now this movie perfectly fits a style of Wonder Woman character and what they want her to represent but they are large group of people who aren't trying to see that. They are two wonder women,There is the peaceful warrior with lasso and there is more modern style who is "badass" amazon with sword and shield. They successful executed the warrior of peace version in 1984 but some people prefer the more aggressive I will snap Maxwell Lord neck with a lasso version.

[wonder39]

Well, having seen it, I liked it; I read a review on yahoo which basically condemned the movie as being boiled down to a “democrats good, republican bad” analogy, which killed my enthusiasm going into it. Hollywood really needs to stop putting politics in their movies. I liked gal Godot; Pedro pascal as max lord, I couldn’t take seriously as a villain, but then I didn’t want to. I’ve never liked max as a bad guy, so I’m kind of glad they showed the consequences of his actions on himself and the world. My question is; where will max and Barbara go from here? Barbara isn’t interested in redemption, so I guess she’ll try and find ways to get her power back. Will Diana try and find her? She didn’t seem too interested in Barbara in the beginning. And how did she figure out who Diana was? Moreover, I’m not a fan of period pieces either, which is why I didn’t care for the first movie as much. Setting this one in 1984 was an odd choice at best. There were some other things that seemed out of place like Diana arriving at the party in a limo, dressed to the nines, that I found a bit odd as well. And I could’ve done without that whole sequence in the beginning, where Diana, who was younger than all the other contestants in the games, bungles her lead, cheats to get ahead, and then protests when she gets called on it. How did the other Amazon’s know she cheated to start with?

Because as the traversed the latter part of the course, they had to strike their specific targets with the arrows, releasing the colored smoke. Once Diana lost her bow, she couldn't do that, but the other competitors did...so Hippolyta and Antiope knew that Diana couldn't have been the lead, as she missed hitting some of her targets...

[Tofali]

Instead she turned into a Cheetah--which is a fearsome creature, but not the typical apex predator by most measurements.
.

In the case of the apex predator - i think they meant a Were-Cheetah

It is funny the number of times I've seen a cheetah's head engulfed in the jaws of a lion in the past two days

[Largo161]

Well, having seen it, I liked it; I read a review on yahoo which basically condemned the movie as being boiled down to a “democrats good, republican bad” analogy, which killed my enthusiasm going into it. Hollywood really needs to stop putting politics in their movies. I liked gal Godot; Pedro pascal as max lord, I couldn’t take seriously as a villain, but then I didn’t want to. I’ve never liked max as a bad guy, so I’m kind of glad they showed the consequences of his actions on himself and the world. My question is; where will max and Barbara go from here? Barbara isn’t interested in redemption, so I guess she’ll try and find ways to get her power back. Will Diana try and find her? She didn’t seem too interested in Barbara in the beginning. And how did she figure out who Diana was? Moreover, I’m not a fan of period pieces either, which is why I didn’t care for the first movie as much. Setting this one in 1984 was an odd choice at best. There were some other things that seemed out of place like Diana arriving at the party in a limo, dressed to the nines, that I found a bit odd as well. And I could’ve done without that whole sequence in the beginning, where Diana, who was younger than all the other contestants in the games, bungles her lead, cheats to get ahead, and then protests when she gets called on it. How did the other Amazon’s know she cheated to start with?

If only we could go back to D. W. Griffith’s time and put a stop that trend.

[Steel Inquisitor]

If only we could go back to D. W. Griffith’s time and put a stop that trend.

That's a misunderstanding of politics in art, it's not solely about putting real life inspirations in works it's that every choice an artist makes is driven by politics. For example, Wonder Woman's weakness in the original comics being inspired by bondage. Wonder Woman's concept in itself is a massive political statement.

[NeathBlue]

It was a good film, but not a great one... Probably won’t want to watch it again for months at least.
Had some good moments, though the way it brought back Steve Trevor, and subsequently got rid of him, I thought was weak.
Maxwell Lord wasn’t great IMO and maybe they shouldn’t have had two villains.
Gal Gabot was excellent again but I’m not sure we’ll definitely see a Wonder Woman 3.
I’d give it a strong 6 / weak 7 out of 10

[j9ac9k]

That was the point, establishes the tone for the movie.

I agree that the mall scene was very important. It completely set the tone and let you know this isn't the first movie. It wasn't just set in the 80's, it had a bit of 80's sensibilities in terms of its light-heartedness and you shouldn't look too closely at the contrivances like its magic wishing stone plot device.(or Steve being able to fly a modern jet, which was sitting there all fueled up, or just how easily they stole it, or how Diana knows how to make things invisible, etc) There was the one desperate crook who held the kid hostage, but even his buddies were yelling at him to put the kid down. This film is not going to address real evil or the truly darker impulses of humanity like in WWI where women and children were murdered. Since that was the established tone of the film, I was able to forgive a lot of stuff the script chooses to gloss over. (Steve taking over the handsome man's life was the most dubious choice, but it's still nowhere as jarring as rewatching "Back to the Future", a fun popcorn movie where - yeah, there was no doubt Biff was about to rape Lorraine)

This film sits squarely in he same world as "Shazam!" a lot more than Snyder's DCEU. And it does succeed where his Superman failed in that Diana does actually inspire people to be better. She actually does become a beacon the way Superman was never really shown to be. Take that, Bruce.

