In your CGI tights/fighting for your rights.

§ December 28th, 2020 § Filed under movie reviews, wonder woman § 30 Comments

As I’m sure you’re probably aware, the new Wonder Woman film, AKA WW1984, has been released for home streaming for HBO Max subscribers (along with a limited theatrical release). While I did end up watching the movie, I hadn’t really planned on doing any kind of extended discussion/review here, but in response to some of my tweetery on the topic, someone noted they’d wait for my Spoiler Discussion Zone…so, what the hey, here you go. Opinions seem to be pretty varied (from the more rational commentators, not counting the “g-g-g-irls!?” or “I hate all DC movies!” reactions from usual suspects who, from all appearances, may not have even seen the film in the first place), so I’d be curious what my readers here have to say.

My spoiler-free review…perfectly acceptable superhero film, though one wishes the Wonder Woman action was spread a little more evenly throughout the film, rather than primarily at the beginning and end. Generally light and optimistic in tone, with a resolution to the main conflict that manages to escape the slugfest/”giant thing exploding” solutions upon which most special effects epics (including the previous Wonder Woman film) tend to rely.

Okay, SPOILERS AHOY between these two screenshots I pulled from the trailer, and in the comments section to follow, so avert your eyes if you don’t want to know that Ares’ mustache survived the first film and has returned to exact vengeance upon the Amazons:

Okay, like I said, I didn’t watch the film with plans to write about it here, so here are just a few comments on what I saw.

The most impressive thing about the movie, as I alluded to above, is that it wasn’t Wonder Woman beating the tar out of Maxwell Lord. If you wanted your superhero vs. supervillain punchout, you got it the CGI-riffic Cheetah fight just prior (and you can tell how much confidence filmmakers have in a particular CGI effect based on how dark the lighting is), but Diana speaking to Lord (and through him, the world) trying to talk everyone down and renouncing their wishes…that was far more satisfying than having, I don’t know, Lord’s building exploding or whatever.

Also, that Lord’s apparent punishment at the end of the film is not being exploded along with a building, or dying in regret, or whatever the usual fate is for a bad guy. Instead, he begs forgiveness from his young son, openly admitting to him his failures. It’s an emotional punishment, and a hopeful one for a better future for the both of them.

Another nice nod to the comics was Lord occasionally dabbing at a bleeding nose after using his wish-granting powers (as comics Lord would do after psychically “pushing” someone). Yes, I know the ghost of Dr. Polite Scott would have some words about this (mostly along the lines of “brain trauma much”) but it was still a “hey, I remember that!” moment.

Speaking of character resolutions, I don’t recall seeing a post-Cheetah transformation Barbara at the end of the story. Did I miss her? I feel like she’d be the one with the most to resolve emotionally post-battle, trying to reconcile who she was with what she’d become once she had some power in her hands.

And so long as we’re at the end of the movie…literally the very second the “missing Amazon” was mentioned earlier in the story, I knew 1) who was going to play her, and 2) who the post or mid-credits scene would feature. I won’t note it here, just in case you haven’t seen the flick and are trying to spoil it for yourself by reading these comments…but c’mon, it doesn’t take a genius to guess just who I’m talkin’ about. Don’t know if this is just a nod to fans or if she’ll actually take part in the next film…frankly, I think just making it a one-off thing is fine. It was cutre, and I was glad to see it.

Some folks wondered about the 1980s setting, and I’m guessing a big part is the whole business involving the actual President of the United States may have been a big part of it. Having this as a period piece with an only sorta half-convincing Ronald Reagan, and playing on his Cold War involvement) probably goes over easier than a modern day film featuring a Trump impersonator (which would have been distracting and divisive no matter how he was portrayed) or the usual gambit of Old White Guy As A Fictional President (which may have taken folks out of a story about magical wishes and a strong lady in a star-spangled outfit). Also, can you imagine the opening mall fight in modern times? She wouldn’t have bothered having to take out the security cameras, because who was going to see her?

Plus, if we’re still pretending there’s a DC Comics Cinematic Universe, putting it in 1984 gets around the whole “where are Superman and Batman?” question. Okay, maybe it doesn’t avoid the “where’s the Challengers of the Unknown/Crimson Avenger/Doctor Occult/Scribbly” question, but…all right, you got me, I don’t really have a point here, I just wanted to namedrop Scribbly.

