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

[Gatsby77]

19 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.

This.

I get the notion that "suspension of disbelief" has little place in a a sci-fi or superhero film where folks are wearing tights, flying, etc. - but that's a cop-out.

Films should follow the internal rules they set up, amid the world-building they've set forth, with consistency. You can't set the rules of the universe and then simply disregard them for plot armor reasons.

Good Example:

WW84 establishes that Diana's lasso works both ways. Not only does it force folks to tell the truth; it also forces them to know, understand and accept the truth when it's being told to them. This is established early on and then brought back (I thought brilliantly) in the climax to explain why everyone on earth relinquishes their wishes, greed aside. Because Diana's speaking to them, via the lasso, via the satellite feed.

Bad Example:

You only get one wish. This is established when Max Lord asks his worker/minion for something (I believe the appointment with the president) and is told he'd already granted him the wish of a new car. So it doesn't work and Max goes off to find someone else.

Later in the film: Barbara gets two wishes.

Bad Example:

Max's son wishes for his dad to return to him.

And nothing happens.

Bad Example:

We discover that Diana can make things (like the jet) invisible just by touching them. And yet she never uses (or even refers to) that power again, despite it arguably being useful in several subsequent fights. Further, she's been living underground for 70 years - to the extent that she asks the mall occupants in the second scene to keep her appearance there a secret -- when she could have used the invisibility power for much of that time.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

There were a number of 'Hollywood insiders' publishing articles for a few weeks now how Patty Jenkins had warred with WB over Wonder Woman for over 10 years to get the first film done the right way.

Quote

During a recent podcast appearance, Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 1984 director Patty Jenkins detailed her long journey to bring the stories of Diana Prince to life, which included details about Warner Bros.' reluctance to move forward on the picture not only from a conceptual standpoint, but also that Jenkins herself didn't feel as though she was empowered to guide the initial adventure, though she has since clarified that these comments stem from discussions over the course of a decade. She also clarified that her feelings of being a token female on set were in regards to different projects that she had been involved with.

 

"Versions of this article seem to be everywhere and not true," Jenkins shared on Twitter. "There was no 'war' with warner bros. over [Wonder Woman]. I'm talking about 10 years of discussions with 10 different execs through them. And [the] whole beard thing was about other projects at other studios."

 

 

Jenkins' initial comments came from a conversation with WTF host Marc Maron, with her detailing the difficult road to getting 2017's Wonder Woman made bringing a number of unexpected reveals. Adding to the confusion among fans was idea that she had a contentious relationship with Warner Bros., yet would continue to collaborate with the studio, as her recent clarification helps alleviate fan concerns about how the filmmaker was treated by the studio.

So much for trusting these leakers and insiders too much, no matter if they are a fan of a studio we love or not.

[Cozmo-One]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

 

Bad Example:

You only get one wish. This is established when Max Lord asks his worker/minion for something (I believe the appointment with the president) and is told he'd already granted him the wish of a new car. So it doesn't work and Max goes off to find someone else.

Later in the film: Barbara gets two wishes.

 

I may have misheard, but I thought Max Lord said something on the jet about how she got one wish from the actual stone, but once he became the wishing well, she is now able to get one through him as well?

[Bosco685]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

I get the notion that "suspension of disbelief" has little place in a a sci-fi or superhero film where folks are wearing tights, flying, etc. - but that's a cop-out.

Films should follow the internal rules they set up, amid the world-building they've set forth, with consistency. You can't set the rules of the universe and then simply disregard them for plot armor reasons.

Good Example:

WW84 establishes that Diana's lasso works both ways. Not only does it force folks to tell the truth; it also forces them to know, understand and accept the truth when it's being told to them. This is established early on and then brought back (I thought brilliantly) in the climax to explain why everyone on earth relinquishes their wishes, greed aside. Because Diana's speaking to them, via the lasso, via the satellite feed.

Bad Example:

You only get one wish. This is established when Max Lord asks his worker/minion for something (I believe the appointment with the president) and is told he'd already granted him the wish of a new car. So it doesn't work and Max goes off to find someone else.

Later in the film: Barbara gets two wishes.

Bad Example:

Max's son wishes for his dad to return to him.

And nothing happens.

Bad Example:

We discover that Diana can make things (like the jet) invisible just by touching them. And yet she never uses (or even refers to) that power again, despite it arguably being useful in several subsequent fights. Further, she's been living underground for 70 years - to the extent that she asks the mall occupants in the second scene to keep her appearance there a secret -- when she could have used the invisibility power for much of that time.

 

9 minutes ago, Cozmo-One said:

I may have misheard, but I thought Max Lord said something on the jet about how she got one wish from the actual stone, but once he became the wishing well, she is now able to get one through him as well?