I still think it's pretty ambiguous as to whether she saw Steve physically as Steve or the other guy. But I don't know how important THAT is since there was no question it was Steve's soul inhabiting the guy's body. However she saw him was irrelevant.

And I don't know exactly what to call what happened with Diana sleeping with Steve inhabiting another man's body. Since it's a work of fantasy I think you kind of have to draw your own conclusions based on the totality of the circumstances and your own personal beliefs. I loved Quantum Leap and Sam Beckett as a character but he was certainly guilty of similar acts several times throughout that series. I will say that personally speaking I don't feel right about it and again, if the gender roles were reversed there would definitely be more scrutiny over it.

Yeah, again I did think that was the most problematic fantasy element here. (and again, this could have had serious repercussions on the man's life aside from the rape) I will say that "Quantum Leap" did struggle with the notion. Sam was himself - his body and only looked like another person, and knew it was wrong to sleep with that person's girlfriend or wife, etc. and he said so to Al all the time. I think there was only one or two instances where he did catch feelings and did something he shouldn't have, but they always let you know it was wrong.

[Jim Kelly]

I thought of QUANTUM LEAP also. My understanding of the show was that the person whose body is taken over is in the future and in Sam's physical form. Sam is in their physical form, but we see him as Sam--the form he's in is that person's actual body.

I assume it's the same thing in WONDER WOMAN 1984 but they never explain it adequately. I didn't see any reason to go this route--but if they really believed it had to go this way, then they should have explained it better.

Maybe the other guy--"Trevor Howard"--was never taken over and he simply appeared in Paradise for awhile. The body that Steve had was merely a simulacrum of Trevor Howard. Since they never pinned down the metaphysics--I can make up anything I want to explain it and gloss over the ethics.

But there are a lot of body switch movies--has the question of rape and personal autonomy ever come up before with those?

With QUANTUM LEAP it was a different time--we didn't question these things too harshly. It was a progressive show, but it was allowed to do things that would not be done today--they used the n word without any consequence.

It's funny what other people find to get mad about with movies. I never saw this one coming. Just like with SUPERMAN RETURNS, when I watched it I never anticipated how other people were going to read the film.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

I think one of my main problems with the movie was that, for a movie about three characters in emotional pain, I never actually felt anything for any of them.

With Geoff Johns' script and Patty Jenkins' direction, a lot was TALKED about, but you have to be skilled enough as a movie scripter and director to get us to feel things without all the monologues explaining those feelings.

In particular, the point where Diana renounces her wish needed to be extended with some silence, not talk-talk-talk. We, the audience needed to feel the sacrifice she was making rather than simply intellectually acknowledging it.

The scene where Diana, Steve, and Barbara realize that the only way to stop Max is for everyone to renounce their wishes didn't land with me the way it should have because the scene focused too much on Barbara's unwillingness to do so. Diana simply agreed with her, but the focus was on Barbara, so the sacrifice that Diana would have had to make was lost in the narrative. Jenkins should have put something there to foreshadow what was inevitable -- that Steve had to be sacrificed. This way, every scene between Diana and Steve that followed would have an underlying sense of dread or tension. This was Diana's movie. Everything has to be told from her perspective.

That brings up another point I didn't like about the movie. There were too many scenes that were Diana-free. Also, there were too many scenes that were Wonder Woman free. In TV writing, there's a rule where you don't have more than two scenes in a row without the lead character. Some of that should have been applied here as well. You have more latitude with movies, but there were too many stretches of time where there was no Diana. If the Diana-free stuff were as interesting, I wouldn't have noticed, but nothing Jenkins did made me care about Barbara or Max.

[80sbaby]

I agree that the mall scene was very important. It completely set the tone and let you know this isn't the first movie. It wasn't just set in the 80's, it had a bit of 80's sensibilities in terms of its light-heartedness and you shouldn't look too closely at the contrivances like its magic wishing stone plot device.(or Steve being able to fly a modern jet, which was sitting there all fueled up, or just how easily they stole it, or how Diana knows how to make things invisible, etc) There was the one desperate crook who held the kid hostage, but even his buddies were yelling at him to put the kid down. This film is not going to address real evil or the truly darker impulses of humanity like in WWI where women and children were murdered. Since that was the established tone of the film, I was able to forgive a lot of stuff the script chooses to gloss over. (Steve taking over the handsome man's life was the most dubious choice, but it's still nowhere as jarring as rewatching "Back to the Future", a fun popcorn movie where - yeah, there was no doubt Biff was about to rape Lorraine)

This film sits squarely in he same world as "Shazam!" a lot more than Snyder's DCEU. And it does succeed where his Superman failed in that Diana does actually inspire people to be better. She actually does become a beacon the way Superman was never really shown to be. Take that, Bruce.



