Wonder Woman 1984

[Usagi Pilgrim]

I liked the first film until the last third.

I thought this one was ok, since I figured this one would be a bit smaller & more character driven.I wasn't expecting a knock my socks off blockbuster, so I just relaxed & enjoyed it

I say that to say that I'm not defending the glaring problems with the plane & Cheetah, but, before I knew about the technical problems of that cockpit not existing, I felt that the WTF moments were a result of the Stone.

Steve: I thought she'd wished him back as a 'perfect' memory. That's why he could easily adapt to the time. I mean, he woke up I'm a new time, 70 years later, & was able to find her with almost no issues, including getting into a private function. Cockpit issues not withstanding, he was just... able... to fly... Anything. He could hold his own against highly trained security, & even instantly pick up new fighting styles & moves.

Barbara: I think when she first started getting noticed, she was wearing the cheetah print outfit. I thought her subconscious just filled in the gaps when she wanted to 'not be like ANYONE'.

The Armor: I know it like gold, but I just thought it was maybe like Amazonian Mithril- super light, flexible & resilient, but looking like metal.


Maybe just not caring that much helped me enjoy it as much as I did. That said, I can't see me watching it again on purpose.

 

[el toro]

My kids loved the movie while my wife thought it was entertaining but overly long. I only caught the ending, but

Spoiler

for me, it was distracting how the ultimate Cheetah looked like a reject from the recent Cats movie. Somewhat goofy, but mostly creepy. The Lynda Carter mid-credit scene is really fun. My wife said that she didn’t believe the Cheetah was completely necessary as the plot already had numerous setups to deal with.

. I’ll have to catch the entire movie when my kids watch it again.

 

[Gimpdiggity]

I liked the first film until the last third.

I thought this one was ok, since I figured this one would be a bit smaller & more character driven.I wasn't expecting a knock my socks off blockbuster, so I just relaxed & enjoyed it

I say that to say that I'm not defending the glaring problems with the plane & Cheetah, but, before I knew about the technical problems of that cockpit not existing, I felt that the WTF moments were a result of the Stone.

Steve: I thought she'd wished him back as a 'perfect' memory. That's why he could easily adapt to the time. I mean, he woke up I'm a new time, 70 years later, & was able to find her with almost no issues, including getting into a private function. Cockpit issues not withstanding, he was just... able... to fly... Anything. He could hold his own against highly trained security, & even instantly pick up new fighting styles & moves.

Barbara: I think when she first started getting noticed, she was wearing the cheetah print outfit. I thought her subconscious just filled in the gaps when she wanted to 'not be like ANYONE'.

The Armor: I know it like gold, but I just thought it was maybe like Amazonian Mithril- super light, flexible & resilient, but looking like metal.


Maybe just not caring that much helped me enjoy it as much as I did. That said, I can't see me watching it again on purpose.

I think this sums up my feelings about a lot of this as well.

I don’t go into superhero films looking for loads of realism...I feel if you do that, you’re going to end up being able to pick the entire film apart...because the very nature of the subject at hand isn’t realistic. How can the realism of a jet, or a car, or a gun be a problem in a film where people are traveling through time, flying, having super strength, or owning sentient robotic suits? The entire genre is, by its very nature, unrealistic.

Like the problem with the jet in this to me is just funny. If it’s a Tornado that’s had it’s cockpit digitally altered to be something that doesn’t exist, then creatively THAT PLANE IS NOT A TORNADO. It’s something entirely different. I mean, nobody...and I mean NOBODY...looks at the Batmobile from Tim Burton’s films and says “That’s not realistic because Chevy never made a rocket powered Impala that had a bunch of gadgets on it.” They accept that the car is the Batmobile.

 

[RodanAZ]

I don’t go into superhero films looking for loads of realism...I feel if you do that, you’re going to end up being able to pick the entire film apart...because the very nature of the subject at hand isn’t realistic. How can the realism of a jet, or a car, or a gun be a problem in a film where people are traveling through time, flying, having super strength, or owning sentient robotic suits? The entire genre is, by its very nature, unrealistic.

That's all fine and good, for the superhero. But this story exists in a real world... when Joe off the street jumps in and takes off in the Space Shuttle, you've lost me. It wouldn't be much different than having Chris Pine sit down and start hacking into the Pentagon on a computer because he was shown typing in the first movie. It just doesn't work with the back story.

 

[Kylash]

Pedro Pascal was great in this regardless of what other logic issues the film might have.

