• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

WONDER WOMAN 2 directed by Patty Jenkins (11/1/19)
3 3

Started by Bosco685,

1,313 posts in this topic

kav

kav

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

I understand what you're saying in theory - but didn't Superman reveal a new ability to (checks notes) *turn back time* in Superman: The Movie?

I don't recall that power from the comic books. And it seemed a far more egregious deus ex machina than an explanation of WW's invisible jet that could make sense.

Clarification: after some googling, it appears the pre-Crisis Superman actually could time travel via faster-than-light travel, esp. in some Silver Age storylines. But a key difference is -- the time travel only affected him, not every plant, animal, person and thing on earth - as in the movie.

Superman did not 'turn back time', he went back in time as he does frequently in the SA comics.  The film crew decided the best way to depict this visually was to have the earth spinning backwards, as if we were 'following' superman on his journey.  
This was deemed better than the colored circles they used in comics.
 

eqkJ7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skypinkblu

skypinkblu

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Zonker said:

I read somewhere that Jenkins & Johns were trying to re-cap WW's progression of flying powers from her beginnings until now:

- Golden Age, she had the invisible airplane
- Silver Age, she could ride wind currents (as she learned in the movie remembering Trevor's words about flying)
- Modern Age, oh screw it, she can just fly already.

This is a symptom I think of the basic problem with the --script:  Instead of just coming up with a plot to get from Point A to Point B as entertainingly as possible, the film makers took on too much and didn't execute any of it seamlessly:

- Nods to comics fans (for example the invisible plane business)
- Homage to the Donner Superman films (the flying sequence, with WW's pose emulating Chris Reeve's)
- Screenplay back-flips to milk again the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine from the earlier movie- though this arguably is another wink at fandom, as Steve Trevor died and was brought back at least twice in the comics from the 1960s/1970s.
- Big Lession #1  "We're all in this together..." (Let's all renounce our wishes for the greater good) :angel:
- Big Lession #2 There will be No Short Cuts, young lady.  (tsk)
- Big Lession #3 1980s-style materialism is bad, I guess? :eyeroll:
- Whatever was supposed to be going on with the Cheetah plotline... (shrug)

I watched it with my 15 year old daughter, probably much closer to the target market than I am.  Her review stands: "Not as good as the first one.  Not really that good of a movie.  But I'm still glad we saw it."

Great analysis, exactly how I felt, from start to finish, but you wrote it well. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted
57 minutes ago, kav said:

Superman did not 'turn back time', he went back in time as he does frequently in the SA comics.  The film crew decided the best way to depict this visually was to have the earth spinning backwards, as if we were 'following' superman on his journey.  
This was deemed better than the colored circles they used in comics.
 

eqkJ7.jpg

I very much appreciate the level of thought you are investing in this analysis. So please don't think otherwise.

But do you really pick apart all of these fantasy movies to this level of detail? It can't be fun after a while. Looking for every plot point you want to contest, every concept you feel could have been done better. There has to come a point you just need to go in and immerse yourself in the story being told and assume some of the logic and rules for a given universe is how things work. Not to say you need to allow studios to force only their views on comic book properties that you appreciate and celebrate. But reading some of your analysis, it can come across as if you are forcing yourself not to have a good time.

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I very much appreciate the level of thought you are investing in this analysis. So please don't think otherwise.

But do you really pick apart all of these fantasy movies to this level of detail? It can't be fun after a while. Looking for every plot point you want to contest, every concept you feel could have been done better. There has to come a point you just need to go in and immerse yourself in the story being told and assume some of the logic and rules for a given universe is how things work. Not to say you need to allow studios to force only their views on comic book properties that you appreciate and celebrate. But reading some of your analysis, it can come across as if you are forcing yourself not to have a good time.

:foryou:

If you can't suspend disbelief, then you cannot watch movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

I very much appreciate the level of thought you are investing in this analysis. So please don't think otherwise.

But do you really pick apart all of these fantasy movies to this level of detail? It can't be fun after a while. Looking for every plot point you want to contest, every concept you feel could have been done better. There has to come a point you just need to go in and immerse yourself in the story being told and assume some of the logic and rules for a given universe is how things work. Not to say you need to allow studios to force only their views on comic book properties that you appreciate and celebrate. But reading some of your analysis, it can come across as if you are forcing yourself not to have a good time.