Yeah, again I did think that was the most problematic fantasy element here. (and again, this could have had serious repercussions on the man's life aside from the rape) I will say that "Quantum Leap" did struggle with the notion. Sam was himself - his body and only looked like another person, and knew it was wrong to sleep with that person's girlfriend or wife, etc. and he said so to Al all the time. I think there was only one or two instances where he did catch feelings and did something he shouldn't have, but they always let you know it was wrong.

That's the BIG difference. Quantum Leap actually addresses the issue and WW 1974 does not.

[Potanical Pardon]

I’m wondering if we’re getting a soft retcon of Hippolyta. Either Artesia is the real Hippolyta and Connie Whatever was a standin for Themyscira to protect the Amazon’s or Polly is still Polly but we get some new twist making Artesia, Diana’s real mother. In any case, they can still be Diana’s mothers.

[AnakinFlair]

I agree that the mall scene was very important. It completely set the tone and let you know this isn't the first movie. It wasn't just set in the 80's, it had a bit of 80's sensibilities in terms of its light-heartedness and you shouldn't look too closely at the contrivances like its magic wishing stone plot device.(or Steve being able to fly a modern jet, which was sitting there all fueled up, or just how easily they stole it, or how Diana knows how to make things invisible, etc) There was the one desperate crook who held the kid hostage, but even his buddies were yelling at him to put the kid down. This film is not going to address real evil or the truly darker impulses of humanity like in WWI where women and children were murdered. Since that was the established tone of the film, I was able to forgive a lot of stuff the script chooses to gloss over. (Steve taking over the handsome man's life was the most dubious choice, but it's still nowhere as jarring as rewatching "Back to the Future", a fun popcorn movie where - yeah, there was no doubt Biff was about to rape Lorraine)

Yeah, again I did think that was the most problematic fantasy element here. (and again, this could have had serious repercussions on the man's life aside from the rape) I will say that "Quantum Leap" did struggle with the notion. Sam was himself - his body and only looked like another person, and knew it was wrong to sleep with that person's girlfriend or wife, etc. and he said so to Al all the time. I think there was only one or two instances where he did catch feelings and did something he shouldn't have, but they always let you know it was wrong.

I actually appreciated that they TRIED to give an explanation as to how Diana could make the jet invisible- that she had been practicing how her father had hidden Themyscira. It was a weak explanation, but it was something at least.

I thought of QUANTUM LEAP also. My understanding of the show was that the person whose body is taken over is in the future and in Sam's physical form. Sam is in their physical form, but we see him as Sam--the form he's in is that person's actual body.

It's been years since I've seen Quantum Leap. Was there ever an episode that showed the person who's life Sam took over in the future?

[bat39]

So there's a lot of discussion about "Why Diana didn't stop the Holocaust?" And honestly that part didn't bother me AT ALL...because there are any number of great explanations for it.

For starters, you're assuming that she would even know about the Holocaust before the end of the war. The Allied powers knew nothing about it till the final months of the war, when they started taking over Axis territory. Diana isn't omniscient...even if you assume she was working for the government/military in some capacity or was tapped into intelligence sources, she'd only know what the Allies knew.

I mean, it's canon, in both the DC and Marvel Universes, that there were superheroes active during WW2, many of them working for the government in some capacity. But you never get the question of why Captain America didn't stop the Holocaust, or why the JSA didn't stop the Holocaust...hell, you never get the question of why the Golden Age Wonder Woman from the comics didn't stop the Holocaust? The answer is simply...they didn't know. Just like in real-life, the Allies didn't know till much later.

Specific to DC, the comics also had a great explanation for why the JSA didn't actively participate in WW2 as combatants - the Spear of Destiny, which prevented intervention by superheroes in the European theatre of the war. Maybe something like that was in play here too, preventing Diana from getting too involved?

Plus, Diana may simply have realized that she while she can do a lot to help people and save lives, she can't single-handedly stop a war on her own. This was something mankind was going to have to deal with on their own. She'd just help out where she could. This applies to all the other wars as well.

[Jim Kelly]

It's been years since I've seen Quantum Leap. Was there ever an episode that showed the person who's life Sam took over in the future?

I was rewatching it a few years ago. I don't remember if we ever saw the person in the future--they rarely showed much of the future--but Al often tells Sam what the person in the future is doing while Sam is in their body in the past.