One thing I kept waiting for…look, it’s nice to have Chris Pine back as Steve Trevor. I liked him as Steve Trevor, a character in the comics that’s had a…mixed history, shall we say. And a character in the comics where, for years, was kind of a running gag in that he’d kept being killed off/written out and then brought back again. I presume that kinda went away when George Perez revamped the title in the ’80s, but I haven’t kept up lately and kind of hope they’ve reestablished that trope. Just aint’ Steve Trevor unless he keeps getting removed ‘n’ revived every few years.

Anyhoo, having Diana wish him back into existence is…well, it’s certainly a way to get him back. And it brings a bit of personal sacrifice into having to renounce her wish in order to save the day. (There’s a whole bit of business about a cost to getting one’s wishes granted…in this case, Diana’s wish for the return of Steve seemed to reduce her superpowered abilities, but Barbara’s wish to be like Diana also was implied to have taken her powers? I wasn’t clear on that, maybe I missed something.) But Steve is brought back, Deadman-style, possessing another dude’s body…which is barely addressed by anybody in the film. I mean, there are jokes about his apartment, but not a whole lot about “we’re totally hijacking this poor dude’s life here.” So that was all a bit uncomfortable. I do like that Steve departing that fella’s body was left offscreen once Diana renounced her wish.

I hope they find a way to bring Steve back for the third film. And in every film thereafter, as long as they’re making these. Just a different wild way every single time.

And while we’re on the topic of characters from the first movie…yes, that was definitely an old Etta Candy in that photo in Diana’s apartment, confirmed by Lucy “Etta” Davis her own self. I think few people would deny Etta was a real highlight of that movie, a delightful character that, in the comics, did not have the most dignified of origins. (“Ate A Candy,” indeed…geez louise.)

And one more thing about the conclusion of the film…while everyone’s wishes were renounced and undone, it’s made pretty clear a giant reset button wasn’t necessarily pushed, putting everyone and everything back to how it was. The wishes were granted, things happened, then suddenly things…didn’t exactly unhappen, but mostly just stopped happening. Yes, the woman who was wished dead came back to life, that was just straight up undone, but it’s not like the U.S. and Russia didn’t launch missiles at each other, whether or not those missiles disappeared. Seems like there are still consequences of those wishes existing in the world as left at the end of the story. That’s the main sticking point in the redemption of Maxwell Lord…he still screwed things up for everyone good ‘n’ proper.

Oh, and Simon Stagg is a character in the movie. Unlike his CW TV counterpart (killed off in Green Arrow or something) he survived, so there’s still hope for a big-budget Metamorpho movie. Don’t say you wouldn’t want to see this. DON’T YOU LIE TO ME.

And I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but I’ll let you folks in the comments remind me, as I’m sure you will!

…And can you believe how the Robot Kanga army took out Angle Man? Brutal.

Those were just a few thoughts I had…I may follow up in a future post if you folks remind me of anything (or if I see the movie again, which I may soon, since it’s leaving HBO Max in a month). And speaking of the future, please sign my petition to have the next Wonder Woman movie take place in the year 2050, just to mess with people. Also, the villain should be Doctor Psycho. Specifically, the version in the Harley Quinn cartoon. Ol’ WW giving a foul-mouthed misogynist what-for…it’s what he world needs.

30 Responses to “In your CGI tights/fighting for your rights.”

  • Dave says:

    When the highlight of a movie is seeing both a B. Dalton and a Waldenbooks, it’s in trouble.

    I seriously wonder if Warners was secretly relieved to release this one on cable, since yet another box-office flop of something this aggressively bad and butt-achingly long was doomed to be would have had heads rolling in Burbank.

  • William Burns says:

    You’re not the only one to do the Rogers/Trevor thing.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    Today’s useless bit of trivia: Lucy Davis is the daughter of the comedian Jasper Carrot. She says that she is sometimes asked in interviews why she changed her name, and that her response is to stare hard at the interviewer and ask why he thinks Davis is the fake name and Carrot the real one.

  • Voord 99 says:

    I don’t think it deserved all the flak it’s taking. It’s not amazing, but it’s not so much worse than the first one to deserve the gulf in reaction that it’s getting.