I had a problem with the Dreamstone 'one wish' criteria in the film. But then I actually did some research versus going on and on about the same concern like some.

Wonder Woman 1984: How Does the Dreamstone Work?

Quote

Rules of the Dreamstone/Max hybrid
Once Max becomes one with the stone the rules seem to shift. Now Max himself appears to be able to take something from the wisher of his own selection. Early on we see him take the security team of the oil baron, in exchange for his wish to have historical lands returned (which for once actually IS a Monkey’s Paw moment since the reality of this wish is a wall erecting itself causing massive unrest). Later, for disposing of a televangelists’ sex tape Lord takes his entire congregation. It is clearly not a negotiation that has been agreed in advance so the moral gets a bit muddied. 

 

As Lord becomes more powerful the rules seem to shift again. People don’t even really actually have to wish anything at all – after a point, Lord can’t just say “don’t you wish there was no traffic” (for example) and it’s enough for his driver just to say “yes’ for it to be granted. What will Lord take from this man? What will the stone take? We’d hope not a great deal.

 

Each wisher is granted just one wish, we are told, and this plays out in the film when Lord tries to get one of his staff members to wish something for him but finds it doesn’t work since the man had already wished for a Porsche. Later however, Barbara is granted a second wish. It’s not clear how this is possible. Though Lord tells her he is feeling generous, it can’t just come down to Lord’s desire or he would have introduced this clause earlier. Whatever the logic, this allows Barbara to wish to become an apex predator – Cheetah.

So once he becomes the Dreamstone, Maxwell Lord sets the rules how it works with number of wishes granted. The movie just didn't clarify this that well.

[kav]

6 hours ago, Angel of Death said:

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

Not in my case.  If a doctor in a movie does surgery with a kitchen spatula and starts an IV of maple syrup, my belief in the movie is gone.  
There has to be consistency within the world depicted.
The end.

[kav]

4 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

I get the notion that "suspension of disbelief" has little place in a a sci-fi or superhero film where folks are wearing tights, flying, etc. - but that's a cop-out.

Films should follow the internal rules they set up, amid the world-building they've set forth, with consistency. You can't set the rules of the universe and then simply disregard them for plot armor reasons.

Good Example:

WW84 establishes that Diana's lasso works both ways. Not only does it force folks to tell the truth; it also forces them to know, understand and accept the truth when it's being told to them. This is established early on and then brought back (I thought brilliantly) in the climax to explain why everyone on earth relinquishes their wishes, greed aside. Because Diana's speaking to them, via the lasso, via the satellite feed.

Bad Example:

You only get one wish. This is established when Max Lord asks his worker/minion for something (I believe the appointment with the president) and is told he'd already granted him the wish of a new car. So it doesn't work and Max goes off to find someone else.

Later in the film: Barbara gets two wishes.

Bad Example:

Max's son wishes for his dad to return to him.

And nothing happens.

Bad Example:

We discover that Diana can make things (like the jet) invisible just by touching them. And yet she never uses (or even refers to) that power again, despite it arguably being useful in several subsequent fights. Further, she's been living underground for 70 years - to the extent that she asks the mall occupants in the second scene to keep her appearance there a secret -- when she could have used the invisibility power for much of that time.

Exactly-and this is explained in books on writing screenplays.  Consistency is critical in the willing suspension of disbelief.  None of the many screenplay books I have read said that you can have anything happen in a movie and the audience is required to suspend their disbelief no matter what happens.    

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, kav said:

Exactly-and this is explained in books on writing screenplays.  Consistency is critical in the willing suspension of disbelief.  None of the many screenplay books I have read said that you can have anything happen in a movie and the audience is required to suspend their disbelief no matter what happens.    

This is why with Endgame even that film taking shots at Back To The Future time travel methods couldn't keep it straight later how time travel events went down. The two directors and the screenwriters explained the events differently how Steve Rogers was impacted. But it made the biggest box office ever. So - MCU RULES! 

[kav]

7 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

This is why with Endgame even that film taking shots at Back To The Future time travel methods couldn't keep it straight later how time travel events went down. The two directors and the screenwriters explained the events differently how Steve Rogers was impacted. But it made the biggest box office ever. So - MCU RULES! 

Think about it-when Marty 1 came back to the future, Marty 2 had grown up with a successful dad and a nice new pickup.  He was a completely different person, and how he responded in the past would be completely different.
Also when Doc said we cant go to that future it no longer exists! then how did Biff return to the future that no longer existed after he gave Biff the sports almanac?

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, kav said:

Think about it-when Marty 1 came back to the future, Marty 2 had grown up with a successful dad and a nice new pickup.  He was a completely different person, and how he responded in the past would be completely different.
Also when Doc said we cant go to that future it no longer exists! then how did Biff return to the future that no longer existed after he gave Biff the sports almanac?