 

[HMSwolfe]

I’m a little surprised, although not entirely, by the reactions I’m seeing here…because I had very low expectations going into this movie.

I thought this was a fantastic super hero film, a lot stronger than the first one (which I liked a lot until the third act), with heavy focus on character growth, stakes, fun action, and a “less is more” attitude in a film where the antagonist cried “more, more, more!”

Like I said, I’m only a little surprised at the reaction here.

 

[Kylash]

I’ll add that I can’t quite figure out why they decided to set it in 1984. Other than maybe having the internet would have changed or ruined the villains plot device of needing a way to reach everyone on the planet... and the Cold War tie in stuff. But otherwise I almost forgot it was 1984 several times. The nostalgia definitely wasn’t played up often.

 

[Lear60man]

I think this sums up my feelings about a lot of this as well.

I don’t go into superhero films looking for loads of realism...I feel if you do that, you’re going to end up being able to pick the entire film apart...because the very nature of the subject at hand isn’t realistic. How can the realism of a jet, or a car, or a gun be a problem in a film where people are traveling through time, flying, having super strength, or owning sentient robotic suits? The entire genre is, by its very nature, unrealistic.

Like the problem with the jet in this to me is just funny. If it’s a Tornado that’s had it’s cockpit digitally altered to be something that doesn’t exist, then creatively THAT PLANE IS NOT A TORNADO. It’s something entirely different. I mean, nobody...and I mean NOBODY...looks at the Batmobile from Tim Burton’s films and says “That’s not realistic because Chevy never made a rocket powered Impala that had a bunch of gadgets on it.” They accept that the car is the Batmobile.

The jet was the least of the films problems because only a small percentage of the audience would nit pick its technical merits. Plus Hollywood never gets airplane things right so I just suspend disbelief even more.

The original WW worked so well because the characters were relatable for the audience and they made sense. Everyone liked heroic Steve Trevor, cheered for strong Wonder Woman, and boo'd at the evil Villians. But WW84 had character parodies that the viewer couldnt connect with. Lets take Wiggs character: Was I supposed to feel bad for her as a geek, or cheer for her when she is killing the drunk or boo her when she is Garfield on meth? Same thing with Pascals carachter, he was a scammer so bad guy, but loved his son...good guy, but wants to conqor the world...bad guy, but gave it up just to be with his son...good guy? Its like they targeted the audience from Nickelodeon and played down to that level. Campy is a good word to describe it, but not in a fun 'Beer Fest' way.

 

[patrickivan]

The jet was the least of the films problems because only a small percentage of the audience would nit pick its technical merits. Plus Hollywood never gets airplane things right so I just suspend disbelief even more.

The original WW worked so well because the characters were relatable for the audience and they made sense. Everyone liked heroic Steve Trevor, cheered for strong Wonder Woman, and boo'd at the evil Villians. But WW84 had character parodies that the viewer couldnt connect with. Lets take Wiggs character: Was I supposed to feel bad for her as a geek, or cheer for her when she is killing the drunk or boo her when she is Garfield on meth? Same thing with Pascals carachter, he was a scammer so bad guy, but loved his son...good guy, but wants to conqor the world...bad guy, but gave it up just to be with his son...good guy? Its like they targeted the audience from Nickelodeon and played down to that level. Campy is a good word to describe it, but not in a fun 'Beer Fest' way.

I'm so happy someone randomly referenced my favourite comedy movie.

But to at least add a comment on topic: The WW1984 was okay. A little long. The lack of killing actually didn't dawn on me right away, but was kind of refreshing in a movie. The special effects are what I guess I now expect from DC. Just off. Something is always off about them. The lighting, movement. Something.

It was okay but again, a little long. I think I'd have enjoyed it more if it were 30 minutes shorter. It was a long slow burn to start, and fizzled out on the ending.

 

[HMSwolfe]

Did anyone else feel that the Cairo truck sequence was very reminiscent of another Cairo truck sequence?

 

[Cephus]

Agreed, I asked my wife what she thought of it and she said "it was a movie". They needed to pick one villain and stick with it, instead we got two half-assed plots that went nowhere, Steve Trevor did not need to be in the movie at all, he was only there to give them something to put in the trailers, as I predicted, the whole "ride the lightning" crap was unnecessary and she spent half of the movie looking like a budget Raimi Spider-Man. The whole opening scene was pointless and didn't foreshadow anything in the movie. I mean what was the point?

 

[EKF5]

It was ok. I'd give it 1.5 - 2 stars out of 4. Watchable, fits in the general story lines adequately, etc.