    In particular, people seem remarkably hung up on Steve Trevor being able to fly a jet. Yes, it’s not plausible. I can’t bring myself to regard that as all that important. On the other hand, Maxwell Lord as brought to life by Pedro Pascal is surely a much more interesting screen presence than Ares.


    – The wish-granting gimmick for a villain is fun. In fact, I wish they’d had a bit more fun with it. Some people have to have some weird wishes. Spend the CGI budget on those!

    – It’s definitely a good idea to build a supervillain around a satire on the “power of positive thinking.” Can we have the Prosperity Gospel as the villain in the next film?


    – I know we’re revisiting the ‘80s, but did we really have to revisit its Middle Eastern stereotypes? That certainly did recapture the feel of a DC comic from the period.

    – OK, have we not got the message by now that the unfailing instinct of Hollywood always to want to put two villains in the second superhero film is usually a bad idea? After the amount of attention Barbara Minerva gets in the opening sections of this film, it’s shocking how perfunctory and pointless her presence is in the conclusion. Our host is essentially right – this character is only in the film because they were afraid it wouldn’t work without a big CGI superpowered fight scene near the end. That’s a waste of this particular character.

    -I am impressed that they managed to take a Wonder Woman film and make it fundamentally about daddy issues. Screenwriters do like their theme, don’t they?

  • Jer says:

    I was amused that the Duke of Deception was name checked as the hidden bad guy behind everything. Nice nod to a character that didn’t get revised by Perez in the 80s and so almost nobody remembers.

    We enjoyed it quite a bit in our house. It probably wasn’t as good as the first one, but the ending was better. My one complaint is that it has “too many villains” syndrome – Barbara Minerva is a great character and I think that it felt like her subplot was given short shrift to turn her into a henchman for Max Lord. I honestly would have preferred to see a movie about just her and Wonder Woman or one about WW and Max Lord – to “two villains per movie” is definitely a DC movie staple through the Batman films, but it never works as well as they want it to…

  • DK says:

    Since this is a safe space for middle aged comics nerds, some thoughts:

    – We know for sure what Batman is up to. In the DCEU the Waynes die in 1981 (peep “Excalibur” on the marquee on the Crime Alley Cineplex Odeon in BvS: Martha), so Bruce is 11-12 at the time of WW84. Any guesses what his biggest wish is? That’s right, Max Lord brought the Waynes back to life and Diana made them go away. Gonna be an awkward JL meeting when Bruce figures that one out.

    – I had a lot of fun, and lots of people didn’t, and it hit me maybe why. MCU movies and the first WW are action fims with a superhero theme. WW84 is a COMIC BOOK MOVIE. It’s got a real pre-crisis tone, too. I was shocked Geoff “the character ruiner” Johns was one of the writers, if you told me Cary Bates or Elliott S! Maggin wrote it, it I would buy it. It’s Richard Donner’s Wonder Woman.

    -Man, Patty Jenkins LOVES Raiders of the Lost Ark. That was awesome.

    -I can live without WW swinging on that lasso like Spidey for sure. That last Cheetah fight was woof. She’s not Tarzan, please stop.

    -Haters on Reddit and Twitter can’t shut up about there being an INVISIBLE JET in a WW movie, which is like complaining about too many webshooters in a Spider-Man movie. For WW3 let’s see those Kangas and the Purple Ray to make them cry.

    -Keeping “we’re not sure if WW can fly or not, it’s plot driven” in a tentpole franchise film is a bold move. Can we pick a lane?

    -Living in the DC metro area, this movie got the geography right when they didn’t have to. The mall is a real (closed) one in Fairfax County, the cops are Fairfax cops. When Diana and Steve take the Metro they get off at L’Enfant Plaza, walk up to the Hirshhorn Museum (its a trash can!), then pivot to Air & Space. That is exactly right.

    – Among Diana’s photos is Chief from the first film liberating a concentration camp.

    -Reagan-who-is-not-Reagan is also amazing. Best Reagan since Booster Gold #1.

    – Max Lord was a real highlight, and I liked him better WITHOUT the mind control. Agree 1000% with you on his satisfying face turn. Even better, neither villain had a giant light in the sky! Finally weesa free!

    -You can make a lot of complaints about story, pacing, acting, effects, and whatnot but they nailed Diana’s character. “Please Barbara I don’t want to hurt you” and converting Max to a goodie is pure Wonder Woman. I suspect that’s what upset a lot of casual fans. If your impresion of the character is she is a super warrior who kicks ass, her commitment to peace and joyful submission is gonna be a shock.

