The Movie Thread Reloaded

[HappyDaze]

I saw WW84. It was OK, neither great nor terrible. If you're already paying for HBOMax, give it a try. If you're not,  see if there's a free trial period because I wouldn't drop money specifically for WW84.

[Warder]

I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.

[Ratman_tf]

I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.

Yeah, but people draw the line at different points.

For example, Superman shooting heat rays of of his eyes is silly, but people roll with it.
Superman shooting a fix the Great Wall of China ray out of his eyes is generally agreed to be past that line.

Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.

I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.

[jhkim]

I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.

Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.

I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.

Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.

Also, I just didn't find the ridiculous parts funny. The Shazam movie was also much more of a comedy, while WW84 just had lots of unfunny absurdity.

I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.

[Trond]

I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.

Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.

I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.

Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.

Also, I just didn't find the ridiculous parts funny. The Shazam movie was also much more of a comedy, while WW84 just had lots of unfunny absurdity.

I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.

I agree with all of this, particularly the comedy parts. Iron Man movies typically have had much better humor for instance.

[Ratman_tf]

I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.

I hear WW84 is doing well financially. I expect a large part of it is people wanting a fun movie during their Covid stress.

[Ratman_tf]

I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.

Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.

I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.

Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.

My one nit with Shazam is when he catches the bus. That thing should have crumpled around his hands and collapsed from the impact. But it was such a great scene, seeing a superhero actually save people and not just punch the villain, I give it a pass.

*I probably should have made that one reply. Ah well.*

[Omega]

Just saw the Rocketeer a few days ago, and I was expecting very little, but was positively surprised. I think it's a bit of an overlooked pulp gem. A few points:

-I wonder if many reviewers didn't get the humor. It's full of it, and often self-deprecating humor (contra Ebert's review of the film).
-Many also didn't notice how much effort they put into the set designs. The zeppelin is actually quite accurate.
-Jennifer Connelly is young, a bit more "fleshy" than in recent years, and absolutely gorgeous.

Pretty nice inspiration for pulp adventures with fairly straightforward plots

It is a surprisingly good movie despite its various deviations from the source comics. I liked the actors and as you noted the sets and everything are really well done.

[Omega]

Yeah, but people draw the line at different points.

For example, Superman shooting heat rays of of his eyes is silly, but people roll with it.
Superman shooting a fix the Great Wall of China ray out of his eyes is generally agreed to be past that line.

Most agree the whole of Quest for Peace was past all lines. heh.

As for Wonder Woman and being a comic book character. The problem is the movies do not use the comic book character and instead make up over the top stuff for god knows what reason.

Wonder Woman in the comics has some fairly well defined abilities and limitations even into the 70s where she had by then experienced some upgrading like everyone else. If the movies had stuck to that it would have been believable because its not drifting towards Quest for Peace weirdness.

[Omega]

My one nit with Shazam is when he catches the bus. That thing should have crumpled around his hands and collapsed from the impact. But it was such a great scene, seeing a superhero actually save people and not just punch the villain, I give it a pass.

*I probably should have made that one reply. Ah well.*

If hes still powered by magic as the original then the buss not crumpling makes sense. In the comics hes one of the few people who can go toe-to-toe with superman because his powers are magic based. To which Superman is vulnerable. Or was well into the 90s. Wonder Woman is another who can for similar reasons.

[Lurkndog]

I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.

I hear WW84 is doing well financially. I expect a large part of it is people wanting a fun movie during their Covid stress.

It made $19 million in theaters its opening weekend. Plus a lot more on streaming.

[Lurkndog]

If hes still powered by magic as the original then the buss not crumpling makes sense. In the comics hes one of the few people who can go toe-to-toe with superman because his powers are magic based. To which Superman is vulnerable. Or was well into the 90s. Wonder Woman is another who can for similar reasons.

The Kingdom Come miniseries has Shazam facing off with Superman in an apocalyptic future scenario. Wonder Woman also has a sword and her golden armor in that one.

[Trond]

I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).

[jhkim]

I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).

One big difference between film and books is that film tends to be a more emotional medium. Humans instinctively empathize with facial expressions especially, moreso than with words on a page. Being able to see the actor's face in close-up means the audience tends to have closer identification with the film's protagonist. As a result, mainstream films tend to have more of a relatable protagonist whose face is onscreen.

Seeing someone's childhood is one way of making them relatable, plus a child's face is even more instinctively emotional to people than an adult's.

So I'm not really surprised at film adaptations where they make the protagonist into a more likeable, relatable character -- and including childhood scenes.

That said, there are a lot better ways to do this - and to buck the trend while still being successful.

[Ratman_tf]

I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).

One big difference between film and books is that film tends to be a more emotional medium. Humans instinctively empathize with facial expressions especially, moreso than with words on a page. Being able to see the actor's face in close-up means the audience tends to have closer identification with the film's protagonist. As a result, mainstream films tend to have more of a relatable protagonist whose face is onscreen.

Seeing someone's childhood is one way of making them relatable, plus a child's face is even more instinctively emotional to people than an adult's.

So I'm not really surprised at film adaptations where they make the protagonist into a more likeable, relatable character -- and including childhood scenes.

That said, there are a lot better ways to do this - and to buck the trend while still being successful.

I think they also wanted to show Themyscara again.
The problem with superhero movie sequels is that they're past the 'origin story', but there's a lot of backstory that need to be explained for someone new jumping into the series.