It was, but the way this one was overhyped, I can't imagine a second one.
Are you going to answer the question faggot .
Wonder Woman: Discussion thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter ViCiouS
- Start date
It was, but the way this one was overhyped, I can't imagine a second one.
Are you going to answer the question faggot .
Arguably greatest female boxer. She was the thick sista with locks training Diana.
Good info. Didn't know that
Hopefully she shows up in JL fighting the parademons in the flashbacks since Artemis id one of the greatest Amazon warriors
James Cameron Doubles Down on 'Wonder Woman' Critique
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fe...woman-critique-details-avatar-sequels-1043026
Well, you opened the door for the inevitable Wonder Woman question, so … you recently said in this summer's film, Gal Gadot was playing an "objectified icon."
Yes, I'll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She's absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that's not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the '60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don't think it was really ahead of its time because we're still not [giving women these types of roles].
Director Patty Jenkins responded by saying not every woman character has to look "hard, troubled and tough to be strong."
Linda looked great. She just wasn't treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn't there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, "letting" a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn't think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn't get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they've got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I'm not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fe...woman-critique-details-avatar-sequels-1043026
Well, you opened the door for the inevitable Wonder Woman question, so … you recently said in this summer's film, Gal Gadot was playing an "objectified icon."
Yes, I'll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She's absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that's not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the '60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don't think it was really ahead of its time because we're still not [giving women these types of roles].
Director Patty Jenkins responded by saying not every woman character has to look "hard, troubled and tough to be strong."
Linda looked great. She just wasn't treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn't there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, "letting" a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn't think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn't get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they've got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I'm not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun.
NO clue why this sketch was cut..
None of the sketches were fun but I like the premise because it is true... it’s tough to careful on a normal life with the insanity that surrounds us daily.
Not arguably. THE.
She's fought men in the ring. Legit boxing skills.
Man, this is nothing but fetish after fetish. Too bad we couldn't have gotten some of that in the WW movie. Instead we got the dreadful gal gadot and a turgid plot. The trailers for this flick are already more sexy than WW.
Don't get me started.
Watch the opening scene of Wonder Woman 1984: Diana takes on Themyscira's Olympics
By Sydney Bucksbaum
December 15, 2020 at 05:14 PM EST
Christmas has come early for anyone dying to see Wonder Woman 1984 — or at least the first few minutes.
While the Wonder Woman sequel won't be out until Dec. 25, Warner Bros. is giving fans an early taste by releasing the opening scene, which you can watch below.
The footage takes Diana (Gal Gadot) back to her childhood in Themyscira, reminiscing on the "magical land" of her youth. We see her as a young kid as she races through green fields to participate in a sort of Amazonian Olympics. After watching all the warrior women perform athletic feats as the crowd goes wild, Diana steps up to the plate. General Antiope (Robin Wright), Diana's aunt, gives her a few words of advice as Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), her mother, watches from above.
The clip then transitions to scenes of an adult Diana fighting as Wonder Woman in the 1980s, intercut with young Diana running an obstacle course in Themyscira. We also see Diana meet Barbara Ann Minerva (Kristen Wiig), who will end up becoming the supervillain Cheetah.
Greed isn't good, but 'Wonder Woman 1984' (mostly) is
'Wonder Woman 1984' director Patty Jenkins goes all-in on the '80s, a decade that was very all-in on itself.
The Empty Spectacle of Wonder Woman 1984
By Angelica Jade Bastién@angelicabastien
By Angelica Jade Bastién@angelicabastien
The disappointing sequel highlights not only the dire state of the live-action superhero genre, but the dire state of Hollywood filmmaking as a whole. Photo: Courtesy of Warner Bros.
Wonder Woman, also known as Diana Prince, is one of the most dynamic of DC’s mainstay comic characters, but you’d never know it watching Wonder Woman 1984.