But it has glaringly bad problems that didn't have to be there.

One obvious problem for DC trying to create a Universe, WW84 creates continuity problems with the existing DC films. If WW is running around doing things in 1984, then she's not unknown in 2016. Certainly not to a simple search by Bruce.

Spoiler: Related to the main plot device

Diana grew up in Themyscira and was raised by the Amazons. Her education included magical devices. After her experiences vs. Ares she is even more aware of the influence of gods in the real world. How would she ever hold an item she's uncertain about and make a wish? That's just poor writing to justify having Chris Pine return, not character driven writing. This is especially important given the lesson she supposedly learned in the prologue. If she learned that truth is important, then she knows that Steve died a true death and she wouldn't attempt to cheat Hades.

Lear60Man was right about the characters in general.

Spoiler: About the ending

For me, the climax has a critical problem with writing, acting, and directing. In a successful climax the hero usually has significant agency, that is their actions drive the story forward. In this case WW is leaning back, looking defeated and depends on the magic of her lasso to convince everyone in the world to renounce their wish. There is no sense that using the lasso that way is her plan and she expects it to work. There's not even a sense that it's her last ditch plan and she hopes it will work. It just sort of happens.
The speech is weak and focused on telling people they should be happy with whatever they had before they wished for something better. It doesn't say there are better ways to improve their lives, just that they should go back to what they had before. No qualifiers, no if you were being abused seek help, just renounce your wish and go back to what it was before.
Related to all of that, the wishes can be renounced??!!?? Ok, I accept that was introduced in the info dump, but that's also weak. All you have to do to solve this problem, people, is to have a strong moral compass and not wish for things. . .

Special effects, new aircraft, magical knowledge of how things work in the '80s for Steve - meh. Those are the kinds of things I'm usually willing to accept and move on. So, moving on.

Spoiler: Diana's growth as a character

For me the worst writing in this was that WW effectively never learned the lesson in the prologue until she watched the world fall apart around her in 1984. If that's going to be the point of growth for her, renouncing her wish should have precipitated the climax, not a several minutes long flying scene that stops the movie's momentum dead in its tracks. She should realize that the god who created the wishing stone is one of the mischief makers/liars (which she seemed to know earlier in the film) and then make the connection to the lasso of truth as the obvious weapon to counter the god's wishing stone. The focus then could be on her acknowledging the lesson as part of knowing how to solve the crisis and then sharing how the wishes were lies. By standing up to the loss she has to re-experience in giving up Steve a second time and immediately showing the world the falseness of the wishes she would have a more obviously direct role in the resolution.

I'm sure I'm being picky about these things. And some of them I might find I remembered poorly from the film if I were to watch it again (unlikely). My concerns are not about production values, but story telling. And I just think they didn't do a very good job with the story.

 

[Force]

I liked the first film until the last third.

Same here. I just like to ignore the last portion of the film. It was poorly done and just kind of shoehorned into the story.

I’ll add that I can’t quite figure out why they decided to set it in 1984.

Because hollywood thinks that's now the trendy thing to do, but they don't understand why people like it or what actually makes it work to have a story take place in the 80s. For WW84, it didn't actually work. It could have taken place in any year without impacting the story at all. If you set a movie in a certain time period there really needs to be a specific reason why it's in that particular time period.

Did anyone else feel that the Cairo truck sequence was very reminiscent of another Cairo truck sequence?

A poorly done shadow of the sequence, at best.


The trailer of WW84 had the best parts of the film and told a much better story than the actual film did. I was quite disappointed. But, being a DC film, I shouldn't really be surprised that DC really doesn't know how to make a good, coherent, and enjoyable movie yet.

The character development was hollow, the film had no serious stakes that you really cared about,

Spoiler: other criticisms

the whole conclusion of the film was just an uninspired monologue info dump with no real payoff, and the magic lasso was used as a crutch to carry a good portion of the movie whenever it was convenient

Spoiler: tropes

Plus, the "be careful what you wish for"/"wishes have consequences" trope is kind of played out at this point, and was not handled in any sort of creative way. It was pretty lazy writing. Even if the wishing stone aspect of the story was removed, and instead the main villain was just after wealth and power through normal villainous means, it would not have changed the story much.

I like this iteration of the wonder woman character. I really liked the first 2/3 of the first movie. It was fun, it was interesting, it was exciting. The story moved along at a good pace. For the most part, there were reasons why characters arrived where they did, and why they did what they did.

