Patty Jenkins calls Wonder Woman 1984‘s HBO Max launch “heartbreaking”
The film's hybrid launch, which saw it bring in well under its $200 million budget at the box office, was "the best of a bunch of very bad choices."
Film News HBO
Patty Jenkins has spoken out today about the release of her superhero sequel Wonder Woman 1984, calling the film’s hybrid rollout—which placed it simultaneously on both HBO Max and in theaters—“heartbreaking,” and, “the best choice of a bunch of very bad choices.” Jenkins made her comments in an atmosphere that might comfortably be described as “preaching to the choir,” speaking at this year’s CinemaCon, the annual meeting for the owners of large, enclosed boxes that people pay to be crammed into alongside more than a hundred other people, all breathing on each other, for hours at a time. (Or “movietheaters,” as they were known in the Before Time.)
Jenkins is, of course, only the latest Hollywood director to speak out about the sanctity of the theatrical window, that mutually agreed-upon span of time between when a film hits theaters and when it arrives on home video. Said window has had a number of fairly hefty bricks thrown through it over the last few years, as continuing fears about the COVID-19 pandemic continue to make the prospect of public screenings of movies a logistical and medical nightmare. Arguments about the hybrid release of Black Widow are at the heart of Scarlett Johansson’s current legal battles with Disney, and multiple directors—including Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve, whose Dune is scheduled to be sacrificed to the HBO Max gods in October—have expressed their displeasure with having their Big Movies moved to the small screen.
Jenkins’ position is notable because she was, at least, reportedly pretty well compensated for her version of the shift, which caused Wonder Woman ‘84 to arrive on the streaming service late last year. Both she and Gal Gadot had their deals with Warner Bros. re-negotiated when the hybrid move was decided, ensuring that any damage the HBO Max debut did to the movie (which did, indeed, massively underperform, both critically and financially) wouldn’t cost them the kind of 9-figure numbers that Johansson’s lawsuit is citing.
That being said, Jenkins still isn’t happy to have had all her work crammed onto people’s phones and TVs: “It was such a dark time,” she noted, in reference to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the release of her superhero movie. “I don’t think it plays the same on streaming. I did practical effects and shot it in Imax. It was painful. I’m not a fan of day-and-date and I hope to avoid it forever. … I make movies for the big screen experience.”
This, obviously, got a big round of applause from the people who own the aforementioned big screens—as did similar statements from other industry figures in support of the theatrical window, come hell or high viral loads.
313 Comments
I don’t know, I find the whole pandemic thing a lot more heartbreaking. Just be glad people cane see your work!
Well, the movie was also heartbreaking…ly BAD amirite??? 😛 😛 😛
I can’t say. I would have to have watched it to know if you’re right.
#bragBut for reals, literally not worth the time it takes to watch it.
Pure shit, among the bottom quarter of superhero movies for sure. Watching it made Josh Trank’s day.
If I didn’t have the pause button to watch this “movie” so I could stop it and bash its stupidity with my friends, what exactly would the point be? Being stuck in a theater unable to move or talk would truly be a most miserable experience.
No kidding. My son and I had quite a time with the dafuq and hol-up moments in that movie. We watched it in one sitting and it seemed as long as the Snyder Cut.
It’s a superhero movie, what do you expect? It was about as stupid and masturbatory as about half of the Marvel movies and nearly all of the Star Wars movies. I stopped looking for relatability and watertight storytelling in fantasy films about the time of Return of the Jedi.
Val Gadot would be the point!
It’s easily top five worst big budget movies I’ve ever seen. I liked the first WW.
It started out ok even fun. Then I thought I somehow missed something..Then I realized it was really stupid and the final fight was just a big mess. I’m not sure Imax would have saved that.
The visuals weren’t particularly impressive.The story about a female superhero who’s hung up over her first male crush from four decades ago and, since she’s selfish, everyone’s selfish (except for her dead crush), is much worse.
I liked the part where the neon glow of the 80’s aesthetic is prominently featured in the fight with Cheetah.
Not that four decades would’ve been much better, but it was sixty-six years.
Haha sorry. I knew it was WWI but for some reason got it in my mind it was WWII during this thread.
I saw it in IMAX. It didn’t save it. Still, I guess we’ll always have that awesome teaser trailer with the Blue Monday cover. If the film had kept half the energy of that trailer then it might have been a good time.
It’s a weird freaking movie. Why does the cheta lady get turned evil for whishing to be more like Wonder woman?
It lost me when it’s supposedly strong female hero got stuffed into the decades “pining” away for her dead boyfriend box. After WW, I thought Jenkins was much better than to be forced by the suits to make that cliched and misogynistic choice.
LOL after the first WW film she had full creative control this film is what happens when Jenkins is unleashed without oversite.The whole pining away and body possession rape stuff is all Jenkins idea.
Yeah, the action scene at the mall was great and though it would’ve been a perfectly good opener that set the tone for the rest of the movie but everything after that was just bonkers beyond enjoyable and the first 20 minutes on Themyscira was just such a pointless trudge.
Can you even call it a final fight?
She saved the world just by talking.
Which would’ve been acceptable, if she hadn’t just spent the entire movie punching her way through the world.
Yeah the first Wonder Woman was good, but nothing special. It was a good time and was a good watch. This however, was far worse and is borderline unwatchable at times
Even when it came out, everyone willingly forgot thag WW ended with that horrific cgi fight with David Thewlis which was sooo bad. But at least it had a good fish out of water and learning to become a hero story to preceed it.
There was a lot of “good story, shame about the ending” at the time.
Yeah, it would have be painful to see that on a big screen, let alone pay for the privilege.
It was…a true curate’s egg. I watched it on HBO then later at the theater, where the delicious parts were more delicious, and the rotten parts were…pretty rottener. But what I loved in it, I loved.
I couldn’t even finish it.
I’m of the minority opinion that the first one wasn’t too hot shit either.
Maybe if the movie was good it would’ve done better
She should be more heartbroken by what a mediocre film she made.
You’re being incredibly generous by calling it mediocre.
I wish I had watched it on a phone.
I wish I was on the phone whilst watching it.
If I’d have watched it on a plane, I would have walked out! But seriously folks…
Between the douche chill incarnate “Imagine” video, her rock & a hard place comments on the Israel/Palestine War and the layers upon layers of terrible that was Wonder Woman 84 did any (none canceled) actor fall off more than Gal Gadot?
I hope the next movie has the man whose body Wonder Woman repeatedly had sex with while he was unconscious press charges and seek true Justice
Maybe he was conscious and he just wasn’t in control. I’m not sure if that is worse of better? Choose your own adventure.
Right? Either way his body was used for sex without his consent. And it was played for laughs.
Yes, it’s a bad faith argument made by incels, but I’m still going to address it. If you woke up in someone else’s body one day, would you just sit alone in a dark room and do nothing for fear of violating the body you’re in’s consent? Or would you, you know, adapt and live your life?
“Yes, it’s a bad faith argument made by incels”No, it’s not.
Well it’s a bad faith argument. And it’s used by incels.So, uh, yeah it is.
First up, you’re going to have to explain how it’s a bad faith argument.
Second, I frequent incel hangouts, and even if any of those chuds weren’t boycotting the movie, that would have been the last thing they would have complained about.
Because it’s not a position you or Ants genuinely believe, as demonstrated by you, in the other discussion.“It’s not an incel argument, I know, because I’m an incel” is such a brutal self-own.
Waitaminute, incels are super mad because they are “involuntarily celibate” and don’t seem to understand or respect that its a woman decision whether or not to have sex with them… So wouldn’t they be totally cool with someone taking over their body and banging Gal Gadot? Better to be “involuntarily having sex with a beautiful woman” than “involuntarily celibate” in their whole crazy persecution complex, right? I feel like incels would be the ones arguing there was nothing sketchy about this whole icky situation, and then projecting their bullshit on other people, but there definitely isn’t anybody doing that in this comments section…
I’m not an incelologist, but I suspect that they’ll glom onto whichever argument makes it easier to be mad at women.
You’re an idiot
it’s a bad faith argument made by incels{citation needed}
That doesn’t apply to this situation, as both Steve and Diana knew that the endgame was for the body to be returned to its owner when the wish was renounced/the stone was destroyed.Having sex with someone while they are unconscious is rape.
He wasn’t unconscious. Steve was fully conscious.Your qualification doesn’t change anything, but if you’re going to try and move the goalposts; a wizard tells you you’re trapped in that body for a year and will then swap back to your own. Will you stay in bed for a year?
The guy whose body she had sex with was unconscious. And again, your argument doesn’t apply. Steve wasn’t stuck in this body. All Diana had to do was renounce her wish and the body would have been returned to its owner. This wasn’t some scenario where they had no choice. They could have returned this man to his life and body, Steve wasn’t trapped, but instead they chose to put it in dangerous situations and use it to have sex.Again, having sex with someone while they are unconscious is rape, even if they don’t remember it. Especially if they don’t remember it.
He wasn’t unconscious. Steve was very conscious.And if for Steve to get out of the body required the action of someone else, then yes, he is stuck in that body.If you took your bad faith argument and applied it sincerely to a body swap/conscious swap/whatever you want to call it genre situation – You making that body eat a hamburger because you’re hungry is force-feeding an unconscious person. You moving that body into your apartment is kidnapping. You making that body do labour in exchange for money that goes to You is slavery. You getting hard and deciding to jack off in the shower is rape.That’s why you’re refusing to say you’d stay in a dark room if your conscious was transplanted into someone else’s body. Because you know your argument is full of shit.