This sequel had almost everything going for it. Its empathetic predecessor is likely the most beloved and critically successful of the slate of beleaguered DC Comics films. Its time-skipping story offered a way to expand the superhero genre’s usual plot beats — which was desperately needed — and arrived buoyed by an excellent cast. Perhaps its lopsided universe was not perfect; there were lackluster villains and a noticeable absence of racial diversity and sensuality, and the sequel had to contend with a significant jump from WWI-era Europe into early 1980s Washington, D.C. But these issues were surmountable. Sadly, all that glittered in the franchise’s first outing is gone in Wonder Woman 1984. The disappointing sequel highlights not only the dire state of the live-action superhero genre in film, but the dire state of Hollywood filmmaking as a whole.
In Patty Jenkins’s candy-colored rendition of the ’80s, 1984’s Diana (Gal Gadot) finds herself lonely and isolated — both by choice and circumstance. As she begins to develop a friendship with a co-worker named Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), Diana’s life as both a museum curator and undercover superhero is disrupted by the arrival of what is best described as a magic rock. At first, it unknowingly grants Diana her great desire: to see Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) returned to life (sort of). The easily frazzled and comically clumsy Barbara gets some fringe benefits, too — she wishes upon the rock to be like Diana, suddenly achieving a power and confidence beyond her wildest dreams. But things take a turn when wannabe oil tycoon Maxwell Lord (an over-the-top and preening Pedro Pascal) strolls into the story with a rank ego and daddy issues. Barbara — whose story as Cheetah is well told in Greg Rucka, Nicola Scott and Liam Sharp’s run on the character that kicked off in 2016 — transforms from nascent friend to villain all too quickly. Meanwhile, the magic rock ends up setting the stage for major global unrest (and a genuinely weird accounting of Middle East politics).
60% Off Gift Subscriptions
GIVE NEW YORK
What has attracted me to this character over the years — the femininity of her mythos and how it emphasizes the maternal, how her strength is conveyed in both fight scenes and more emotional exchanges — feels poorly developed in this utter mess of a plot. Superhero films too often rely on mystical items to fuel their narratives, but a magic rock that grants wishes like a gleaming monkey’s paw? It’s hackneyed, as is the stilted dialogue that unravels the story to begin with, starting with Diana’s voiceover outlining a thinly drawn exploration of her Amazon race. It is so stilted that when Diana finally vaults into action against a darkened sky, using her glowing lasso to ride lightning bolts, I felt not an ounce of awe.
Sure, Gadot and Pine once again have a charming chemistry, but his character’s return from the dead — in which he, basically, takes over some poor guy’s body — sparks more questions about the gaps in logic. And then there’s their utter sexlessness, an especially damning reminder of the way this genre fails to take into account one of the most beautiful aspects of being human. Instead, in 1984, Diana’s non-erotic yearning for Steve has become the entirety of her identity. Why? She doesn’t miss her Amazon sisters, whom she can never see again, more? It’s been over a century and she still hasn’t moved on from Steve? There’s something deeply sad and predictable about a female superhero so tied to a single man she’s willing to lose her powers for him. Romance has the potential to be heartwarming and expansive in superhero stories, but here it just feels claustrophobic. (I won’t even expand on a turn at the end ripped from a Hallmark movie, Christmas visuals and all, that was so galling I’m still not sure it happened.)
Jenkins, who brought a fresh eye to the fight choreography and stylings in the original Wonder Woman, seems now almost disenchanted with the world she’s helped bring to life. It’s cheerfully lit, as the ’80s period demands, but it’s neither visually intriguing nor beautiful. Wonder Woman 1984 overwhelms the senses, confusing largess with wonder. The action is hobbled by poor blocking; a strange spatial dynamic makes it so that you’re never exactly sure where characters are in the space of the scene. Especially egregious is an underwater sequence involving Barbara and Diana, in which Cheetah — who should feel fearsome — is undercut by uneven practical effects and chintzy CGI. In close-ups throughout the movie, Cheetah’s face and body feel poorly thought out, conjuring not even a sliver of the feral prowess of the character. In medium and long shots, particularly during a closing fight between the women, there’s a profound weightlessness to the blows owing to how Cheetah’s body is framed. There are a few cool touches to Jenkins’s filmmaking aesthetic — an intriguing spin on the invisible jet, Diana’s increased reliance on her lasso, her new ability to fly — but, overall, the promise of action sequence thrills feels unfulfilled.