    – Simon Stagg but no Java? Boooooooooo.

    -Amazons are the absolute highlight of the DCEU, let’s always have a Themyscira scene. Not just in WW, every DC film should have them. Yes, even LSH.

    -Agreed that Steve Trevor should be in all of these. Bringing loved ones back to life to torment you is a classic Darkseid move.

  • Thom H. says:

    I’m surprised there’s so much dislike of this movie. I loved it. I agree that it’s too long and there’s not enough action, especially in the middle (which makes it seem even longer).

    But it’s centered around one of WW’s major moral tenets (truth) that is embodied in one of her powers (magic lasso). AND it connects all of that to current events without being preachy. Structurally, it’s everything I want from a Superman movie.

    Special bonus features: It brings back a fan favorite character in a novel way while also showing that WW has flaws. The payoff to WW’s emotional arc includes upping her powerset. It connects with the larger DC universe in unexpected ways (e.g., Stagg, Bialya). It has interesting things to say about gender. It has a non-violent resolution with consequences for all involved (as you mentioned).

    I’d say WW84 is the quintessential Wonder Woman movie, which is probably why it doesn’t feel like a typical superhero film. Her whole schtick is that she’s part warrior and part diplomat, so sometimes her stories are going to be kind of talky. It’s cool that her diplomatic skills were needed to resolve this particular problem.

  • Daniel says:

    I’ve been struggling with this film for a few days now after having watched it twice. I really liked the performances by all four lead actors. I felt genuine emotion in the Diana and Steve scenes. Despite the criticism Jenkins is receiving for it, I mostly liked the visual direction of the action scenes.

    But, man, is the central story that the entire film hangs on absolutely terrible. No internal logic whatsoever. Fantasy films need rules. Otherwise, if anything goes, then there are no consequences to any of the actions on screen (which is why I think that modern audiences have so much trouble understanding the rapturous affection that Boomers and some Gen-Xers have for the Chris Reeve Superman movies (which, as a Gen-Xer, I actually like, but which I’m also able to view objectively and recognize how clunky they are narratively speaking)). Mike hit it on the head by saying this exact thing: “Seems like there are still consequences of those wishes existing in the world as left at the end of the story.” Yes, there are. And the movie tries to pretend like there aren’t.

    At the end of the day, this is yet another mediocre movie that has Geoff Johns’s grubby fingerprints all over it (see also: Green Lantern, Aquaman, Justice League theatrical cut, and Shazam! (although I’ve softened a bit on Shazam! raising its letter grade from a C+ to a B-). The man is a terrible writer who has failed upwards his entire career. Hopefully this film is the final nail in the coffin for his involvement with anything involving DC going forward.

    What’s most frustrating to me about this film is how it abandoned almost everything that people loved about the first film. It’s 180-degrees different from the 2017 movie. I’m racking my brain trying to think of a sequel made by the same director of the first film that was so radically different from its predecessor. And as someone who loved the 2017 film, I’m more than a little disappointed that this film didn’t build upon what was established in part one.

    I’m also baffled as to why this film took place in 1984. There were specific story-related reasons for the first film to take place in 1917 (e.g., in BvS, Lex Luthor feared meta-humans, and to show that he knew that Diana was a meta-human, having him collect photos of her from 1917 and 2016 which showed that she hadn’t aged a day was an elegant visual solution to demonstrate that she wasn’t an ordinary human being). No such reasons existed for the sequel to take place in the ’80s other than nostalgia. I know that Mike said, “putting it in 1984 gets around the whole ‘where are Superman and Batman?’ question,” but if you’re going to say that about this film, then why not say it about Aquaman or Shazam! or any other future DC movie? That excuse just doesn’t pass muster with me.

  • Mikester says:

    William – Sigh, I write these things too late at night.

  • Thom H. says:

    The ’80s make sense thematically because the movie is essentially about truth v. greed. And that decade works as shorthand for the time when the inward focus of the ’60s became full-blown self-centeredness.

    Setting the movie in the ’80s has political ramifications, as well, since the current U.S. president rose to cultural prominence during that time. The movie clearly wants to make some points about contemporary political conditions without overtly pointing fingers at present-day political figures.