:foryou:

Some movies are just a total wash due to gaping constant plot holes.  Wonder womans are not in this category.  I suspended my disbelief.  I do enjoy analyzing things after as I am an amateur screenwriting afficianado-I've read pretty much every book on screenwriting multiple times.  If every 5 minutes I roll my eyes and say no that cant happen or that wouldnt happen then I cannot enjoy and stop watching.  As in all the batman movies, green lantern, and all the new star wars movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
apollobuzz

apollobuzz

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Pete Marino said:

This movie cleared out the room faster than a stinky fart.  I was the last one standing to finish the movie.  It's not even horrible, it was just... meh.

Wow!  That must have been some bad burrito!  Congrats for being the last to succumb to the goddess' vapors!  :kidaround:

I watched this movie with my wife and had been looking forward to it for quite some time.  The first WW movie is still her all-time favorite movie (not just super-hero movie).  She thought WW84 was really bad.  I thought the first one was really good (not in my top-five super-hero movies, possibly not even top-ten, but really good nonetheless).  For me, as with you, WW84 was just meh.  I typically watch most (maybe 95%) of super-hero movies multiple times.  This is one of the few (Ghost Rider 2 is another that comes to mind) that I will let go with just a single viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Suspension of disbelief isn’t solely the responsibility of the audience. The writer or filmmaker must also craft a work that enables the audience to suspend disbelief  and maintain it.

Factually, there is no such thing as "reasonable suspension of disbelief". You're in the movies' world, not vice-versa. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Angel of Death said:

Factually, there is no such thing as "reasonable suspension of disbelief". You're in the movies' world, not vice-versa. Try again.

The "reasonable" I tacked on in front of "suspension of disbelief" is just a prefix I casually added while I was typing on my iPhone to kind of say that the fictional world the writer/filmmaker creates and "asks' the audience to suspend disbelief for must itself follow the fictional rules the writer has established at the outset of the story. The story must follow the logic, or reason, of the fictional world. I understand "reasonable suspension of disbelief" itself isn't written in any quick Google searches or writer handbooks that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

The "reasonable" I tacked on in front of "suspension of disbelief" is just a prefix I casually added while I was typing on my iPhone to kind of say that the fictional world the writer/filmmaker creates and "asks' the audience to suspend disbelief for must itself follow the fictional rules the writer has established at the outset of the story. The story must follow the logic, or reason, of the fictional world. I understand "reasonable suspension of disbelief" itself isn't written in any quick Google searches or writer handbooks that I know of.

So you're conflating "suspension of disbelief" with "consistency"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

So you're conflating "suspension of disbelief" with "consistency"?

I'm saying once the writer has established the rules of the fictional world of the movie or book, the way things work, the story's elements must follow those rules, within reason. In Force Awakens, the rules of the Force have been established by past movies. We meet Rey, who appears to be an ordinary scavenger. When she suddenly start wielding the Force like a boss out of thin air, the movie is in danger of breaking our suspension of disbelief. Many of us might have thought, "You can't do that! You've had no training!" But if you paid attention, JJ Abrams provides hints through the film that Rey is a mystery and is perhaps more than she appears to be. JJ Abrams had to work to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief by writing in those story bits for the audience. Without them, most of the audience would have said "This is horses**t!" and stopped caring about the story.

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'm saying once the writer has established the rules of the fictional world of the movie or book, the way things work, the story's elements must follow those rules, within reason. In Force Awakens, the rules of the Force have been established by past movies. We meet Rey, who appears to be an ordinary scavenger. When she suddenly start wielding the Force like a boss out of thin air, the movie is in danger of breaking our suspension of disbelief. Many of us might have thought, "You can't do that! You've had no training!" But if you paid attention, JJ Abrams provides hints through the film that Rey is a mystery and is perhaps more than she appears to be. JJ Abrams had to work to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief by writing in those story bits for the audience. Without them, most of the audience would have said "This is horses**t!" and stopped caring about the story.

While you're as incorrect as usual, none of this matters, because consistency is immaterial to suspension of disbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing