Mark me down as pro-speedramping.
I really liked the action scenes in WW too (I had some problems with the quality of the effects in the beach battle, but post-island it all looked really good). And the action of Man of Steel was the best part, especially the battle in Smallville. I hate that movie, but it wasn’t because of how the action was shot. In that regard, though I often forget about it in my frustration with the rest of his decisions, I can actually still see why someone looked at Snyder’s work and thought he’d be a good fit for the franchise.
I thought it was a really good movie and the best from the current DC generation of films by far but… the plot was very paint by numbers, especially the ending and major plot points were heavily telegraphed. I knew exactly who “the big bad” was almost immediately. I thought that if they had to go that route it would have been better if they had made Dr. Poison the identity Ares was hiding behind.
I have to believe that they left a lot of film from Themyscira on the cutting floor because, at least to me, it felt lacking in consistency a bit.
I loved it! The ice cream moment was just perfect.
I skipped my train of thought. I was comparing that Snyders action works for heroes who are Super powered, for the effect of epic statuesque slo mo posing… And that fast cut works better in melee combat, firsticuffs in Winter Soldier. Just a generalization though for these movies, because the ending action scenes in Man of Steel weren’t as good and they did the same slo mo. Snyder is just bad at pacing overall i think. But he does have a gift for some original action scenes.
I thought the shield was in the tower. I never noticed it was body armor, lol, I just assumed it was a comic’s book’s leotard.
And from the way the bracelets were used to end the big fight,I saw them as magical.
As a hard boiled John Woo fan, it’s maybe not surprising I fall somewhere in the neighborhood of, “There’s no such thing as too much slow motion.”
I think the slow-mo mostly works works in Wonder Woman – it’s used to convey that she’s in control and she’s being deliberate and methodical in her violence. As opposed to Man of Steel, where it’s used to show how awesome it is to punch someone super hard.
(Also, it’s really hard to show a bracer deflecting a bullet outside of slow-mo.)
Pretty much all of WW’s equipment is magical - the bracelets, sword, lasso definitely, and probably the shield and armor.
Patty Jenkins told Collider that there aren’t any deleted scenes. In a post-release Hollywood Reporter interview, she maintains that the movie is generally the same as what she envisioned, with the exception of one reshoot for a specific scene.
I think either Collider or somewhere else pointed out that her previous movie, Monster, didn’t have any deleted scenes either.
Emmerich says that Jenkins is already working on a “Wonder Woman” sequel. It won’t take place in World War I, as the first film did, but it will also likely be set in the past.
“It will take place somewhere between 1917 and 2017,” Emmerich says coyly.
He’s also thinking of ways that DC can differentiate itself from Marvel projects, which tend to be family-friendly. Emmerich says he admires violent, irreverent and very adult comic-book movies such as “Logan” and “Deadpool.”
“I would be surprised if we didn’t at some point make an R-rated DC movie,” says Emmerich.[/quote]
“Suicide Squad” and “Batman v. Superman” made money, but critics hated them. Did you learn anything from the poor response to the films?
Berg: There are lessons from every movie. You would be silly not to analyze how a movie was received — what went right and what went wrong on the making of a movie.
On “Suicide Squad,” the movie did incredibly well commercially. It didn’t work narratively. You had some great casting and some great characterizations, but where the story fell down was on narrative, on plot. We could do better. “Batman v. Superman” was tonally dark. People didn’t respond to that.
Johns: “Wonder Woman” celebrated exactly who the character is, but looking at it, it’s not like we should change everything to be about hope and optimism. There’s nothing to change. That’s what these characters are.[/quote]
FFS, it’s not that it was tonally dark; that’s fine IF done well (eg - Nolan as well as the Gotham tv series). It’s that the movie got stupid as hell at critical moments. This seems to harken back to “People apparently don’t like to see their heroes deconstructed” BS that Snyder uttered after the film fell flat.
I left B vs S feeling I was unlikely to watch the next one because I wasn’t really interested in seeing what was next for either of them. Suicide Squad… barely cared about the characters while I was watching them and certainly didn’t want to know more about any of them. It’s not about what these characters are… those movies did not instill the desire to see more in people who were not already fans of the characters. They certainly suggest it was lacking, that something needed to change.
There’s a viral story going around about how Gal Gadot was screwed on her paycheck for Wonder Woman. It’s based on fundamentally not understanding how these movies work. She reportedly got $300,000 for her role, which sounds shitastic when compared to Ben Affleck’s or Henry Cavill’s 7-figure up-front checks for their work in Batman v Superman. The story continues that this is obviously another egregious example of how women in Hollywood get boned on pay compared to their male counterparts.
But here’s the thing: Gal Gadot’s pay is completely to scale for other young actors in these franchise blockbusters. Chris Evans got $300,000 for The First Avenger. Chris Hemsworth got $200,000 for Thor. Tom Hiddleston made $160,000 for The Avengers and he didn’t get any back-end points. Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Jason Isaac each got about $200,000 for The Force Awakens.
Ben Affleck gets what he gets because he’s Ben Affleck - a known draw for audiences. Henry Cavill got his paycheck because Warner Bros was in the similar situation that Marvel was in with Robert Downey Jr. They needed him more than vice versa.
These lowball paychecks for sophomore actors in blockbusters are more common than not. The key is that these folks renegotiate their deals down the line. (See everyone in The Avengers after that movie.) If Gal Gadot gets a shit paycheck in Justice League 2 compared to the guy playing Cyborg, then you can fire up the outrage engines.
Stories like this wouldn’t fly so quickly if there it wasn’t the other part of a sandwich that said the movie was barely marketed and not well supported when it opened.
Can someone describe the Hello Kitty demographics?
That depends. Are you talking about the pink notebooks and pens, the make-up or the S&M hotel and sex toys. Aka, the answer is Hello Kitty covers a lot and therefore has several demographics.
Strong woman, weak plot… I loved every scene with her (because Gal Gadot), but the plot didn’t do it for me. I never felt she was in any danger, so the action was nice to watch but not exciting. How do we get into this german infested castle? 5 min. later they were in. Also WW1 Germans were not Nazis, but they were displayed that way… and Chris Pine was a bit too much above average, so he never clicked with me… and that scotish guy? It looked like they were the dirty quarter dozen, but didn’t … But no denial, Wonder Woman, she is hot … but she needs a better plot/movie (it felt very much like Captain America 1 to me)…
Saw it, liked it a lot. Gal Gadot is just amazing. Plot was very typical, but not completely boring. Side characters were fun, Chris Pine did a great job. This was basically Thor and Captain America in one movie, and I liked this better than both.
I didn’t like that Ares existed at all. Would have been a much powerful film if the idea was that there was no Ares at all, or that an Ares that showed up would have had nothing to do with WW1 and make the case against humans in that way.
Not perfect but the best origin film since Iron man.