  • Hal Shipman says:

    While the flying thing was weird, it was a nice nod to that ’60s thing of “gliding on the air currents.”

    But my big question is, what happened to Lord and Cheetah afterwards? I’m a huge proponent of not killing the bad guy in media, as you can never use them again. But did everyone on Earth just shrug and say, “That was weird?”

    Also, because I haven’t seen this noted yet, did you catch how Lord once referred to himself as the Duke of Deception?

  • Daniel says:

    “The movie clearly wants to make some points about contemporary political conditions without overtly pointing fingers at present-day political figures.”

    But what points exactly did the film make about contemporary political conditions? Because from my vantage point, it didn’t make any. If there are any defining political conditions of our current day, it’s a resurgence of unvarnished bigotry and a rise of authoritarianism, neither of which were touched on even tangentially in WW84.

    And as far as Maxwell Lord being a proxy for Donald Trump: I mean, maybe in the most superficial sense. Maybe. Donald Trump’s most defining trait is his complete lack of empathy for anyone but himself. But unless I’m reading the ending incorrectly, we are left feeling that Maxwell Lord is a good person at heart who made a bad mistake in order to make his son proud of him. Unless the filmmakers’ intent was for us to feel sorry for Donald Trump, I don’t see it as a commentary on him, his rise to power, or his presidency.

  • Thom H. says:

    Max Lord doesn’t have to be exactly like Donald Trump to get the point across. And it’s probably the departures from reality that are the most important to the film’s message.

    Jenkins’ point, as far as I can tell, is that we can pull back from our current era of self-centeredness and self-satisfaction to work together again. We, as a society, are redeemable. In that way Lord, who was the symbol of our collective selfishness (like Trump can be in real life) also becomes the symbol of our potential rehabilitation (unlike Trump, at least so far). The filmmakers created a character who was recognizable enough to generate the same feelings in us, but deviated at the end in order to provide a cathartic alternative to reality.

    As for bigotry and authoritarianism, a primary aspect of both of them is selfishness and greed. They rely on division to seize symbolic and political power. I realize moving from “selfishness” to “authoritarianism” is kind of a leap, but it’s a superhero movie so it’s meant to appeal to a wide audience. Its message might be a little broad, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t related or can’t be recognized.

  • Imp says:

    I was just glad Diana didn’t snap Maxwell Lord’s neck at the end.

    And goodness, there was a good bit of JLI material in this film. Max, Bialya, a near-miss with the Dream Stone instead of Dreamslayer empowering Max / turning him evil. If that Emir had been Rumaan Harjavti (and I had to check the credits to make sure it wasn’t), Giffen and deMatteis would have qualified for co-writing credits.

  • Daniel says:

    “Jenkins’ point, as far as I can tell, is that we can pull back from our current era of self-centeredness and self-satisfaction to work together again.”

    But this is why I think the ’80s setting was a misfire. You’re acknowledging that our current era is one of self-centeredness. So just set it in the present.

    Again, there were specific story-driven reasons for the first film to be set in 1917 (e.g., Lex Luthor feared meta-humans; he needed to demonstrate that Superman wasn’t the only meta-human threat in the world; having photos of Diana from 1917 and 2016 that showed that she hadn’t aged a day in 100 years was an elegant visual storytelling device to convey that she was a meta-human). No such narrative needs justified the ’80s setting. It was more of a distraction, likely driven more by nostalgia.

    I don’t blame Jenkins for this, by the way. I mean, it’s possible that this was all her idea, but it seems more consistent with co-writer Geoff Johns’ ham-fisted approach to writing. For me, the two WW movies are a case study in the differences between Geoff Johns’ approach to storytelling in the DCEU and the Zack Snyder (who co-wrote the first WW film) approach to storytelling in the DCEU. Johns is all about superficiality, half-baked ideas, and a lack of internal story logic. Whereas Snyder is more about logic and clarity and narrative consistency. And I think the two WW movies (both directed by the same director, serving as a kind of control group, so to speak) bring these differences into sharp relief.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    Re: the reason why the movie is set in 1984.

    I am handicapped in the discussion by the fact that I have not seen this movie, or its predecessor. I cannot, therefore, comment on whether this particular date is specifically necessary for the plot or the theme. However, I can see in general terms why the movie is set in the past. There are three reasons for this.

    1. Bringing the series right up to the present would be a waste of the premise that Wonder Woman has been intervening in mortal affairs for a full century. Why bother telling us that, if we are never going to get more than a single story set in the past?

    2. Hollywood almost always tries to make a sequel as much like the original as possible. The first Wonder Woman movie was set in the past, therefore the second one has to be.

    3. Warner seems to be still working out how connected it wants its superhero movies to be, and how committed it is to the Snyderverse. Setting this movie before Superman, Batman, Aquaman, and Flashman were around allows it to easily sidestep the question.

  • Thom H. says:

    I agree — there’s no story reason the movie has to happen in the ’80s. But the setting does a ton of work nonetheless.

    — It serves as shorthand for an era of excess / greed / selfishness.

    — By setting a contemporary story in that decade, it connects those two eras and hints at the historical roots of some of our current problems.

    — It distances the story from current events so we don’t get bogged down in specific details or contemporary cultural disagreements.

    — It serves as a stop on Diana’s journey of self-discovery. If the first WW movie was her introduction to “man’s world,” this movie was her finding her place in it. Now we can move on to WW3 where she — I don’t know — goes home a changed person, maybe?

    Again, none of that absolutely had to happen in the ’80s for a timeline to make sense, but thematically it works pretty well.

    And I think the nostalgia factor shouldn’t be dismissed. The pleasure of nostalgia might smooth over some of the more pointed criticisms the film makes, at least for some people. We can all laugh knowingly at bad ’80s fashion, right?

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    Daniel: “I’m racking my brain trying to think of a sequel made by the same director of the first film that was so radically different from its predecessor.”

    Try EXECUTIONERS, the sequel to the terrific Hong Kong movie THE HEROIC TRIO. TRIO is a fun story in which a masked vigilante*, a bounty hunter, and a woman with the ability to turn invisible team up to fight a villain with the self-explanatory name of Evil Master. EXECUTIONERS is a dark, grim story of conflict in a post-apocalyptic world desperately short of water.

    One must add the qualification that, though Johnny To is credited as director of both movies, he had a co-director on EXECUTIONERS. I am willing to blame the other guy.

    *named, in fact, Wonder Woman

  • Jon H says:

    @Voord: “The wish-granting gimmick for a villain is fun. In fact, I wish they’d had a bit more fun with it. Some people have to have some weird wishes. Spend the CGI budget on those!”

    They should have had someone turn into Nightcrawler of the X-Men and bamf away.

  • Jolyn Johnson says:

    I loved the movie, for all the reasons most people here are saying. It’s because it was a COMIC BOOK MOVIE. This was comic!Diana. Peace and love and hope. Yes she’s an Amazon but if you think that’s all she is you don’t understand the character at all and you can just go watch your MCU movies with your popcorn right over there, thanks. :)

    Loved Max Lord! The little touches… someone noticed his hair, starting out, was his own. Then slowly as he kept trying to succeed, he reinvented himself with the blonde hair, becoming more “white” since a Latinx man at the time? Not so much.

    Why the 80s? I felt it was for a few reasons – 1)COMIC BOOK MOVIE feeling which should remind everyone of Donner’s Superman, 2) she wanted this to be a trilogy and had a plan anyway but it couldn’t conflict with Snyder’s JL crap, 3) the themes of movies and of life in the 80s was excess…greed. Everything that everyone wished for, everything Lord promised, everything Barbara wanted…. it was the perfect era for this film.

    Perez never brought Steve back that I recall, focusing more on Diana and the Amazons, and the gods if I recall. But Pine is perfect as him.

    Jenkins said in the livetweet that she left Barbara’s end open on purpose. We saw a shot of human Barbara, but it was quick so we don’t get to know what she’s thinking (obviously it was enough that she renounced her wish).

    Anyhoo I adored it and I think most of the people who didn’t like it aren’t comic fans. Or else they are used to MCU style films. Was this one as good as the first? No – nothing will top No Man’s Land for me. But I still cried. Gimme character-driven comics any day.

  • Jon H says:

    “But this is why I think the ’80s setting was a misfire. You’re acknowledging that our current era is one of self-centeredness. So just set it in the present.”

    It’s just doing something like MASH being set in Korea but commenting on Vietnam. Just maybe not in such a focused way.

  • […] thank you for keeping your discussion about Wonder Woman 1984 civil. I know it’s a movie that’s inspired a wide range of […]

  • Jack says:

    I was today years old when I realized the precise pun that Etta Candy’s name was. And yeah, I feel pretty damn stupid.

  • Billy says:

    My wife and I saw the first film and agreed it was excellent. Probably the best of the DC movies (haven’t seen them all) which are usually awful compared to Marvel’s movies.

    That said, it took us 3 sittings to get through WW84. Probably would have left it unfinished if I wasn’t itching to cancel my HBOMax sub before the DC Universe promo price expires. I kept it running and extra month after finishing Watchmen and Lovecraft Country just to see WW84.

    I give WW84 2 stars. I could probably give it 3 if they could edit out a bunch of the stupid (mainly the fight scenes) and get it down to 90 minutes.

  • MixMat says:

    “Executioners,…Heroic Trio…
    *named, in fact, Wonder Woman”
    Pretty sure that’s just the translation from Cantonese, which i dont read or write, and i probably learned by osmosis watching my own cultural heritage pop film/movies/tv, without ever formally learning the language.

    I watched one or both these movies in the cinema during the 90s when i was younger, as Maggie Cheung and Michelle Yeoh were my favorite stars at the time(sorry im blanking on the 3rd actress’ name who might have been a just as big a star in Hong Kong/Asian cinema as a triple threat, actor/singer/model? but has not been in the spotlight as much after 1997(i think). Karen Mok, maybe.

    As for WW84, I loved it tho it was too long n prone to MCU/00s movie cgi/bombastic excess, been dozing off to these movies just when the cgi climax is about to start/before then but i dont blame WW84 for it. The formula isnt its fault. The rest of the movie hit all my buttons wonderfully, so im giving it 2 thumbs up.

    Im not understanding the brickbats honestly, if you wanted a 100% MCU movie clone watch the Old Guard or sth, leave WW84 n its nostalgic/sentimentality be. You can binge on MCU all you want in 2021-blame Disney for not releasing Black Wdow on Disney+ and leave WW84 to its own.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    The other member of the Heroic Trio was Anita Mui, also known for her work with Jackie Chan in DRUNKEN MASTER II and RUMBLE IN THE BRONX. She “has not been in the spotlight” because she died of cancer in 2003.

  • MixMat says:

    @Turan wrote:”The other member of the Heroic Trio was Anita Mui, also known for her work with Jackie Chan in DRUNKEN MASTER II and RUMBLE IN THE BRONX. She “has not been in the spotlight” because she died of cancer in 2003.”
    My bad, from my vague recollections i thot it was Karen Mok,i was in my twenties when the movie came out and i wasn’t as big a fan of Anita Mui in her movies as i was of Maggie Cheung and Cherie Chung and Brigitte Lin Ching Hsia in the 90s. I note im more a bigger fan of non-singing actors in Hong Kong films. Certain action movies of that era just hit me in the feels more than ohers.

    I have overlooked in my memories of 2003 as her death and the death of Leslie Cheung left indelible psychic residue on not just me but to many fans of Asian cinema then. As a Chinese, but non-Mandarin read/writing, non-cantonese-read/writing person, i humbly apologise for misremembering Karen Mok in Anita Mui’s place. (It would have been too early for Karen Mok to have acted in The Heroic Trio movie as she was to start acting in films that year.) My “not in the spotlight” was also about Mok,which im equally wrong about, i think.

    Some fans of Asian cinema are just more dedicated than i am, im more interested in comics and arthouse movies than in certain genres of Hong Kong movies. No disrespect or offense intended. Sorry.

  • Andrew Davison says:

    It was probably set in 1984 so that Asteria could be played by a de-aged Hilary Clinton

  • Andrew Davison says:

    or perhaps a de-de-aged Ruth Bader Ginsburg

  • Caleb says:

    I’m waiting on the DVD I guess, BUT! I just wanted to chime in regarding the talk of the setting. My favorite thing about the first WW film was 1) That it was a period piece and 2) That it was NOT the period I expected, sooooo I’m glad they picked a decade-I-wouldn’t-have-imagined for the sequel.

    I’m hoping the next one is Wonder Woman ’94 or Wonder Woman ’45 (but mostly so I can see a JSA movie, regarding the latter date).

    So, someone spoil me: Is Simon Stagg’s hair comic book accurate…? I have to assume the CW version was not…