But if you are going to take outright shots at another film for how it didn't keep its concepts straight and then you don't keep it straight afterwards - think about it. Did you just put a -script bullseye on yourself?

[kav]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

But if you are going to take outright shots at another film for how it didn't keep its concepts straight and then you don't keep it straight afterwards - think about it. Did you just put a --script bullseye on yourself?

exactly.  and no time travel story can be consistent-its impossible.   endgame had more time travel gaffes than back to the future come on now.  what happened when thor 1 had no hammer suddenly?

[kav]

One thing I really wish hollywood would stop doing besides digging out the bullet and having no one eat the elaborate breakfast just grab a piece of toast and say "I'm late" is stop having people make coughing sounds when they are supposedly throwing up.  Vomiting sounds nothing like coughing.

[@therealsilvermane]

4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

This is why with Endgame even that film taking shots at Back To The Future time travel methods couldn't keep it straight later how time travel events went down. The two directors and the screenwriters explained the events differently how Steve Rogers was impacted. But it made the biggest box office ever. So - MCU RULES! 

 

4 hours ago, kav said:

Think about it-when Marty 1 came back to the future, Marty 2 had grown up with a successful dad and a nice new pickup.  He was a completely different person, and how he responded in the past would be completely different.

Well, if you think about it, the two scenes in Avengers Endgame and Back to the Future that you're calling into question happened at the end of both movies after the stories are resolved, the denoument.

Up until the end of both movies, the time traveling occuring in both movies is fairly simple and goes according to the science of both movies. Thus, the suspension of disbelief isn't really at risk through the near entirety of the the three acts of both movies. The resolutions of the third acts of both movies end with the goals accomplished. Marty gets back to the future. The Avengers win the endgame. If the stories ended there, we'd be just fine.

The story twists that happen in both denouments, that Marty's slight adjustment of the past results in George McFly being a success and Steve Rogers discovering life in the past and showing up as an old man, even if they later make us question adherence to their movie science, don't disrupt the suspension of disbelief because they didn't disrupt the the larger three act structures which ended with logical resolutions, that is Marty getting back home and the Avengers saving the universe.

If that makes any sense.

[kav]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Well, if you think about it, the two scenes in Avengers Endgame and Back to the Future that you're calling into question happened at the end of both movies after the stories are resolved, the denoument.

Up until the end of both movies, the time traveling occuring in both movies is fairly simple and goes according to the science of both movies. Thus, the suspension of disbelief isn't really at risk through the near entirety of the the three acts of both movies. The resolutions of the third acts of both movies end with the goals accomplished. Marty gets back to the future. The Avengers win the endgame. If the stories ended there, we'd be just fine.

The story twists that happen in both denouments, that Marty's slight adjustment of the past results in George McFly being a success and Steve Rogers discovering life in the past and showing up as an old man, even if they later make us question adherence to their movie science, don't disrupt the suspension of disbelief because they didn't disrupt the the larger three act structures which ended with logical resolutions, that is Marty getting back home and the Avengers saving the universe.

If that makes any sense.

yep it did not cause me to not suspend my disbelief.  The disappearing thor's hammer and stuff was a puzzler tho.

[@therealsilvermane]

8 minutes ago, kav said:

yep it did not cause me to not suspend my disbelief.  The disappearing thor's hammer and stuff was a puzzler tho.

When chubby Thor takes Mjolnir from the world of Thor: Dark World, the idea is that Mjolnir didn't really disappear if Steve Rogers successfully returns it the second after chubby Thor took it. We can assume Steve Rogers was successful in doing that.

The idea of replacing things like Mjolnir and the Time Stone at the exact time they were taken is established when Bruce Banner tells the Ancient One he will do so with the Time Stone. So it works.

Edited January 7, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[kav]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

When chubby Thor takes Mjolnir from the world of Thor: Dark World, the idea is that Mjolnir didn't really disappear if Steve Rogers successfully returns it the second after chubby Thor took it. The idea of replacing things like Mjolnir and the Time Stone at the exact time they were taken is established when Bruce Banner tells the Ancient One he will do so with the Time Stone. So it works.

If cap replaced mjolnir this needs to be shown or at least mentioned.

[@therealsilvermane]

1 minute ago, kav said:

If cap replaced mjolnir this needs to be shown or at least mentioned.

You do see Cap holding Mjolnir and the Stones when he goes back in time at the end. In keeping with Cap's ability to stay on mission, we can assume that, just like the other Stones, he replaced them the second after they were taken, as Bruce states they will do earlier in the film to prevent a timeline rift.

At this point in the movie, the resolution is accomplished. Replacing Mjolnir or not isn't really mandatory to saving the universe. It's more like a common courtesy to Thor of the past to return it. To have dwelled too much on it in the denoument of the movie would have dragged the movie on too long and distracted from the real reason for Endgame's denoument, to put a bowtie on Steve Rogers' life.