Ummm…Diana had the power to release Steve from the body. Instead she chose to have sex with it. That was a choice she had. She didn’t have to have sex with him. She could have either released Steve from the body or NOT have sex with an unconscious man’s body. How does your argument explain this? In your scenario, why does Diana have to have sex with him? She’s not trapped and in fact has the power to release Steve.And because you seem to have an issue understanding this, it is NOT okay to have sex with someone’s body just because they are unconscious.
My scenario doesn’t involve Diana at all. It involves you in someone else’s body.
Okay, well my scenario is what actually happened in the movie – Diana had sex with the body of an unconscious man. She wasn’t forced to do this. She chose to do this, all with the knowledge that she had the power to wake this man up from his unconsciousness.
Ok, your scenario is what happened in the movie. Great.Now address my scenario.
Wtf are you talking about? No. If this situation happened to me I would beg the person holding my consciousness captive in a body not my own to let me go because she can choose to do that. And yes, barring that I would remain as alone as possible.
“Waaaaah…you didn’t answer my question even though you made it clear my question is moot”
I have to say, I have frequented this website for years and years, and you might be the dumbest person I’ve ever seen on this website.
DEBATE ME, BRO.
And?
You know, the thing doesn’t matter if “I would stay isolated or get on with my life” – the WRITERS put a problematic scenario in their script that didn’t need to be there. Why not, instead of Quantum Leaping into someone’s body, Steve just appears – poof.There, problem solved, there’s still the trauma of Steve having to go away again, and Wonder Woman doesn’t rape a dude’s body. Easy peasy.
It is important because it clarifies if the person is genuinely arguing what they believe or if they’re making a bad faith argument for other reasons.But if you want to make an argument that there should be no body swap genre at all, that these are writer’s choices, that Quantum Leap, Freaky Friday, Your Name Hear, Heaven Can Wait, etc etc are all immoral movies depicting violations of consent (sexual or otherwise), then you have much bigger issues with superhero movies, which are all fascist ubermensch cops, unencumbered by the constitution or rule of law, who achieve their goals through violence. That is a much bigger issue, with far bigger real life applications, than the philosophical consequences of what happens when you switch bodies with someone, a thing that can never happen.
No, I’m saying that Wonder Woman fucked an unwilling man when two lines of dialogue from the writers would have kept her from being a rapist.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, but I’m pretty sure Steve wasn’t having sex against his will.
Steve wasn’t having sex.
33.3% of that sexual encounter did not consent to be there because of lazy and sloppy writing that could have easily been fixed.
Some guys dig themselves into a hole, realize how they have fucked up, and immediately stop digging before they go any deeper.
Other guys dig themselves into a hole, look up and say, “I can still see daylight. We good.” and keep digging deeper.
You’ve made it clear which guy you are. Need a bigger shovel?
thoughts and prayers to your fellow students and future co-workers
Yes and you’re an idiot
“But if you want to make an argument that there should be no body swap genre at all”
Nobody’s making that argument, but you knew that since you’re ENTIRELY about bad-faith arguments.
I was baffled by why they chose to do it this way. It’s not like they were trying to be science-y (ex: consciousness stored in a computer and need “host body”), it was literally ++magic++. Poof him into existence, poof him back out.It’s not like anyone would come running up, “OMG, you’re Steve Trevor, didn’t you die!”, and they still could’ve done a cutsie “Let’s go shopping!” bit if they wanted him to try on different clothes.FFS, part of me thinks some of the motivation was to do the little thing at the end where she and the dude’s body (with him actually in it) share a little smile (oh, how sweet, she may have found love again …)Speaking of the dude’s body, what exactly happened? Steve ducks behind a column, she goes running off, and, what? The guy wakes up there? His body teleports back to his apartment? Time and space just rewind like nothing actually happened? Hahaha, I don’t even remember the movie 😀
Steve ducks behind a column, she goes running off, and, what?That shit was fucking hilarious. Steve Trevor was such a major part of the film and Diana’s life…and they just have him duck behind a column and ADR some lines while she runs off. They seriously could not come up with literally anything else? Of all the stupid shit in this film, this is the dumbest thing that I don’t think I will ever be able to let go.
The mediocre writing from the first Wonder Woman (because, lets face it – the first one only stood out because the DC movies up to that point were fucking dumpster fires. It was a life raft adrift in a in a sea of poop) and the shit writing of Wonder Woman 2 has me REALLY dreading Patty’s Star Wars movie.
That’s the thing, there’s no on-screen indication whatsoever. My surmise is that he was awake and back in his body immediately. What happened next would depend on whether his consciousness was still in his body and aware during his possession, but unable to act or exert control, or not.If his consciousness was made dormant or shunted off elsewhere, then he’d certainly seek medical attention for all his new bruises and lacerations right away. Then he’d probably consult a neurologist and psychologist/psychiatrist to see if they can determine why he lost so much time and apparently had a dissociative episode. IANAD, but I think he’d need some therapy.If he was aware of everything that was going on while he was forcibly possessed, then he’d probably still seek medical attention for his physical injuries, but wouldn’t need to account for the lost time. But he would need a LOT of therapy after having been made a meat puppet against his will and placed in dangerous and morally questionable (at best) situations.I don’t think the latter is likely, because seeing Diana would probably cause a visceral reaction, bringing back all those memories of when he was possessed.
“He wasn’t unconscious. Steve was very conscious.”
Are YOU conscious? Once for the cheap seats:
Steve. Is. Not. The. Man. She. Had. Sex. With.
So u defend rape, Matthew? Noted. Kinda sounds like maybe you’ve raped someone and don’t consider it to have been rape? I guess what I’m trying to say is I’m sorry that you think rape is a debatable issue. That’s too bad for you.
Yep. Within this film and under the concept created by the writers (anything else is a non sequitur) they effectively used the body of a person who was incapable of granting consent (whether he was unconscious, his soul or whatever was locked away in another dimension or wherever Steve’s soul was after he died, or if he was fully conscious but unable to act like a Goa’uld host in Stargate SG-1) as a human sex toy. Tee hee, how romantic!And they put him in mortal danger, too, several times – I’m going with the assumption that if the body dies while Steve is possessing it, it doesn’t break the curse and the guy pops back up in his apartment, totally OK – without a care in the world.But the overarching thing that bugged me was that they did all this without caring at all about the person they shunted to the side. They were annoyed that he didn’t have a passport, which meant they had to pull off a caper, that was about it. But nothing about any moral implications of sending some innocent person into the Soul Stone or whatever. Because romance! Huzzah!And that applies to either possibility. If Diana’s endgame was to keep Steve around in Hallmark Movie Guy’s body, then she would effectively be murdering an innocent person. The mortal danger part could’ve been an “ends justify the means” thing where they grapple with the moral implications of using that guy’s body as a meat puppet, and it could’ve simply been established with a couple of lines early on. “We’re putting this rando in danger, but we have to save the world.”The big disconnect, I think, is created because we’re seeing Chris Pine and not Hallmark Movie Guy. And, obviously, they weren’t going to have HMG play the role, I totally understand why they did it that way.
No but I’d not SLEEP WITH SOMEONE.
Whoa, how about dialing back the incel comments by 95% there.
Especially given the amount of coverage this website and sites like themarysue.com gave the controversy.The thing is, they could have also just had Steve appear out of nothing or be pulled out of time. He didn’t need to be in someone else’s body. That was a choice the writers made. And that was just a weird decision. The entire time I was thinking about what would happen if I went “missing” for 2-3 days like he did, and all his friends and family that would have lost contact and how Dianna probably got him fired. How violated I would feel coming back into my apartment and seeing someone had gone through all my stuff.But it’s still not as bad as Superman II and Superman Returns where Superman impregnated Lois Lane and then made her forget they had sex.
Are we just going to completely ignore the fact this whole thing is a made up mystical mumbo jumbo that could have been easily resolved by declaring the made up mystical mumbo jumbo could have just worked…. different? Especially when later in the movie, nameless other people who get their wish of dead people returning have those people just magically show up instead of magically taking over someone else’s body. The plot point could have easily be made without causing any problems in the first place.
If your dead lover was magficly in someone else’s body would you sleep with that person is the REAL question to ask? I wouldn’t. it wouldn’t be right
kill yourself
Yes, it’s a bad faith argument made by incelsHappily married father of 3 here, this was creepy and rapey. And the movie was just not very good. Weird that you’re defending this terrible, stupid, poorly thought out movie so vigorously… and also implying everyone who disagrees with your equally terrible, stupid, poorly thought out opinion is an incel.
Yes, I argued that you can’t not like this movie. You’re surely making a good faith argument there.
LMAO deliberately misreading my comment entirely and then criticizing me for arguing in bad faith. You must have attended the Ben Shapiro School for Debate and Projection™. Dude this movie sucked, go die on a better hill. And if you can’t pull yourself out of an internet argument on late stage, tin age AV Club comments, go check out meditation or BetterHelp or something. Fill that hole in your life with meaning, my dude.
“LMAO deliberately misreading my comment.”
*Immediately proves me right.*
You know, just putting “bad faith” in every paragraph doesn’t make your argument any more valid, or sound as smart as you think it does.
