Movies 52 - 1917: Sonic the Bad Boys of Prey

[Slap Shot]

I didn't understand how WW84 could fall so far from the original. For instance Superman 3 was not great, but it took until 4 before that franchise attained what Wonder Woman did just 2 films in. I think it might be worse than Caddyshack 2. It's astounding really.

 

[ticapnews]

Last night was 2023. So it shouldn't count towards the 22 total.

That's not how it works.

 

[St. Clown]

Last night was 2023. So it shouldn't count towards the 22 total.

Well, now we’re back on the WW1984 pitch meeting with that statement.

 

[Handyman]

I didn't understand how WW84 could fall so far from the original. For instance Superman 3 was not great, but it took until 4 before that franchise attained what Wonder Woman did just 2 films in. I think it might be worse than Caddyshack 2. It's astounding really.

The short version:

Patty Jenkins was given full control after Wonder Woman was a huge success. This was 100% the film she wanted to make she had a lot of passion for the story and time period and AT&T/Time Warner was cultivating her to be the sort of "female Nolan" in that she had a lot of big ideas and really dug the artistic visions behind filmmaking. (Nolan also kind of championed her) Since she had kind of been ignored for years she took full advantage...

Then she made this film.

(Tbe longer after effect)

What really kind of killed her cred wasnt the film though...it was her attitude before it was released. When the Pandemic hit WB kept pushing back Tenet because Nolan would not allow it to be put on streaming and he had clout and threatened to never make films with them again and blah blah blah if they did tbat so they had to wait for theaters to partially open. (Which of course he did anyways and Tenet was easily his worst film despite cool effects and some awesome performances) Since most theaters were showing 1 or 2 films at a time because of restrictions it caused WW84 to get pushed back. She whined and WB kept offering to put it on streaming for but she wanted a theatrical release. They backed her and kept moving it which annoyed her more. Finally Tenet got released and WW84 got a streaming/theatrical release. It did not go well and she whined more. Then she signed with Di$ney to make a Rogue Squadron film (which was canceled then recently put back in development because WW3 was canceled) and also signed with I think Paramount to make Cleopatra with Gal. (Which I doubt gets made either) She ignored all the hate for the film and acted like it was a huge critical and financial success.

Truth is, and i said this after watching WW84, she should thank her lucky stars it worked out as it did. If that film is only a wide release film it bombs in weekend 2 and her clout is gone as is her credibility. The film did better with critics and fans when they didn't have to pay for it. It actually has a lot of fans because they enjoyed watching it at home not wasting time and money at a theater. Her petulant attitude really made a lot of her fans (myself included) turn on her. Same with Nolan.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Well, now we’re back on the WW1984 pitch meeting with that statement.

Eh. Was just an opinion. Nothing serious.

I wonder if the Avatar 2 pitch was, I'd like to make the same movie, only 30 minutes longer.

 

[Slap Shot]

Perhaps I'm being obtuse and missed this part, but that doesn't seem to address how they made such a garbage film regardless of the method for release. It had absolutely none of the charm of WW and the opening sequence alone was so poorly executed I thought I was being punked. I didn't expect an exact replica in style and story but I was honestly pissed off watching it. Even my wife said turn if off and she's far more agreeable and accepting than I am.

 

[ticapnews]

Eh. Was just an opinion. Nothing serious.

I wonder if the Avatar 2 pitch was, I'd like to make the same movie, only 30 minutes longer.

The pitch was "The first movie made more money than any other film ever made. Would you like to make even more money?" The executives at Fox thought long and hard before deciding that, yes, they would like to make even more money.

 

[French Rage]

Even the first WW isn't quite as good as we all like to think. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty good, but it's also helped by the other DC stuff being so bad that "pretty good" ends up feeling like "great". It's helped by the WW1 setting and the whole fish-out-of-water plot. But then WW1984 gives us a pointless 80s setting (that they also somehow never really make use of). So it's already knocked down a few pegs. Then there's just so many plot holes and issues (hey remember how in modern times she told Batman she laid low for 100 years but we see her tracking down thieves in a completely crowded mall!). Also apparently if she just jumps a little higher she can, like, fly or something; odd she didn't figure that out until now. Every bad choice they could make they did make.