[kav]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

You do see Cap holding Mjolnir and the Stones when he goes back in time at the end. In keeping with Cap's ability to stay on mission, we can assume that, just like the other Stones, he replaced them the second after they were taken, as Bruce states they will do earlier in the film to prevent a timeline rift.

At this point in the movie, the resolution is accomplished. Replacing Mjolnir or not isn't really mandatory to saving the universe. It's more like a common courtesy to Thor of the past to return it. To have dwelled too much on it in the denoument of the movie would have dragged the movie on too long and distracted from the real reason for Endgame's denoument, to put a bowtie on Steve Rogers' life.

wow I never noticed that thx!

[kav]

keep in mind cap can still come back tho-he leaves the past to help in the future, then goes back.

[theCapraAegagrus]

14 hours ago, kav said:

Not in my case.  If a doctor in a movie does surgery with a kitchen spatula and starts an IV of maple syrup, my belief in the movie is gone.  
There has to be consistency within the world depicted.
The end.

That could be consistent within the movie, hence why consistency is immaterial to suspension of disbelief.

[Bosco685]

8 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Well, if you think about it, the two scenes in Avengers Endgame and Back to the Future that you're calling into question happened at the end of both movies after the stories are resolved, the denoument.

Up until the end of both movies, the time traveling occuring in both movies is fairly simple and goes according to the science of both movies. Thus, the suspension of disbelief isn't really at risk through the near entirety of the the three acts of both movies. The resolutions of the third acts of both movies end with the goals accomplished. Marty gets back to the future. The Avengers win the endgame. If the stories ended there, we'd be just fine.

The story twists that happen in both denouments, that Marty's slight adjustment of the past results in George McFly being a success and Steve Rogers discovering life in the past and showing up as an old man, even if they later make us question adherence to their movie science, don't disrupt the suspension of disbelief because they didn't disrupt the the larger three act structures which ended with logical resolutions, that is Marty getting back home and the Avengers saving the universe.

If that makes any sense.

I think this article helps outline the -script concerns best. Because the directors changed the approach after the screenwriters had worked it out early on.

Endgame’s Time Travel Doesn’t Make Sense Because Marvel Changed It

Quote

Avengers: Endgame's time travel is pretty confusing - and Tilda Swinton (aka the Ancient One) may have just explained why that's the case.

 

There's a simple reason Avengers: Endgame's time travel is so confusing: Marvel seems to have changed the rules during production. The truth is that very few film or TV franchises handle time travel particularly well. There's no real-world analog, meaning every franchise has to decide its own rules, but in character-driven stories, they can be hard to maintain. Of course, that's not necessarily an issue; it doesn't really matter that the likes of Back to the Future, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Groundhog Day are inconsistent because what counts is the story.

There's a simple reason Avengers: Endgame's time travel is so confusing: Marvel seems to have changed the rules during production. The truth is that very few film or TV franchises handle time travel particularly well. There's no real-world analog, meaning every franchise has to decide its own rules, but in character-driven stories, they can be hard to maintain. Of course, that's not necessarily an issue; it doesn't really matter that the likes of Back to the Future, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Groundhog Day are inconsistent because what counts is the story.

 

Avengers: Endgame's time travel has been explained by both the film's writers and directors, who don't seem able to agree on just how it works. The particular bone of contention appears to be the very end of the movie, which established that Steve Rogers had traveled back in time to live out the rest of his life with his beloved Peggy Carter. The Russo brothers have insisted that Steve created a parallel timeline when he traveled back, and that he somehow made the jump back to the normal reality in order to hand over the Captain America shield to Sam. In contrast, writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely believe that only the removal of the Infinity Stones creates a new timeline, meaning that Steve Rogers was Peggy Carter's secret husband in the MCU all along. This certainly explains why an elderly Peggy had photos of Steve at her bedside, but none (apparently) of her actual husband.

 

A recent interview with Tilda Swinton has hinted at just why there was all this confusion; it's because Marvel changed the rules partway through production. Swinton's Ancient One made a brief appearance in Avengers: Endgame, giving the Hulk an infodump on the MCU's temporal mechanics. It's one of the key moments in the film, outlining the basic rules and including a nifty visualization.

 

Swinton shot her original scene on a summer day, then a year later was called back for reshoots because an important plot point had been changed. According to Swinton, it was "all about that very, very important" visual timeline effect, and her revised lines stressed that the Infinity Stones had to be returned. Based on what she said, that dialogue was setting up Captain America's time travel plan at the end of Avengers: Endgame that leads him to Peggy Carter. Markus and McFeely have insisted Cap's ultimate fate was decided right from the first draft, but it looks as though the Infinity Stones idea was added in order to justify it.

If that makes sense.