Pointing out that there are additional ethical implications to the body takeover is also not the debate-ending rebuttal this guy seems to think it is.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable philosophical question for the scenario. What do incels have to do with it?
Erm, I think I’m pretty certain I could guess what activities might be considered a violation and what would be considered acceptable wear and tear.
Going for lunch and a wee walk: yes.Sleeping with Wonder Woman: no.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I dunno what I’d do if I woke up in someone else body. I do know there’s no reason the magic wishing rock couldn’t have just brought Steve back to life without body theft, it was a magic rock. It would have even saved you some time.
You are ignoring the fact that if the genders had been flipped, and Batman had had sex with a woman who’s body was controlled by Catwoman’s spirit, people would call it rape. I think the fact that you think the actress is attractive is why you are okay with the idea of her having sex with a man who didn’t consent. I think you can at least intellectually understand how people would be furious if a movie had a man have sex with a woman’s body who didn’t consent to it.
Wait, Wonder Woman fucks???
Remember the time Wonder Woman was laying on the grass having sex with the Invisible Man and Superman spotted her?
Handsome Man v. Wonder WomanDawn of True Justice
I mean, considering what he was wearing, he should have expected as much.
Not just sex, but his body was put in mortal danger over and over again. What if Steve Trevor died in that body? What happens to the guy who’s been kicked out?
If it hadn’t been a weird, stupid mess, there were a LOT of good, interesting questions/implications that could’ve been explored, even if only briefly, and doing that could’ve justified having him possess a living person’s body rather than just sort of popping back into existence.But no, she decided to play that part of it mostly for laughs when it was brought up at all and provide no good reason whatsoever why she chose that route. Well, unless it was purely to have that little moment at the end of the movie, but even that was something out of a psychological horror film given what she’d (that is, Diana) had done.Really, having him just appear, maybe as he was immediately before he died, would’ve been a hell of a visual, and almost certainly more striking than the reveal we got.
Please let Marvel parody that in the She-Hulk show. She had a similar-ish case in the comics representing Starfox (Thanos’ good brother/sometimes Avengers who can manipulate people’s emotions… and let’s just say he’s not always consensual about it).
Wow this thread really took off for a concept they can’t accurately be debated because the entire concept of what happened exists outside of objective reality.
I’m pretty sure that’s the reason she was in hiding during Batman V Superman and wiping any evidence of her existing there. No records, no proof!
I don’t know. I kind of wish someone would switch bodies with me so I could have sex with Gal Gadot.
I still don’t get the need for directors to keep giving this incredibly lukewarm take. Yeah it sucks that the movie you made, a labor of love, didn’t get a full theatrical run. But also…cope. It’s not personal. It’s the result of a global pandemic that has killed ~4.5 million people (so far).Like, what do you want, Patty Jenkins? If you’re concerned that post-COVID, production companies will continue to cut theatrical runs short so they can move them to their exclusive streaming platforms, talk to your very good union (and the PGA and SAG) about that, as well as movie theater chains, and ensure that contracts stipulate theatrical releases. If you just want us to throw you a pity party, tough shit.
But trainwrecks are typically best seen on the big screen.
Audiences didn’t get to fully grasp the important cinematography of scenes where Wonder Woman is still hung up over a guy she did her first mission with for a week 40 years ago (but her FIRST male she ever met) or that she non-consensually had sex with a guy who got possessed by her dead first male acquaintance because it was the only thing she wanted in the world.In IMAX it all would’ve been much more impactful.Also when she lassos that cloud and fights a cat and begs people to renounce their wishes because clearly no one in the world would wish anything good and not-selfish if Wonder Woman couldn’t. Would’ve all perfectly if it were watched on the Big Screen.
The biggest headscratcher among a series of headscratchers is why the wishing stone didn’t just pull Steve Trevor out of the ether, rather than transfer his consciousness into a random stranger.
Jenkins doesn’t seem like a particularly good writer. Something fantastical like a superhero movie might be way out of her depths.She might be able to pull out good performances, relatively speaking, from her actors, but her writing is, wooooof.
LOL. Seriously, whoever greenlit that script had to have been high.
Ding ding dingWithout the psychological phenomena surrounding “I am going to a place to see a thing that I’m paying money for, which means I’m much more likely to be charitable to it,” these big-budget movies are starting to realize that when they’re evaluated on their own merits, they…kinda suck.
And WW84 was a turd. An absolute turd. You can do better, Patty. Get better writers, take the L, move on.
You’re Amy Schumer!
“ But also…cope. It’s not personal. It’s the result of a global pandemic that has killed ~4.5 million people (so far).”“If you just want us to throw you a pity party, tough shit.”<3
At least she got seen. I feel bad for all the filmmakers who lost their shot when the festivals they were supposed to screen at were cancelled, and they lost their audiences with them.
Yeah Party Jenkins will probably get another shot at directing things. Indie directors that scrapped together money to make just 1 movie that got accepted to a festival, potentially their big break, may never get another opportunity.
1000% more sympathy for someone in that situation, or for a musician who has to cancel a tour or something where it actually impacts your day-to-day income.
talk to your very good union (and the PGA and SAG) about that, as well as movie theater chains, and ensure that contracts stipulate theatrical releases. Presumably you missed the part of the article that states she was speaking to CinemaCon. So yes, she was literally talking to the movie theater chains.If you just want us to throw you a pity party, tough shit. Given that she was not talking to you, it’s unlikely she wants that from you at all. I still don’t get the need for directors to keep giving this incredibly lukewarm take. You don’t get why a director speaking to the people who would exhibit her future movies would tell them exactly what they would want to hear? Okay. What should she have said? “Hi, theater owners. I LOVED the hybrid release. I’m a BIG fan of day-and-date that cuts into your profits and I hope to use it forever. … I don’t make movies for the big screen experience!”Right.
After WW’84 I wouldn’t hire her to write a commercial. Her direction was competent so she could direct said commercial, just not write it.
I can see Patty might have had motivation to present that position to that audience, but once she says it, it’s hers, and she is officially on the record blaming the hybrid environment for the flop of her movie. Maybe she would have been better off waiting until whenever people feel safe going to theaters again, if that’s what’s going to happen. Taking a step back from the speech, if a movie can’t attract viewers for a streaming release during a time when more people are watching movies at home than ever before, maybe it’s not all HBO Max’s fault. I think WW84 was an uninspiring dud movie and no releasing tricks could have made it into a success. But that’s just my opinion.
The pandemic just pushed up the expiration date of big screen exclusivity. You won’t hear directors whine for too much longer since the idea of “day and date” is being written into every contract from now on.
But also…cope.Given the rise of “cope” and “copium” and variations thereof that popped up in certain white chuds-filled, alt right-adjacent circles in recent times, I really can’t see that word and not actually physically cringe anymore. Fuck, so this is how it feels like to have assholes ruin a word.
I suppose they were emboldened, seeing as they were able to somewhat successfully co-opt the OK symbol.
why are you like this
Can you pointy to an article where it shows a theater was a super spreader? No you cant.
Theaters are safe.
She said herself it was “the best choice of a bunch of very bad choices” so it sounds like she is incredibly disappointed yet has perspective on the reality of the situation. People can still be heartbroken with the various ways COVID has impacted their lives, yet still be thankful it didn’t kill them.
“yet has perspective on the reality of the situation.”
Yeah, sure.
go fuck yourself lol!
I mean, she literally said it was “the best choice of a bunch of very bad choices.” I don’t see much of a reason to get upset that she’s disappointed but understanding about the way things played out.
Yeah, it’s not like your income depends on the thing getting seen in theatres – you got paid already!
i don’t really get the point of directors giving these interviews. like, look, i love going to movies in the theatre (hate wearing a mask for the 2’ish hours, though [i’m in toronto, masks are still mandated]) and it feels like directors are trying to rally the troops to argue for theatre releases only…but i’m not going to argue against my own best interests.this day-and-date party is going to stop sometime (or become more expensive, or worse, like all things) and frankly i’m loving it! especially with a movie like ww84 which i would have been incredible disappointed with if i’d paid 25 bucks and risked my life to see in a theatre.if anything this just makes directors comes off as whiny, which i don’t necessarily think is the case but that’s how it comes off. like, obviously i GET IT, but IMO the general public is not going to make ‘movies only coming out in the theatre again’ a huge rallying point when people are still dying.
i don’t really get the point of directors giving these interviews.Context does matter, she was speaking at a convention of theater chain operators not giving an interview for general publication. I mean yeah she should still expect it to be reported but it is kind of different than complaining about it publicly, I really don’t think she was doing it for sympathy. I have the feeling there might also be some effort here to explain why the movie failed to protect her future options.
Amen. Seriously, they get paid millions of dollars for doing something they love to do. How many people in this world can say that or be in the position they are in? They all need to suck it the fuck up and also shut the fuck up.
That’s how I feel about it. If your suffering because of Covid is that you lost out on even more millions of dollars than the millions you made anyway, or that audiences didn’t get to see your movie in a theater, cry me a river. Rest assured, there are millions of people out there who would embrace that form of suffering over the dose they’ve received.