 

[Handyman]

Perhaps I'm being obtuse and missed this part, but that doesn't seem to address how they made such a garbage film regardless of the method for release. It had absolutely none of the charm of WW and the opening sequence alone was so poorly executed I thought I was being punked. I didn't expect an exact replica in style and story but I was honestly ****ed off watching it. Even my wife said turn if off and she's far more agreeable and accepting than I am.

Because giving full creative control to a director is almost never a good idea.

 

[Handyman]

The pitch was "The first movie made more money than any other film ever made. Would you like to make even more money?" The executives at Fox thought long and hard before deciding that, yes, they would like to make even more money.

Except it cost more too so that isn't true either. And you know that...

 

[Handyman]

Even the first WW isn't quite as good as we all like to think. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty good, but it's also helped by the other DC stuff being so bad that "pretty good" ends up feeling like "great". It's helped by the WW1 setting and the whole fish-out-of-water plot. But then WW1984 gives us a pointless 80s setting (that they also somehow never really make use of). So it's already knocked down a few pegs. Then there's just so many plot holes and issues (hey remember how in modern times she told Batman she laid low for 100 years but we see her tracking down thieves in a completely crowded mall!). Also apparently if she just jumps a little higher she can, like, fly or something; odd she didn't figure that out until now. Every bad choice they could make they did make.

It's better than most of the first phase Marvel dreck...all origin films are pretty basic and lame.

 

[ticapnews]

Except it cost more too so that isn't true either. And you know that...

it had already broken even after about ten days of release. Every dime after that is pure profit.

 

[Handyman]

I'm not saying it isn't profitable I am saying it might not end up MORE profitable which is what it seemed you were saying.

Tbe film was never going to lose money but that Diane mean it is performing to the levels that are expected or is as successful as its predecessor. That was my point.

 

[ticapnews]

I'm not saying it isn't profitable I am saying it might not end up MORE profitable which is what it seemed you were saying.

Tbe film was never going to lose money but that Diane mean it is performing to the levels that are expected or is as successful as its predecessor. That was my point.

Yes, the film was probably not going to make as much money as the film that made more money than any other movie in history. However, it is still going to make an incredible amount of money, which is what executives at Fox cared about most.

 

[Handyman]

Oh of course...I don't begrudge them making the film. I think the ROI is going to continue to drop though so they might want to rethink the 4 follow ups or whatever.

 

[Kepler]

Yes, the film was probably not going to make as much money as the film that made more money than any other movie in history. However, it is still going to make an incredible amount of money, which is what executives at Fox cared about most.

To be fair, even in the golden age of film (1930-1959) when 90% of the greatest movies in history were made, money was still all the studio heads cared about.

 

[Kepler]

Because giving full creative control to a director is almost never a good idea.

It's not even* a good idea when his name is Herzog, Welles, Altman, or Kubrick, so it's really not a great idea when they're not even that good.

* TBH though I'd give it to Renoir, Kurosawa, Bergman, Lang, or Bunuel.

 

[ticapnews]

To be fair, even in the golden age of film (1930-1959) when 90% of the greatest movies in history were made, money was still all the studio heads cared about.

No, no. It was all about the art. In particular, portraits of dead presidents...

 

[Handyman]

It's not even* a good idea when his name is Herzog, Welles, Altman, or Kubrick, so it's really not a great idea when they're not even that good.

* TBH though I'd give it to Renoir, Kurosawa, Bergman, Lang, or Bunuel.

Its true. What's funny is a lot of people whine about "studio interference" when they like a director but studios saved many of the best movies from being dismal failures.

I mean think of what Prometheus could have been if someone had told Ridley Scott "No".

 

[Slap Shot]

To be fair, even in the golden age of film (1930-1959) when 90% of the greatest movies in history were made, money was still all the studio heads cared about.

I was surprised when reading up on this and learning how much money played a part as far back as it did. I was probably naive or put it out of my had that greed could be so prevalent that early in the industry.