In the end, the actors can’t save the story. Wiig really, really tries, too. She vamps it up with Pascal, each of them going for arch performances the script can’t match. The plot grows more tangled and confusing by the minute, as the film’s central relationships are overshadowed by unnecessary globetrotting, flashy role reversals, and poor world building (which mines the time setting for visual and sonic cues but little else. The story does nothing to explain exactly what Diana has been doing in the years since WWI or why she decided to ignore intervening global horrors she might have otherwise dismantled.) In the comics, Diana forms a curious bond with Barbara, whose work as an archaeologist and obsession with the Amazons adds an intriguing layer to their friendship. Little of that transfers to the film; the sequel continues the franchise’s earnest streak, but without a stronger narrative it feels unearned and, worse yet, calculated. Gal Gadot admittedly remains a warm presence in the franchise, and Chris Pine does his best with the story. It makes sense that Steve and Diana would become positioned against Barbara and Maxwell, with his murkily defined goals of domination. But why not lean into the best aspect of the preceding story: the Amazons? Why bring Robin Wright back if you’re not going to give her another juicy action scene? Blessedly, the movie is free of empty “girl power” slogans and mortifying needle drops, but is that enough? I want intrigue! I want grace! With the full might of the modern Hollywood apparatus and an ungodly amount of money, is this really the best we can get? The movie insults by offering scraps and making us pretend it’s a meal.
Wonder Woman 1984 is a turning point in the history of Hollywood’s business, what with Warner Bros. banking big on the hope that the film’s Christmas Day release will be the push its (admittedly good) streaming service, HBO Max, needs (in the U.S., at least). But the film is indicative of the larger pitfalls of an aging superhero genre. Watching Wonder Woman 1984, I couldn’t help but think of the utter hollowness of representation and how corporations have adopted the language and posture of political movements in order to sell back to us a vacant rendition of the change we actually want. In many ways, studios have trained audiences to view the bombast of their blockbusters as possessing inherent worth — especially when they place reflections of us on the big screen. This isn’t good filmmaking. And as more and more exciting directors get caught up in the gears of this mammoth genre, I can’t help but reflect on how their talents would be better utilized elsewhere. If only Hollywood gave them real control over stories, rather than treating their work as mere conduits for content the studio can replicate and sell.
Wonder Woman, also known as Diana Prince, is one of the most dynamic of DC’s mainstay comic characters, but you’d never know it watching Wonder Woman 1984.
This sequel had almost everything going for it. Its empathetic predecessor is likely the most beloved and critically successful of the slate of beleaguered DC Comics films. Its time-skipping story offered a way to expand the superhero genre’s usual plot beats — which was desperately needed — and arrived buoyed by an excellent cast. Perhaps its lopsided universe was not perfect; there were lackluster villains and a noticeable absence of racial diversity and sensuality, and the sequel had to contend with a significant jump from WWI-era Europe into early 1980s Washington, D.C. But these issues were surmountable. Sadly, all that glittered in the franchise’s first outing is gone in Wonder Woman 1984. The disappointing sequel highlights not only the dire state of the live-action superhero genre in film, but the dire state of Hollywood filmmaking as a whole.