Literally everything I wanted to say, only much better. Thank you. 🙂
Money. Patty Jenkins wants the percentage of the box office that her signing the agreement to make the film was predicated on. None of these “auteurs” give a damn about where their movies are shown as long as they get their money. Hanging their hats on artistic integrity and the sanctity of the theater “experience” as the “right way” to seem movies was a mistake that their unions made in an attempt to take the moral high ground in the court of public opinion. In reality, they should have just told the damn truth that the studios are using COVID-19/Streaming as a loophole to keep more of the BOATLOADS more money their making from combined Theatrical and streaming releases. (See: Scarlet Johannessen )Also: Wonder Woman 1984 was a shitty movie by all accounts.
talk to your very good union (and the PGA and SAG) about that, as well as movie theater chains, and ensure that contracts stipulate theatrical releasesActors/directors/etc. should be talking to their agents, not their unions, and not about exclusive theatrical releases, but to make sure their contracts include appropriate compensation for streaming deals.Honestly, any smart agents/lawyers should have been negotiating for that even pre-COVID.
Look at the other way. Jenkins is asked to give a speech at CinamaCon. She’s being asked to speak about the current state of cinema, which is exactly this. A very specific crowd. 20 years ago, Variety and some film magazine might report it. Done. Now, it’s on AVClub and everyone thinks she’s a complainer.This is repeated daily. Martin Scorsese didn’t go looking for a pulpit to trash Marvel movies. Someone asked in an interview. He’s got takes. Why shouldn’t he speak his mind—it’s just one guy?
Every day people of note are upset because people have a personal take. Jenkins said it was the best of bad choices. I am sure, moving forward, she will negotiate a deal with all of this in mind. Still, is she just supposed to pretend it was a good deal? Say nothing? I’m happy for her to speak and then move on.
Blatant errors in this article:“heartbreaking,” and, “the best choice of a bunch of very bad choices.” —> “heartbreaking” and “the best choice of a bunch of very bad choices.”large, enclosed boxes —> large enclosed boxesmovietheaters —> movie theaters9-figure —> nine-figure
Why did they need to make Diana a rapist? What was with the Islamaphobic shit?
Oh cool, a bad faith take from Laserface.
I don’t personally recall any Islamophobia, but they definitely chose some super-sketchy sexual politics for Diana and Steve for zero thematic or narrative reason.
There was no sketchy sexual politics and it was for thematic reasons (there’s no magic cure all to loss and magic-paw, be careful what you wish for) , so, uh, wrong on both counts?
“There was no sketchy sexual politics”An innocent bystander’s body was used as a sex toy without his consent. If you can’t see how sketchy that is, you got problems.“(there’s no magic cure”A point that could have easily been made by…Steve not having to inhabit someone else’s body. It’s magic, for fuck’s sake. You can literally do it a million ways other than the way they chose.
Yes, it’s magic. If it’s magic without consequence then it’s “magic is awesome” which is the opposite of the theme.That’s why you’re not a writer. If you woke up in someone else’s body one day, would you just sit alone in a dark room and do nothing for fear of violating the body you’re in’s consent? Or would you, you know, adapt and live your life?
This has to be a bit.
It is. The bit is you continuing to argue a bad faith incel argument despite the fact it doesn’t hold up to even the mildest of lights.I’m going to take the fact that you can’t answer that question as evidence that you’ve realised you’re wrong, but still don’t want to admit it, so will try a hand at ad-hominem.
*InB4 “Yep, it’s a bit.”*
It’s weirdly unfunny how much you defend rape.
It has to be right?
If the magic stone can conjure nukes from thin air what’s stopping it from just conjuring Steve a new body? Why does it have to overwrite some other guy’s body?
“If the magical stone does bad things, why can’t it do good things with zero consequences or caveats that contradict the theme of the movie.”- Laserface, the smart movie guy.(Also, it doesn’t conjure things out of thin air, it “trades”, but that kind of narrative pedantry is less important and less interesting to the bigger issues of theme)
Now you’ve hit the Thermian Argument…Short version: In-universe explanations for a controversial decision do not excuse out out-of-universe criticisms of said controversy. The stone is literally magic, there is no reason for it to just overwrite some other guy’s body.
I don’t even know where to begin with how wrong you are on this one. You’re the one who brought up the in-universe logic. I’m the one who’s trying to keep it in the discussion of bigger ideas of theme. It just also happens you didn’t understand the in-universe logic which is why I pointed out where you went wrong in *addition* to my main argument.
It just also happens you didn’t understand “MARTHA WAS BRILLIANT YOU JUST DID NOT GET IT LOL”
This shitty movie had shitty themes.
How many people do you rape in between comments?
“I don’t even know where to begin with how wrong you are on this one.”
Have you considered trying to start at the beginning?
This is a neat video, with an interesting theory. But I don’t know if I agree with the guy’s conclusion, which would essentially mean fictional work can never be defended from certain types of criticism because in-universe explainations don’t matter.I think they can and do. So my Game of Thrones rewatch continues, and I acutally just saw “Unbound Unbent and Unbroken” yesterday. A controversial epsiode that seemed to turn everybody against Season 5 as a whole (which I’m finding to be great on revisit). What happened to Sansa is upsetting, but given what we know about these characters, the story as established, and the context of the show, It’s nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, rewatching it, alot of it is implied and I dare say (I’ll get flack for this for sure) done as tastefully as possible; The scene is rather tame compared to other things GoT had done and shown up to this point. Diagetic arguments can be valid if, as the guy in the video puts it: “controversial elements are internally consistent with the rest of the story world.”Now as for Wonder Woman 1984, there is literally no acknowledgement of the ramifications of what Diana is doing with another man’s body, and even the explaination of magic is cancelled out when the filmmaking establishes that we’re only seeing what Diana is seeing. What’s internally consistent in the world of the movie is that it’s still physically another human being. And they never reconcile this. It’s such a huge fumble by the movie, I find it hard to defend
1. I don’t think the video’s conclusion was that “fictional work can never be defended from certain types of criticism because in-universe explanations don’t matter.” The video’s point was that you cannot assume a diagetic argument shuts down or invalidates criticism by default. It counters the idea that a fictional work merely be internally consistent for it to be above reproach, and that’s hogwash.2. I actually agree with you about that scene in Game of Thrones. It is horrific, and completely consistent with what you would expect from a series of this nature. It is not fetishized or glamorous in any way, and – for lack of any better phrasing – contributes to the victim’s character development. Her perspective throughout the rest of the series is relevantly changed based on this horrible moment in her life.Now, if the argument is, we should never depict this ever in a fictional setting? I won’t go down that rabbit hole, but that’s a different conversation entirely.3. Agreed on WW84, what a mess of a plot thread that was with Steve.
Except Diana losing her powers was the consequence to the wish. Steve being in someone else’s body wasn’t treated as a consequence at all. They never once considered the safety of the guy Steve possessed. Steve risked his life multiple times without thinking of what would happen to the body if he was hurt or killed.
You’re confusing narrative consequence with thematic consequence.Anyway, that’s the point of my question; if you were in a body switch situation, would you stay in a room and do nothing, or would you adapt and live your life?
I would try to figure out why and how the body swap happened, then I would do everything I can to try to reverse it.
During this time I would be extra careful with the body. Think of how you would treat a car that someone let you borrow. Are you going to be extra careful while driving it? Are you going to do anything with it that you don’t think the owner would approve of? Or are you going to drive it around like a madman, get into accidents, risk wrecking it, and fuck it? I would only start treating the body as my own after I’ve done everything I can to undo the swap and I’ve done enough research to reach the conclusion that the swap cannot be undone.
“Are you going to do anything with it that you don’t think the owner would approve of? Or are you going to drive it around like a madman, get into accidents, risk wrecking it, and fuck it?”That sound like a lot of fun but I’d probably draw the line at fucking the car. For my own safety, if nothing else.
If I was involuntarily and temporarily transferred into someone else’s body, I would take care of it until such a time as the original owner came back. I absolutely wouldn’t have sex unless the previous body owner had said it was OK, and I would expect anyone in my body to do the same.Literally all the movie had to do was choose a body of someone about to die and make it clear that the OG body owner was never coming back. Or even better, just bring back Steve’s body as well. Then there wouldn’t be any questions about consent.
So you would never eat anything unhealthy? Never jack off? Never exchange your body’s labour for money? Never return to your wife or lover? Would you eat a strictly vegan diet in case the guy was a vegan? Would you avoid alcohol in case the body was a teetotaler? Would you pray to Mecca five times a day in case the guy was Muslim? Is that seriously what you would do? What if the person had children. Would you raise their children, robbing that person from their right to raise and bond with their children how they want, as well as having those children raised by and bond with a stranger? Or would you neglect their children sabotaging that person’s relationship with their children and damaging the children?“All the movie had to do was contradict itself and be about something different so as to appease my bad faith argument.”- brilliantmistake, the modern Ebert.
Yes, I would eat healthy. I would eat vegan. I would avoid alcohol if that person was a teetotaller, and I would expect them to do the same in my body. I would care for their children while actively seeking a way to get that person back into their body so that they could get back to their life. If someone lets you stay in their house for a little while, do you trash the place? Do you remodel without their permission? Do you sell all their furniture so they come back to an empty place? But this is all a bad faith argument on your part because we’re not talking about having a cheeto, we’re talking about using a body for sex without consent. That’s the issue. And yes, it’s bad writing. The rules of this movie were not set in stone by an outside authority, they were made by the writers. They wrote in the contradictions and lack of consent when tyhere were very easy ways to avoid both.
“I would avoid alcohol if that person was a teetotaller”How would you know?Also, as someone who is not a teetotaller I have drunken to excess at times when I have decided to cut down on my drinking. Will power isn’t a constant. Are you saying that you’ve never ever had a weak will at any point in time? Or that being in someone else’s body would magically give you a strong and consistent will power.“I would care for their children”So you would violate that person’s consent? Shouldn’t that person get to decide the care their children get? Or decide who gets to raise their children when they can’t? Why do you get to make that decision for them.“If someone lets you stay in their house for a little while, do you trash the place? Do you remodel without their permission?”No. But if someone told me I couldn’t be with my girlfriend because I was staying in their house, I wouldn’t listen to them.“But this is all a bad faith argument on your part because we’re not talking about having a cheeto, we’re talking about using a body for sex without consent.”But the argument is that it’s sex without consent is because Steve Trevor makes the decision. Steve Trevor makes the decision about everything that’s done with the body. If you were in the same situation it would be the same thing. You can say that someone eating meat against their will is not a big deal, but it’s still a consent issue. And that’s why I offered a variety of situations, from eating meat against their will, to kidnapping and slavery, to avoid you trying this false argument. It didn’t stop you though.
Steve Trevor makes a decision to have sex with a body that isn’t his without the consent of that body’s owner. And yes, it’s a much, much bigger deal that having a hamburger. That’s why we have laws about rape. It’s a big deal. You’re using a variety of arguments to distract from the fact that you are wrong about the actual argument, whether it’s OK to use someone else body for sex without their consent.
“Steve Trevor makes a decision to have sex with a body that isn’t his without the consent of that body’s owner.”You’ve already admitted you would make decisions if you were in someone else’s body without the consent of that body’s owner.“And yes, it’s a much, much bigger deal that having a hamburger.”But a comparable deal to kidnapping and slavery, which you’ve danced around.“Whether it’s OK to use someone else body for sex without their consent.”In the context of this movie, that is a bad faith argument as you have been consistently demonstrating.
It’s not kidnapping or slavery to not rape the body you have involuntarily and temporarily been put into.
It is kidnapping to take someone’s body to a place against its consent. It’s also kidnapping to take someone else’s children and raise them without their parent’s consent. And it’s slavery to exchange someone else’s labour for money. Those are all very likely consequences of a body swap.There’s two positions here that “Diana’s a rapist is built on.”1) if you’re in someone’s body and you do something with it without that owner’s permission, you are violating their consent. That means not just that Diana and Steve are rapists, but that everything Steve does in that movie is a violation of consent, ranging from small infractions to gigantic. It also means every body swap movie is guilty of violating consent, ranging from small infractions to gigantic. That means the body swap genre is immoral.2) if you’re in someone’s body, strict deontological arguments about consent can’t apply to the genre in this context because a person can not function if they’re in someone else’s body whilst needing that body’s owner’s consent in order to do things. So everything else that happens in the body swap genre is ok. However, Diana and Steve are are still rapists for some reason.
No, the argument is not about consent for everything little thing. It’s about consent over sex. That’s it. Having sex without consent. It’s a different thing than anything else. That’s why we have laws about it.
“No, the argument is not about consent for everything little thing. It’s about consent over sex.”Exactly it’s bad faith. You don’t seriously subscribe to the consent consequences of the genre, you’re applying it in this 1 exception because of reasons unrelated.“ That’s why we have laws about it.”Uh, we have laws about slavery and kidnapping.
Again, it’s not slavery or kidnapping to not rape the body you are temporarily in. You realize that sex without consent is wrong so you try to distract from the by saying that because the OG body owner can’t give consent to everything that it is therefore 100% okee dokee to do everything without his consent. As everyone in this entire thread has pointed out to you, the violation of nonconsensual sex is far, far different than the violation of having a hamburger. You even acknowledge this in your reply about not trashing everything in the friend house you’re staying in. There are somethings you will do, but others you won’t. You recognize a spectrum of wrongness and harm. You might have sex with your girlfriend there, but you wouldn’t sell all the furniture and set the house on fire.
“Again, it’s not slavery or kidnapping to not rape the body you are temporarily in.”But it is kidnapping to force someone’s body to another location against its will. It’s also kidnapping to assume guardianship of someone’s kids without the parent’s permission. And its slavery to force it to labour in exchange for money you’re getting.But I guess we can chalk up your inconsistency to you genuinely believe “rape = bad, kidnapping + slavery = good”Or, you know it’s not rape and you’re just making a bad faith argument.Either one.
Basically when you find yourself involuntarily inside someone else’s body, a policy of do the least harm while tying to resolve the situation i in order. This means-Taking good care of the body, the best care as possible. If you know the requirement of the previous owner (such as religious restrictions) follow those. If not, do your best.-Trying to avoid the person losing their livelihood. This isn’t slavery, it’s the policy of least harm and good stewardship.-Ensuring that their children, if any, are cared for. This is so far from kidnapping it’s not even in the same galaxy. Again, we’re making the best of an involuntary, unplanned situation. The path of least harm is to ensure the kids are safe as we work to return their parents to them. The children have been abandoned not kidnapped. And the guy who was kidnapped in the film didn’t have kids so it truly is the stupidest of arguments-Don’t rape the body. Seems like an obvious one, but here we are.
“Basically when you find yourself involuntarily inside someone else’s body, a policy of do the least harm while tying to resolve the situation i in order. This means”It should mean don’t kidnap or force it into slavery, and yet you seem to be ok with that. If the issue is consent, then you don’t have it in those contexts either. It’s almost as if you’re purposely being inconsistent because this is really about something else. But it couldn’t be that, could it?
Again, you seem to think that because you can’t ask for consent for the little things, there’s no point in getting consent for the big things, like rape. Caring temporarily for someone’s abandoned kids (a total non-issue here as the guy had no kids) is not kidnapping. Moving around is not slavery. And if you think those thing are kidnapping and slavery )they aren’t but let’s buy into your delusion for a moment) that’s not an excuse to pile rape on top of the crime heap. The point should be to do the least amount of harm as possible. So no rape, which is a thing I can’t even believe I have to explain in 2021, but then again it’s a year where people are taking de-worming meds instead of a proven vaccine, so here we are.
“Exactly it’s bad faith.”
Because not eating vegan is the same thing as rape.
We get it.
Matthew: “Rape is the best!”
As a compromise, how about I just have sex with the hamburger?
Sorry, the cow didn’t consent.
Well, I’m pretty sure I heard it asking for ‘moo-re’I’ll see myself out…
No, a Pizza Hut stuffed pizza crust. Trust me. I mean, I read about it on the internet…
“You’ve already admitted you would make decisions if you were in someone else’s body without the consent of that body’s owner.
Hi, rapist.
You’re legit a moron
We’ll compromise: he will rape a hamburger.
“How would you know?”
OHHHHHH, I get it know.
Diana didn’t know that the guy whose body she stole to put someone else’s consciousness didn’t want to have sex with her, so it was OK!
I want to party with this guy!
“So you would never eat anything unhealthy? Never jack off? Never exchange your body’s labour for money? Never return to your wife or lover? Would you eat a strictly vegan diet in case the guy was a vegan? Would you avoid alcohol in case the body was a teetotaler? Would you pray to Mecca five times a day in case the guy was Muslim?”
Ah, so those are ALL equivalent to RAPE.
Thank you for explaining.
I’d get offensive neck and face tattoos, and then after I switched back I’d try to find them and see the look on their face!
Perhaps a tattoo saying “Steve Trevor wuz here”
“Anyway, that’s the point of my question; if you were in a body switch situation, would you stay in a room and do nothing, or would you adapt and live your life?”
WE GET IT, you’d rape everyone we could.
Can you PLEASE move on?
But there was no switch. The other guy didn’t end up in Steve’s body. His spirit/soul/whatever was in the sunken place or wherever, and was lucky that his meatsack didn’t get killed until Diana renounced her wish.
“You’re confusing narrative consequence with thematic consequence.”
Neither are present in this film when it comes to this issue. The only narrative consequence of Steve inhabiting someone else’s body is that the guy didn’t have a passport, which doesn’t matter, because if they just brought Steve back in his own body he also *wouldn’t have a passport.*
There are no thematic consequences to Steve inhabiting someone else’s body. No one ever considers the morality of Steve possessing that guy’s body. Not Steve and not Diana. It is literally not treated as a problem for the entire film. Steve and Diana only decide to have her renounce her wish once they realize it has caused Diana’s powers to weaken, which again could have been true even if Steve wasn’t in someone else’s body.“Anyway, that’s the point of my question; if you were in a body switch situation, would you stay in a room and do nothing, or would you adapt and live your life?”
I would like to believe that I would not bang someone in someone else’s body the very first night I find myself in that body, and I am not a movie hero associated with a huge feat of self-sacrifice. If I did lose my willpower and do this, I would at least feel bad about it, something we did not see from Steve or Diana at all. I would at least consider how long I might be in this body and whether I have a right to live in it that overrides the right of its original occupant, again, a thing that neither Steve nor Diana considered.
I wanted to love this movie. I still love parts of it. But I have to pretend that the whole “Steve in someone else’s body” thing didn’t happen. This is surprisingly easy to do, because that whole thing could have been edited out and, other than a few scenes that take place at the dude’s apartment taking place at Diana’s instead, it would have had literally zero effect on the plot or themes of the movie.
“Neither are present in this film when it comes to this issue.”Thematic consequence: You can’t solve pain through “wishing”, anything achieved this way will not be real, it’s just a delusion you’ve given into, and anyone who is selling it to you as something different is a Trumpian snake-oil salesman that is exploiting you.Narrative consequence: The wish stone isn’t an all powerful conjurer, it’s a trader. The wish stone makes Cheetah more like Diana because Diana traded her essence to bring Steve back not because it could conjure those powers. The implication is that Steve can be put into a body because someone else made a wish earlier that cost them their body, not that it can conjure a new body but just decided not to for no reason. This is narratively important not just because it limits the wish stone from being omnipotent and unbeatable, but essentially drives the entire plot – Pablo needs to make these trades to achieve his goal.“I would like to believe that I would not bang someone in someone else’s body the very first night I find myself in that bod”So it’s rape not because he didn’t have consent but because the timing a guy who has been dead 70 years gave in to the pleasures of the flesh?That’s an even weirder bad faith argument than the other one.“ would at least feel bad about it”If I woke up in someone else’s body, I would have no qualms about returning to my own life, including being with my girlfriend.
“Thematic consequence: You can’t solve pain through “wishing”, anything achieved this way will not be real, it’s just a delusion you’ve given into, and anyone who is selling it to you as something different is a Trumpian snake-oil salesman that is exploiting you.”
All of this would still be clear even if Steve were not in someone else’s body.
You’re trying to argue both that a) it wasn’t wrong of Steve and Diana to fuck in someone else’s body and b) the movie makes it clear that it was wrong for Steve to inhabit someone else’s body. Both of these things cannot be true, and neither of them are true. What is true is that it was wrong of Steve and Diana to fuck in someone else’s body, and the movie has no idea.
“Narrative consequence: The wish stone isn’t an all powerful conjurer, it’s a trader.”
Yes, it traded Steve for Diana’s powers. That was the only trade that actually came up in the plot in a way anyone cared about. No one cared about the guy who had his body hijacked.
“The implication is that Steve can be put into a body because someone else made a wish earlier that cost them their body,”
Absolutely nowhere is that implied. No one else had even touched the dreamstone at that point in the movie. Certainly not the guy whose body Steve took over. You’re just making things up at this point.
“So it’s rape not because he didn’t have consent but because the timing a guy who has been dead 70 years gave in to the pleasures of the flesh?”
No, it’s rape because he didn’t have consent. It’s even worse because it wasn’t like Steve was stuck in this guy’s body with no way out. It wasn’t a scenario where he just had to move on with his life, which would be understandable. He just finds himself in someone else’s body and immediately says “Mine now” and neither he nor Diana show any interest in figuring out where this guy’s consciousness went or how to get him back. For two characters that have been clearly established as self-sacrificing heroes, this doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t work on any level. Any *halfway decent* person would consider these things in this situation. They didn’t.“If I woke up in someone else’s body, I would have no qualms about returning to my own life, including being with my girlfriend.”
Without a single consideration to the person whose body you’re in? If so, you’re a terrible person.
If I ended up in someone else’s body, I might eat some food and watch TV until I was able to switch back. Having sex brings up loads more ethical issues. You know this. Don’t play dumb.
Your question might have some relevance if only the name of the movie was Steve Trevor 84….
If that whole thing were like one or two scenes, with her or him undoing it before they had sex, it would have been fine. Duh, I guess. But yeah, pretty much everything about it was just no. And some of it was sooooo long! Trying on outfits! Being scared of escalators!!!! Ugh.
Oh my God, shut the fuck up already.
kill yourself
there’s no magic cure
In the comics the Dreamstone holds a portion of Dream of the Endless’ soul and is able to manifest dreams into the real world. But the catch is what manifests isn’t real, even though it’s tangible it’s still just a dream and the stone can also manifest dangerous nightmares.
They could have easily crafted a story where Diana has to come to terms with the fact that this Steve isn’t the real Steve but an idealized version of Steve from her dreams and she has to let him go and destroy the Dreamstone because the real world is being torn apart by dreams and nightmares invading reality. Having finally mourned and said goodbye to “Steve” Diana is able to let go and move on with her life.
I didn’t go to film school, I don’t know a huge deal about DC Comics, and within five minutes I was able to come up with a rough outline for a story where Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor don’t end up violating some random stranger’s body autonomy.
There was a lot of anti-Arabic attitudes the minute Egypt came up. Its hard not to think co-producer Gal Gadot had a hand in this, along with lowkey racist centrist Geoff Johns and Patty “lets make this IDF soldier into a famous Egyptian ruler” Jenkins.
kill yourself
The former was a bad implication that someone involved with the movie should have seen coming, but I don’t think it really had “Islamophobic shit”. It didn’t even mention Islam at all, if I recall correctly?
At the very least, it was exceptionally questionable to set that chunk of the movie in the Middle East. You’re in the 80s! The USSR is right there!
Because there was a gasleak and everyone went nucking futs with story ideas before they all sobered up.
This really was one of those films which really needed to make it clear that they neutralised everyone’s memory of the events (either erasing or at least dissociating) because the trauma and effects on society from the fallout from the memory of the events would be catastrophic and a really big continuity problem for films set post 1984 (which is all of them – basically society wouldn’t be like it is if everyone clearly remembered what happened in WW84).
Well that would explain why everyone is an asshole in Batman v Superman.
Also why Batman can’t get over his dead parents, because he 100% had them come back to life for like a day and a half when he was seven.
I wonder if Jenkins secretly hoped that, had the movie been a megahit, they would just start the whole DC continuity over from there.I think it would be cool to see new Supermen and Batmen set in the 80s and 90s, without all the selfie social media horseshit that’s always the clumsiest part of these movies when they try to work it in. And for kids today it would just make the movie world seem that much more fantastical.
“and a really big continuity problem”For it to be a problem, the DCCU would need to actually have continuity in the first place.
I’m trying to be charitable here, even if by omission.
Or you could just recognise the genre it’s in.
the MCU’s in the same genre they manage to do a good job with continuality.
Making a bit of an effort is sufficient at a Suicide Squad/The Suicide Squad level is nice (Captain Boomerang and Harley Quinn in the latter appear to have met before.)Ergo, maybe walk back just a bit more such a global event as the one with WW84 where everyone got such incredibly overpowered wishes because otherwise society really wouldn’t be like how it’s shown in all those other movies set post the year 1984.
The genre of rapey comic book movies? OK.
It’s funny that WW84 and Suicide Squad (the original) are both DCEU movies that were both at their best when you saw their trailers (WW84 with the “Blue Monday” trailer, and Suicide Squad with the “Ballroom Blitz” trailer).
A really neat marketing tie-in would be for them to find a way to also erase the audience’s memory of the events as well.
Wait until you hear about the snap in the MCU. They had kids back to school a week after they were resurrected after being dead for five years!
You’re… giving superhero movies WAY too much credit. If we want/need our fantasy movies to be seamless and fully realistic… maybe we should just watch movies about actual people who would liquify when thrown across New York?
Before 2020, I would have wondered the same thing too. But now? With all the “The virus is a hoax!” bullshit running around, the ability to ignore a global catastrophe doesn’t shock me anymore.
Kinda irked that they made WW pine(see what I did there) so hard for a man when’s she’s in canon Bisexual and lives on a island full of gorgeous warrior woman. Like she knew dude for a week and held that torch for 40 years
I think it’s fair to feel really bummed out that your work was released in a way that didn’t favor it. But uh, maybe… maybe calling not having your movie released only in theatres “such a dark time” isn’t the greatest take. Not gonna bury her for it, just kind of… oof.
Honestly if I had watched WW 84 on a phone it could not have made the experience any worse then it was on my home theater. It was such a shitty movie
“It was such a dark time,” she noted, in reference to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the release of her superhero movie.My aunt died from Covid last spring. It was early in the pandemic, and no one could even attend her funeral because of lockdown restrictions. It hurt, going through that, but I don’t like to talk about it because there were other people who had to watch WW84 on their phones. It was such a dark time.
Hey. This is an online forum dedicated to things that aren’t real. We don’t allow perspective here.
“I don’t think it plays the same on streaming.”Yes, maybe that hour-long stretch of the quote-unquote superhero movie where nothing happens but the same guy getting beaten up twice really needed the big screen in order to resonate.
A jet sitting on the Smithsonian runway(?) ready to fly would have played better in IMAX, trust me!
Especially since all you need to fly a modern jet aircraft when the last plane you flew was a biplane, 15 years after the first successful powered flight, is wind and air!But not fuel, apparently.
And a guy who only flew WWI era biplanes would figure out how to fly a modern jet in less than a minute.
DUDE. BRO. IMAGINE FLYING THRU THE FIREWORKS….BUT ON IMAX. BRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH
That was a beautifully shot scene. It just didn’t make any sense.
Yes, maybe that hour-long stretch of the quote-unquote superhero movie where nothing happens but the same guy getting beaten up twice really needed the big screen in order to resonate.This is a real pet-peeve of mine. How do you make a superhero movie (especially a single superhero movie) that’s longer than Apocalypse Now?
I’m still a little upset that HBO Max doesn’t seem to have any of the other 82 Wonder Woman movies in between the first one and WW84. I still haven’t seen 84 because I’m worried I’ll be confused by the continuity.
Eh, you’re not missing anything if you skip Wonder Woman 49.
Wonder Woman 69 is a must-see. Yes, I am 12 years old.
I want to go to there.
Homina homina homina!