If you removed Wonder Woman from WW84 and replaced her with some other new superhero with superhuman strength, it would barely affect the story. There wasn't much that was unique to the character that left an indelible mark on the film. That would've been harder to do with the first film.

 

[Prop Collector]

Did Jenkins really stand behind this film?? It reminded me of the terrible superhero movies of the early 2000s. And they've given her a Star Wars movie!?

It's all just so shocking. Like Gadot's acting.

 

[Treadwell]

Based on reactions I've seen posted all over, I had very low expectations. That's often a good thing, because there's nowhere to go but up.

I thus ended up almost kind of liking it a little bit. It's WAY too long, it needs at least a half hour removed. A lot of that could be accomplished just with tightening up---scenes/montages/sequences make their point over and over and over with a lot of unnecessary dialogue. A whole lot of "okay, we get it already".

How did Barbara get to make two wishes?

Opening setpiece in the mall was too cutesy by half.

I liked the mid- end credits thing.

And, I understand, ladies get unwelcome comments/attention/passes all the time, and that's something we men need to be more aware of and stop doing*. But it isn't EVERY SINGLE MALE YOU PASS. I'm sure it feels like that sometimes, but it isn't. There was a long stretch in the movie where literally every male either Diana or Barbara passed did that. Again: okay, I get it.

*never mind the double standard of Diana complimenting the outfit of the not-Steve dude at the end. I thought we weren't supposed to make unsolicited comments about people's appearance... ??

 

[Treadwell]

Oh yeah: both escalators and subways existed back in Steve's day.

 

[Prop Collector]

And, I understand, ladies get unwelcome comments/attention/passes all the time, and that's something we men need to be more aware of and stop doing*. But it isn't EVERY SINGLE MALE YOU PASS. I'm sure it feels like that sometimes, but it isn't. There was a long stretch in the movie where literally every male either Diana or Barbara passed did that. Again: okay, I get it.

You must be new to the cultural narrative.

 

[patrickivan]

Oh yeah: both escalators and subways existed back in Steve's day.

That didn't sit right with me so I looked it up. Leading up to the early 1900s, escalators were not something people typically come across. The large Otis (you'll see their stamp on many elevators) had a prototype in the late 1800s and didn't start making the type we're familiar with until 1921.

I think like most new unusual things in life, most people wouldn't have come across the few rare designs that were manufactured by them, and others (from the 3rd quarter of the 1800s) because they were more novelty showcase items.

And I can't even recall the subway scene, but it really depends where he was from to have experienced one. Or even really known about them. The world of information was different in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

 

[Psab keel]

The script for this movie felt like it was written by a bot. It had some key elements of a superhero movie but all in the wrong order or missing parts.

As for the guy who harassed Barbara I get the point of his scenes and am all for her taking the creep out but I was wondering if all that guy does is drink and sit around in little populated areas to find women he can rape? It would have made more sense if we saw him stumble out of a bar and followed her down the street. One time in the park made sense but her coming across him again in a similar setting felt out of place. Just from a writing stance it felt weird to not set it up a little better. It's not a major issue but something I noticed as being off.

Others here have asked why Diana didn't walk her home after his first attempt, which I also noticed as being unlikely too. She should have accompanied Barbara if she was that concerned for her safety. Though when Barbara does finally confront him the second time it felt pretty cathartic. Kristen Wiig's expression and body language in that scene was impressive and she felt genuinely intimidating. I've said it before but if you like her acting I highly recommend Skeleton Twins and Welcome to Me. Comedic actors don't typically don't get taken seriously but they often have a range that belies their humor.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

I guess that the “message”, or “theme”, or “lesson” of the film was one that I first learned in elementary school: Cheating, ladies and gentlemen, is never acceptable.

I thought that a few segments of Sesame Street, a few After School Specials starring Scott Baio, G.I. Joe, an episode of Diff’rent Strokes, and this very special PSA starring the Perfect Strangers, already covered this subject pretty thoroughly:

But, apparently, there remains much work to be done on the subject of cheating.

WW84 then does the heavy mental lifting of taking the cheating theme one step further, and into daring territory, by saying that “...wishing for something, and having your wish come true, also equals cheating and is, therefore, a moral failing.”

Wow, I had to idea.

Take that, Jiminey Cricket—you, sir, are a villain:

Take that, kid who makes a wish as they blow out their birthday candles. Your act demonstrates your utter lack of moral fortitude:

Thank you for the life lesson, WW84