In Patty Jenkins’s candy-colored rendition of the ’80s, 1984’s Diana (Gal Gadot) finds herself lonely and isolated — both by choice and circumstance. As she begins to develop a friendship with a co-worker named Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), Diana’s life as both a museum curator and undercover superhero is disrupted by the arrival of what is best described as a magic rock. At first, it unknowingly grants Diana her great desire: to see Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) returned to life (sort of). The easily frazzled and comically clumsy Barbara gets some fringe benefits, too — she wishes upon the rock to be like Diana, suddenly achieving a power and confidence beyond her wildest dreams. But things take a turn when wannabe oil tycoon Maxwell Lord (an over-the-top and preening Pedro Pascal) strolls into the story with a rank ego and daddy issues. Barbara — whose story as Cheetah is well told in Greg Rucka, Nicola Scott and Liam Sharp’s run on the character that kicked off in 2016 — transforms from nascent friend to villain all too quickly. Meanwhile, the magic rock ends up setting the stage for major global unrest (and a genuinely weird accounting of Middle East politics).
60% Off Gift Subscriptions
GIVE NEW YORK
What has attracted me to this character over the years — the femininity of her mythos and how it emphasizes the maternal, how her strength is conveyed in both fight scenes and more emotional exchanges — feels poorly developed in this utter mess of a plot. Superhero films too often rely on mystical items to fuel their narratives, but a magic rock that grants wishes like a gleaming monkey’s paw? It’s hackneyed, as is the stilted dialogue that unravels the story to begin with, starting with Diana’s voiceover outlining a thinly drawn exploration of her Amazon race. It is so stilted that when Diana finally vaults into action against a darkened sky, using her glowing lasso to ride lightning bolts, I felt not an ounce of awe.
Sure, Gadot and Pine once again have a charming chemistry, but his character’s return from the dead — in which he, basically, takes over some poor guy’s body — sparks more questions about the gaps in logic. And then there’s their utter sexlessness, an especially damning reminder of the way this genre fails to take into account one of the most beautiful aspects of being human. Instead, in 1984, Diana’s non-erotic yearning for Steve has become the entirety of her identity. Why? She doesn’t miss her Amazon sisters, whom she can never see again, more? It’s been over a century and she still hasn’t moved on from Steve? There’s something deeply sad and predictable about a female superhero so tied to a single man she’s willing to lose her powers for him. Romance has the potential to be heartwarming and expansive in superhero stories, but here it just feels claustrophobic. (I won’t even expand on a turn at the end ripped from a Hallmark movie, Christmas visuals and all, that was so galling I’m still not sure it happened.)
Jenkins, who brought a fresh eye to the fight choreography and stylings in the original Wonder Woman, seems now almost disenchanted with the world she’s helped bring to life. It’s cheerfully lit, as the ’80s period demands, but it’s neither visually intriguing nor beautiful. Wonder Woman 1984 overwhelms the senses, confusing largess with wonder. The action is hobbled by poor blocking; a strange spatial dynamic makes it so that you’re never exactly sure where characters are in the space of the scene. Especially egregious is an underwater sequence involving Barbara and Diana, in which Cheetah — who should feel fearsome — is undercut by uneven practical effects and chintzy CGI. In close-ups throughout the movie, Cheetah’s face and body feel poorly thought out, conjuring not even a sliver of the feral prowess of the character. In medium and long shots, particularly during a closing fight between the women, there’s a profound weightlessness to the blows owing to how Cheetah’s body is framed. There are a few cool touches to Jenkins’s filmmaking aesthetic — an intriguing spin on the invisible jet, Diana’s increased reliance on her lasso, her new ability to fly — but, overall, the promise of action sequence thrills feels unfulfilled.
In the end, the actors can’t save the story. Wiig really, really tries, too. She vamps it up with Pascal, each of them going for arch performances the script can’t match. The plot grows more tangled and confusing by the minute, as the film’s central relationships are overshadowed by unnecessary globetrotting, flashy role reversals, and poor world building (which mines the time setting for visual and sonic cues but little else. The story does nothing to explain exactly what Diana has been doing in the years since WWI or why she decided to ignore intervening global horrors she might have otherwise dismantled.) In the comics, Diana forms a curious bond with Barbara, whose work as an archaeologist and obsession with the Amazons adds an intriguing layer to their friendship. Little of that transfers to the film; the sequel continues the franchise’s earnest streak, but without a stronger narrative it feels unearned and, worse yet, calculated. Gal Gadot admittedly remains a warm presence in the franchise, and Chris Pine does his best with the story. It makes sense that Steve and Diana would become positioned against Barbara and Maxwell, with his murkily defined goals of domination. But why not lean into the best aspect of the preceding story: the Amazons? Why bring Robin Wright back if you’re not going to give her another juicy action scene? Blessedly, the movie is free of empty “girl power” slogans and mortifying needle drops, but is that enough? I want intrigue! I want grace! With the full might of the modern Hollywood apparatus and an ungodly amount of money, is this really the best we can get? The movie insults by offering scraps and making us pretend it’s a meal.
Wonder Woman 1984 is a turning point in the history of Hollywood’s business, what with Warner Bros. banking big on the hope that the film’s Christmas Day release will be the push its (admittedly good) streaming service, HBO Max, needs (in the U.S., at least). But the film is indicative of the larger pitfalls of an aging superhero genre. Watching Wonder Woman 1984, I couldn’t help but think of the utter hollowness of representation and how corporations have adopted the language and posture of political movements in order to sell back to us a vacant rendition of the change we actually want. In many ways, studios have trained audiences to view the bombast of their blockbusters as possessing inherent worth — especially when they place reflections of us on the big screen. This isn’t good filmmaking. And as more and more exciting directors get caught up in the gears of this mammoth genre, I can’t help but reflect on how their talents would be better utilized elsewhere. If only Hollywood gave them real control over stories, rather than treating their work as mere conduits for content the studio can replicate and sell.
‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Review: Escapist Superhero Sequel Whisks Us Away From Real-World Disaster
Gal Gadot rocks shoulder pads and high-waist pants in this retro follow-up, which further boosting the Amazon superhero's power to inspire.
variety.com
I was wondering what kind of McGuffin they were going to use to explain Steve Trevor's return. Now that I know via the review above, that feels incredibly lazy by the writers. I can't help but wonder if that was a decision by some executive that just liked the chemistry of the two in the first film.
I didn't read the whole story as I figured I'd watch this weekend, but wow, that's sad, no wonder the need to just release it via stream
This shit is TRAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I have tried to watch this shit 3 times an I'm close to the end but I am going to tap out. This shit is background noise at this point.
Gal Gadot brings out her 'inner bat' and dons Ben Affleck's mask in celebration of Batman Day
Gal Gadot showed the world what it would look like if Wonder Woman became Batman for a day.
Gal Gadot brings out her 'inner bat' and dons Ben Affleck's mask in celebration of Batman Day
The Wonder Woman actress posted a video trying on Ben Affleck's Batman mask to honor the day dedicated to the DC comics superhero.
By Andrea Towers
September 20, 2021 at 02:59 PM EDT
Gal Gadot not only fights alongside Batman — she appreciates him, too. In honor of Batman Day, the Wonder Woman actress posted a video of herself trying on Ben Affleck's bat cowl during filming of 2017's Justice League.
"It's not that bad," Gadot can be heard in the video after crew members help place the heavy mask on her head. "Or my head is not that big."
As Gadot models her new look, the crew joins in on the fun, with a makeup artist adding lipstick and mascara and someone joking that she looks like "Batman's sister."
Gal Gadot as Batman
| CREDIT: GAL GADOT/INSTAGRAM
"Bringing out my inner bat," Gadot captioned the video, which she shared on Instagram. "Happy Batman day! #BatmanDay #Batmanday2021."
This isn't the first time Gadot had donned her costar's famous cowl: In 2018, she posted a black and white still from a photoshoot for Halloween. Showing off how she looked in the famous costume (our verdict: pretty cool), she added the iconic words, "I'm Batman."
Gadot is currently on a break from her superhero life as she prepares to release the Netflix action comedy Red Notice, which arrives Nov. 12 and reunites the actress with her Fast & Furious costar Dwayne Johnson. And in her personal life, she's adjusting to a new iteration of a role she's been playing for the past few years. In June, she welcomed her third daughter Daniella, along with husband Jaron Varsano.