Wonder Woman (2017)
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
Agreed.... although she did also have a ton of praise for Suicide Squad, a movie I and a ton of critics felt really WAS a huge and complete mess (even if a lot of people managed to enjoy it anyway), so I'm not sure I want to completely trust her judgment yet.
That said, I'm still very optimistic about WW and everything I've seen is very promising. So I don't get the sense we have anything to truly worry about just yet.
I liked what was actually onscreen.
Some nice character material, like Diana's conversations with Steve Trevor and her mother.
Some cool action scenes, and a nice bit of humor with Etta Candy.
I saw a lot of sites who are quick to critize stuff, say a lot of good things about the trailer.
I don't understand why you seem to have such a hard time understand that some people do like this stuff. It's fine if you didn't like it, but that doesn't mean no one else is allowed to.
I like Jenkins' reference to "lasso of truth".
If the letter is a hoax, it's certainly a plausible one - at last on first glance. Problem is, from what we've heard, the original cuts of BvS and SS were better than the theatrical releases. Based on this history, I'd say any major problems with WW will be due to a studio-mandated revision. Is WW undergoing such a revision? That is the question.
If the letter is a hoax, it's certainly a plausible one - at last on first glance. Problem is, from what we've heard, the original cuts of BvS and SS were better than the theatrical releases. Based on this history, I'd say any major problems with WW will be due to a studio-mandated revision. Is WW undergoing such a revision? That is the question.
They are making money?
They are making money.
They are happy with the amount of money they are making.
Shitty Movies make this amount of money.
Which they are happy with.
Possibly...
Making a better class of Movie MIGHT make less money then the shitty movies that we are getting.
Making a better class of movie MIGHT lose them money or lose them a lot of money, compared tot he current forgiveable rate of return that WB is receiving on their investment.
Sure, they want to make Avengers money, but one misstep and they're losing Fantastic Four money.
Oh.
The creative side don't know that they are making bad movies, and the money side only cares if they are making enough money, so this will continue floundering on for quite some time to come.
They are making money.
They are happy with the amount of money they are making.
Shitty Movies make this amount of money.
Which they are happy with.
Possibly...
Making a better class of Movie MIGHT make less money then the shitty movies that we are getting.
Making a better class of movie MIGHT lose them money or lose them a lot of money, compared tot he current forgiveable rate of return that WB is receiving on their investment.
Sure, they want to make Avengers money, but one misstep and they're losing Fantastic Four money.
Oh.
The creative side don't know that they are making bad movies, and the money side only cares if they are making enough money, so this will continue floundering on for quite some time to come.
Better movie ≠ more profitable movie, necessarily. It's entirely possible the Suicide Squad reshoots and re-edits weakened the movie artistically, but brought it closer to the tone the marketing was pushing, and thus boosted profits. As for BvS, most reviews of the extended cut have come from fan sites, and even they've been pretty meh, saying that it mostly just clarifies a few plot threads without providing much character depth to match, so studio inference in the theatrical editing process probably helped with critical opinion there, and likely box office performance also.
All that said, the upshot for Wonder Woman is that the positive reception for Gadot in BvS specifically and the goodwill for a woman-directed WW movie generally might act as a shield against studio meddling for purely mercenary motives. Unlike Justice League, there may not be pressure to make it more upbeat due to BvS' reception, and unlike Suicide Squad, there may not be pressure to sell and play it as analogous to rivals' prior hits (such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool), because the most obvious analogue for the movie, The First Avenger, is five years old, and it wasn't itself a major hit anyway. In other words, Jenkins may be relatively free to make the movie she and the studio initially agreed upon; let's just hope that, despite Zack Snyder's story credit, they've got a worthy script to start from.
Better movie ≠ more profitable movie, necessarily. It's entirely possible the Suicide Squad reshoots and re-edits weakened the movie artistically, but brought it closer to the tone the marketing was pushing, and thus boosted profits. As for BvS, most reviews of the extended cut have come from fan sites, and even they've been pretty meh, saying that it mostly just clarifies a few plot threads without providing much character depth to match, so studio inference in the theatrical editing process probably helped with critical opinion there, and likely box office performance also.
All that said, the upshot for Wonder Woman is that the positive reception for Gadot in BvS specifically and the goodwill for a woman-directed WW movie generally might act as a shield against studio meddling for purely mercenary motives. Unlike Justice League, there may not be pressure to make it more upbeat due to BvS' reception, and unlike Suicide Squad, there may not be pressure to sell and play it as analogous to rivals' prior hits (such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool), because the most obvious analogue for the movie, The First Avenger, is five years old, and it wasn't itself a major hit anyway. In other words, Jenkins may be relatively free to make the movie she and the studio initially agreed upon; let's just hope that, despite Zack Snyder's story credit, they've got a worthy script to start from.
From what I've read, pretty much everyone agrees the UE is substantially better than the theatrical cut, even if they still don't like the tone or characterisation. "The plot actually makes sense now" is a common theme. So I don't see how studio interference was an improvement, apart from making the movie shorter so they could fit in more screenings.
Not really, she's the director which means her words are meaningless. She'd praise the film even if she knew it was a turd, there's no way she could say anything else at this point in time.
So the words of the actual director of the actual movie are less meaningful than some random anonymous person ranting on the internet...
I now some people are quick to believe any old shit on the internet, but c'mon... seriously!?
She also has the benefit of actually having seen the movie, which is more than can be said for the aforementioned ranters.So the words of the actual director of the actual movie are less meaningful than some random anonymous person ranting on the internet...
I now some people are quick to believe any old shit on the internet, but c'mon... seriously!?
Yeah, even the anonymous letter only referred to further anonymous sources. This has gotten way too much attention.
That assumes studio executives are basing their decisions on creative considerations, or indeed on any form of logic we viewers would understand. To us, these are stories and works of entertainment. To the execs, these are money-making devices. The fate of these creative works is in the hands of people trained only to make business decisions. They don't much care what the reviews say about the movies, just what the numbers say about ticket sales and advance DVD purchases. And they probably care at least as much about ticket sales in China and elsewhere than those in the US.
Besides, the scenario posited in the anonymous letter is that the executives are doing what executives tend to do -- rewarding themselves for failure while punishing those below them. The corporate culture that protects executives from feeling any consequences for their mistakes insulates them from having to learn from their mistakes. True, we don't know if the letter is authentic, but it's an age-old pattern for the people at the top to make sure that only their underlings suffer for their bad choices.
My fear is that the opposite will end up happening, that the studio will decide they still haven't taken enough control, and will pretty much end up taking complete control of the movies, and destroy any chance of decent DC movies. At this point I pretty much always expect big time execs to make the worst decisions possible, at least from a creative standpoint.
Definition two of "guy" listed here
ANd does it matter? Criticism of the DC Film Universe (specifically Wonder Woman doesn't have the signifigant misogyny of Ghostbusters ciriticism (whichi content was much louder than other types of ciriticism). The particular link is someone who has been hurt by Snyder's move... and probably wants revenge. I am pretty sure it will be much more successful than Ghostbusters, and general positive buzz
Ever since we realized that Wonder Woman was an unstoppable killing machine (20, 30 years ago) who had very few reservations against killing, that whole "symbol of hope" line should have fallen to the wayside.