This sort of just reminds me of the episode of BoJack Horsemen where they are talking about mass shootings from the perspective of industry people like,
“Its so sad, you always hear about mass shootings affecting other peoples movie openings, but you never think their going to affect your movie opening… of course my thoughts and prayers go out to the families.”
And,
“Such a shame, she was a great film, cut down in the prime of her life.”
Ms. Taken was such a good bit
LOL, if COVID had never happened and this was released in theaters it would have been torn apart even more viciously than it did already. Warner would have likely lost just as much money.
To avoid heartbreak next time, listen to your damn editor & any and all pointless scenes from your movie. Never have I been so impatient for the credits to roll on a movie then I was while watching WW84.
I believe the producers told her she could either have the long competition sequence or the long mall sequence in the beginning but not both, but she held out so we could all benefit from her artistic vision.
You scoff, but thanks to Jenkins artistic vision the world now has a cure for insomnia & a number of sleep related disorders.
Stop handwringing over how it was released and handwring over the fact it was a shit movie.
I think they kind of dodged a bullet on this film. If there was no COVID and they had a regular release with all the advertising of a big blockbuster film, the reception would have been way worse. It would have been on the level of Batman & Robin or Superman III and IV.
Covid huh? And here I was thinking that the movie faceplanted because it was, you know, kind of shit.
And at the time, I think people were really rooting for it.
She obviously doesn’t attend movies with the general public, what with their inability to turn off their cellphones and all. Get rid of that first, and you’ll get a better draw in the theaters.
Whose response was worse: Patty Jenkins in this article, or Gal Gadot having millionaires singing “Imagine” together from their mansions?Maybe try to make your movie good next time and it’ll have a longer tail.Disney’s shown how good content people actually want to watch, then tell their friends to watch, drives massive subscriber numbers. (Yes, their back catalog is more appealing, etc.).There’s no reason that this movie couldn’t have generated more than $200M in revenue via subscriptions over time… except that the word of mouth was hilariously bad. This movie contributed to a slightly higher than trending bump in new signups, but it probably contributed to less than 2M alone. So of course the math doesn’t work out.If it had been good and contributed to 4M signups, however, that could have generated an additional $160M over how it performed in 6 months. All it had to do was be good enough for people to say, “Yeah, it’s worth the $15 signup to watch it”. And then people would forget they’d subscribed, renew ad infinitum, and end up paying for HBO Max forever.The point of all this is that the streaming game is about having consistently buzzworthy content. Netflix knew this right out the gate with House of Cards. HBO Max is learning the hard way that blockbuster movies don’t generate amazing word of mouth because they’re all pretty mediocre… even the “good” ones. I liked The Suicide Squad, Godzilla vs Kong and Mortal Kombat. I even thought the Snyder cut surprisingly delivered on what Ray Fisher and others said about it being significantly better… in a lot of ways. But none of those movies has generated the kind of word of mouth as, say, Loki.And some – like the steaming pile of gold-plated shit that is Wonder Woman 1984 – actually turned off potential subscribers with their word of mouth.
She collected her check, so she should pipe down and thank her lucky stars that her straight-to-DVD-quality movie went straight-to-streaming, because if people had paid to see that stank turd it might have engendered enough bad blood to kill the franchise altogether (to the extent one exists). I mean, the movie is pure shit, even for free, and has the distinction of sucking hard even for a comic book movie. If you’ve never see the Pitch Meeting video for WW1984, you should watch it, it’s one of his best because the movie is so goddamn bad.“Hey, everybody gets one wish and one wish only! I cannot stress that enough, as the entire plot turns on everyone getting only a single wish!!”
“Can I have a second wish?”
“ABSOLUTELY!”
I think it would have been “heartbreaking” if I paid to see that in the theater.
That movie fucking sucked.
I think a lot people might be more sympathetic if the movie were better. I’m not saying the movie was bad, but it was a major step down in comparison to the first movie. I think it debuting on a streaming platform is the only thing that saved it from being ridiculed WORSE than it already was.
I’m not saying the movie was bad…You should say that though.
Does Patty Jenkins have a very small telly and a bad speaker set up? That seems odd for a movie director.I love going to the cinema but it’s not because the picture and sound are any better than at home. It just makes it more of an event.I feel like the real complaint is that it performed “poorly”. And that’s because it’s on frickin’ HBO Max! Why is that not available to most of the world? So strange.
This movie was terrible and interviews with Patty Jenkins has left me with the impression that she is overly precious with her own big budget popcorn films. The first Wonder Woman was fun and a good example of a kind of not dumb but middle of the road superhero movie (Shazam or Doctor Strange would be other examples of this in my mind). Sure, the pandemic hurt this movie, but I really think that second weekend falloff would have been a real thing with this one regardless of the pandemic.
It does feel like a sequel that’s bought into the hype around the first one, particularly Chris Pine being brought back from the dead to reignite his so-so chemistry with Gadot, in their mind akin to Tracy and Hepburn reteaming for Adam’s Rib no doubt, and the contrived “uplifting” ending probably born of the desire to spawn another million inspirational memes.
I have a modest 42″ screen and 5.1 surround. Not the best, but it’s better than your typical phone or tablet viewing experience. It didn’t make the movie better. It didn’t make, “My vision of an all-powerful being is an anthropomorphic cheetah person,” a not baffling, laughable (baffable?) choice. It didn’t make Gal Gadot not look completely out of her depth compared to the other actors around her. It didn’t explain how everyone somehow knew they could just say, “I renounce my wish,” to undo everything.
“It didn’t make Gal Gadot not look completely out of her depth compared to the other actors around her”Oh god the scenes when she had to show emotion were just painful, right?
I mean, part of me feels bad for Gadot since I’m not sure she has a full grasp of the english language and its basic bitch level of bullying to make fun of people’s accents and linguistic skills.
But on the other hand, Gadot is kind of a black hole of charisma that just isn’t suited for much more than action scenes.
I’m always kind of amazed at people who can act well in something other than their native language, since it seems like so much of acting is reliant on understanding the nuances of dialog.On the other hand, there are definitely a fair amount of actors who can do it well. Julie Delpy, Franke Potente, Daniel Bruhl and Cristoph Waltz come to mind.
It’s not the language barrier it’s that she doesn’t really have any range. She’s really good at ‘stern and angry’ and ‘bubbly and delighted’ but anything beyond that is not really her forte.
You needed a 43″ screen and 5.2 surround sound to actually understand the genius of the film, sir.
Let’s be honest, Patty, there were a number of other ‘bad choices’ involved in the creation of WW84…
Although the absolutely massive orchestral cover of Blue Monday from the trailer was 100% not one of them.
Yeah, that movie WAS disappointing.
“It was such a dark time,” she noted, in reference to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the release of her superhero movie. Really? That’s what was dark for you about 2020? Not that we had a new plague that became the number one killer of human beings in the country? Gee I’m so sad for you, Patty. At least you got paid, so stop whining.
movie was turrible.
getting a release on hbomax as well as the theaters was the least of this movie’s issues
Ano here was me thinking it flopped because it was terrible. How naive of me.
Nothing could have made that steaming stool a hit. I loved the first one. This one made me angry because it was such garbage. A waste of everyone’s effort and worst screenplay of the decade.
This film also made me weirdly angry because I also really liked the first one and this one had so much potential. I cant remember the last time a film made me feel let down like this did.
Maybe she should have worried less about shooting it in IMAX and more about having a non shitty script…?Nah, she’s not a…wait, she IS a credited writer, so it IS her fault.
Sorry, but WW84 deserved to be Direct-to-Streaming.
First off, as other commenters have pointed out – it is at best tone deaf and at worst fucking insensitive that she thinks what is “heartbreaking” about having her movie released during the pandemic. Second, the movie was just not good and in a way, she should be thankful that she can blame the pandemic for its crummy performance (we’ll never know streaming numbers, so we can only go on the box office) rather than the fact that it was bad. STILL not the biggest issue here since 4.5 million dead is a larger discussion than how we consume media to literally while away our time.All that being said, I have to wonder if there is an unspoken issue here that the creatives involved in a film are beginning to realize that the money is no longer in the box office or dvd sales as it was for decades, but rather in streaming. And they are being cut out of that. WW84 is a great example of a movie that I heard sucked and would not have paid to see in the theater – but since I already have HBO Max, sure, my wife and I will have a couple of beers and watch it on a Friday night. I know Ms. Jenkins re-negotiated her contract, but I am sure a large part of that was WB wanted to avoid the lawsuit that Disney decided to take on with ScarJo.The fact of the matter is, I think a lot of studios are highly incentivized to tie compensation to the box office only for a few reasons. First, obviously, Hollywood Accounting can make all the profits disappear. Second, fewer people are going to the theater, so studios can always blame that rather than Hollywood Accounting for crappy performance and pay. Finally – if compensation was tied to streaming, that creates massive problems for a lot of people. Creatives would get paid more and streamers would have to release *some* kind of independently verified metrics to these creatives to justify royalties. And we are going to find all those gangbusters numbers that streamers are supposedly doing are not that gangbusters at all. And that is going to cause stock valuations to drop and that is a big no-no for execs.Personally, I would love to see SAG, PGA, etc. support their members and start getting contracts that get a cut of streaming. Doubtful it would happen, but that would be the fun shock to the system that Napster was (I’m old) and might even lead to some market corrections as everyone realizes the system is broken.
ah yes we once again are flinging our own excrement at movie directors for wanting their movies to premiere in —— checks notes —— movie theaters.just so all you wetbrains in here know, its possible to care about the pandemic and want your art to be consumed the way you had intended.
If she’d had the 1 villain instead of 2, and made the whole “steve taking over a man’s body” less icky, then i would have had some sympathy, lol.aesthetically, the film is gorgeous to look at, but it was such a shit script.
I think having to super powerful women end up in a cirque du soleil battle was a terrible choice. Why can’t they throw each other through walls like every male super hero fight?
I stopped going to the movie theater because of COVID, but that’s not going to be what keeps me from going in the future.Staying home from a theater made me realize that I’m saving a ton of money, time, and effort by not consuming entertainment in a remote auditorium featuring lackluster hygiene, stupendously overpriced concessions, uncomfortable seating, questionable sound balancing done by people paid a pittance for their effort, and – I can’t stress this enough – no way to pause the show if I need to use the facilities, which also requires me to stand up in front of the whole theater and slink out as quietly and quickly as possible so as not to distract for too long.Having given up inconvenience and cost for convenience and savings, I don’t know that I can see a way for the theater industry to convince me to come back.
Seriously. Filmmakers embrace the 21st century challenge.
The sound in theatres is awful. Literally the worst, especially smaller ones. I can toe in my own speakers, thanks.
I mean honestly I think the HBO max launch probably did more good for WW1984. If people heard about the kinda weird stuff like the semi-rape part, they probably wouldn’t have seen it, but most hbo max users kinda just said “eh its free and the original was good”. Also, if someone ever takes control of my body and gal galot wants to have sex with them then take this as now and forever me concenting cause god DAMN
You think thats heartbreaking, Patty? Imagine the poor random people who left their house to pay to see WW84.
Filmmakers are elitist dicks, really.
Forget the COVID was made in a lab in China conspiracy theories, if it came out Warner Bros. created COVID to bury WW84 on HBO Max I wouldn’t even be surprised.
Patty Jenkins calls Wonder Woman 1984’s HBO Max launch “heartbreaking” I’d call the film itself heartbreaking for taking all of the goodwill built by the first one and the potential and expectations of the sequel and taking a huge dump on them.
I feel for her, but man what a bad movie. The plot is nonsense, the actors do their best – Kristin Wiig is phenomenal when she gets chance, and Barbara had some interesting layers, even if she couldn’t quite pull off the slinky post-wish confidence. Heck, even Gal Gadot tried, unfortunately her only choices, given what was written, were a concerned frown or an angry scowl, so she lost the positivity and warmth that she conveyed in the first movie.
Also, this movie looked terrible. Flat, with eye-gouging colors that failed to bring the 80’s to life. Unless they wanted it to look like a made-for-TV movie. I’ve never seen a director change their style so drastically between movies. It was as if Tim Burton went from the dark german expression-y Gotham in Batman straight to the garish neon puke of Schumacher’s Batman Forever.
I’m definitely glad I saw it at home, because subjecting myself to a crowd and potentially exposing myself to a deadly virus would not be worth this fitfully entertaining, ultimately hollow movie. She should be more angry with herself for making it.
Coincidentally, ‘the best of a bunch of very bad choices’ is also a tagline for WW84
I really like Wonder Woman 1984 and would like to have seen it in theaters. In fact, I can see it having a resurgence sooner rather than later.
… said nobody ever.
It has its charms. Pascal and Wiig are delightful. There are some beautifully shot scenes. It has a very Super ‘78/Raimi Spider-Man “feel.” But the shockingly bad writing just overshadows all of it.
I would say it has more of a Superman III feel, which I don’t consider an entirely negative thing; it’s certainly different from anything else in the genre at the moment. If anything it should have leaned into that more; when it tries to go profound in its last act is when it really falls apart.
The “very bad choices” were in the script, written by Patty Jenkins.
Think how disappointing it would be if the movie was any good!
ScarJo was right to take her money after suffering through that Frankenstein’s monster called Black Widow. It didn’t matter when I peed during that big screen experience, because I’d seen every part of Black Widow about a dozen times before anyway… in other movies and TV shows. Seriously, this genre needs to DIE.
ww84 sucked, and as the director it was entirely her fault. It was not going to do great in theaters because word of mouth and internet reviews get around really quickly, and only fanboys and antivaxxers are going to pay for a movie during a pandemic that everyone is saying is garbage
This comments section
If the movie hadn’t been awful, we wouldn’t be hearing about this still, 9 months on. From an awful script, to lackluster villians, and outright ruining who Diana actually is as a character (Amazonian warrior, not a manipulator and in essence raping man off screen), if had it been just even half as good as the first film, it would have done better at the limited box office. Also, her and Gal still got fully paid which others in the industry (Scarlett anyone?) haven’t. HBO and Warner made a huge mistake with their day and date plan and are paying for it in many ways. They may have gone to cinecon, but they had no guts to show up in person, only doing it by video. Even with no pandemic, this movie was going to bomb because it was bad. Artistic feelings aside, if it is good enough to be shown on any screen (look at Soul that came out the same day) we wouldn’t be hearing from Patty still on this.
isn’t this the best outcome for her, though? she gets to point at the pandemic or HBO as the reason it underperformed, whereas in a normal year it would clearly have underperformed because it was incredibly terrible
It was a terrible film and would’ve stiffed in a normal theater market environment.
The stupidest part is that it did release in theaters, so apparently it’s heartbreaking that people even had the choice to watch it at home. I wonder if she gets teary when she sees a blu ray. Like I have a nice tv, and there’s only one imax theater in my entire country, so the only difference for me watching it was that I only wasted time, not money
Patty broke my heart with this relentlessly dull follow up. Maybe better writing would have helped.
never getting those 2 hours of my life back is heartbreaking
This was the loudest, most violent Care Bears story ever. When Wonder Bear found the Magical Dream Stone and used to restore her long-lost boyfriend, Cute Bear, things started to go wrong in Care-a-Lot. Especially when Funny Bear grabbed the Dream Stone for herself, not sharing like a good Bear should, and turned herself into Cheetah Bear. Mee-owwww! She was a naughty cat! Then there was then a lot of unnecessary fighting! A lot of stuff got smashed, and Cute Bear had to go back to wherever he’s been hiding. Probably under the bed like all the other missing stuffed animals. Happily, everything worked out in the end in Care-a-Lot. It was sad and we all learned everybody should hug their dreams. But not superimpose them on some random guy and get on top of him as if he consented. You know what I’m talking about.It made a less-than-stellar Wonder Woman movie which a lot of people didn’t like enough so word-of-mouth was pretty weak and therefore we can’t blame it all on the HBO Max subscribers.
I agree that many movies need to be seen on a big screen. But it’s also the case that WW84 wasn’t all that good a movie. We spent the $30 or whatever it was to watch it on HBO Max, and we (a viewing group of five) were sorry we did.
Patty Jenkins shouldn’t be making any big budget movies.
Ever again.
Amidst all the praise and ass licking being done by the media in response to the release of the first WW“THE FIRST FEMALE DIRECTED, FEMALE LED BIG BUDGET COMIC MOVIE! AMAZING! INCREDIBLE! ABOUT TIME! #feminism#blessed#timesup” The best reviews of the film said the first 2/3rds of the movie were fantastic….but the ending went off the rails…..but it’s still proof women can do everything!
To defend the mixed reviews Jenkins bitched and moaned about studio “interference” destroying her vision, before going onto say that she at least got to have her way in how the third act of the film played out.
So the worst part of that movie was the one this visionary has no oversight on….mmk, so for the sequel just let her do whatever the hell she wants!
They did!
It was trash!
The story was rushed and incoherent, the CGI looks like it was pawned off to 1st year college students at the university of phoenix, and despite the fact that the cast was all stay caliber, their performances indicated quite clearly that they knew they were involved in a $200 million pile of shit.
$200 million for that…..which doesn’t include marketing and promotions and it grossed $140 some million…WORLDWIDE! Streaming numbers aren’t going to make up the $60 million difference, let alone the other $100 probably sunk into marketing and promotions. She should be grateful it was a hybrid release, it at least leaves that as a somewhat plausible explanation for the reason the movie bombed, at least to the extent that she MIGHT still have a career in TV or low budget indie fare.
Let’s see how Dune does and what Denis Villeneuve has to say… Will bitching about the way it was released affect his chances at having part two greenlit? Why hasn’t part two been greenlit?
Sucks it happened but maybe she should focus on making sure the third movie isn’t an absolute trainwreck like the second was?
Has she accepted that Wonder Woman 84 was bad though? I don’t know that it would have been a completely better film on a larger screen. It was the dumbest film I saw this year.
Hot take but, Black Widow was also in the bad – to – fine territory as well.
Has their been an example of this happening to a good film? I’m curious to see those numbers because I feel like more than anything word of mouth was what hurt this film, not the release style.
I’m not just a hater either, I liked the first Wonder Woman film. There is a very stark difference between it and it’s sequel.
It was sad it made so little and I wish it was on the big screen as well but you know what I wanted to live so I rather have watched it at home and be safe!Now as someone who likes DC movies more than most, I have to say she still made the best or 2nd best (The Suicide Squad maybe better) DC Movie with Wonder woman. And then Wonder Woman 84 maybe the worst DC Movie made since….. Suicide Squad? Or did the shitty Justice League version by the creep Wheadon come out after Ayers Suicide Squad? Anway, she lost a lot of the respect some of us had for her with this so-so to average to bad movie.