Discussion in 'Wonder Woman 1984' started by Thread Manager, Aug 2, 2018.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]542849[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]519745[/split]
What's Wilde done that's gotten so many excited about her inclusion and theorizing she could play two of the bigger WW villains? I can't say I have ever heard of her before. Is she on something like Westworld or the like?
Reposting this for new thread..
I don't know.. But I looked-up she was in a few movies and currently she's doing some BBC series.
BBC's series Poldark
She definitely has that hnnngh but crazy look down. I can see her as some russian evil lady.
Cheetah and Silver Swan fighting over ectoplasmic Steve Trevor (Captain Wonder).
That's what I'm talking about! Less monitors and headgames, more cat vs bird.
Hey look, she's arguing with her imagination:
Wow, she says, like, everything I've been saying.
Great minds think alike.
No one considers Grace a great mind on literally anything.
You do realize Grace is pretty much the last person you want agreeing with you right? Her track record sucks and she flips opinions faster than most other clickbaiters.
The best part about this theory is the "blue and gold" stuff. Blue and Gold was Blue Beetle and Booster Gold who were friends with Max Lord. When they were all friends Max wasnt a villain. (until he was taken over by Kilg%re or however you spell it) That was when he was the financial backer of the JLI before he had any of his powers.
The coloring has nothing to do with the JLI, it is just a filter that makes it look nostalgic and pretty much on par with the era the film is being shot in. There is zero evidence that Pascal is playing Max Lord and there is no story that Geoff Johns wrote (since that is what you and Grace are hanging this theory on) that would make sense for the time period, or the character. Unless somehow Blue Beetle shows up, is investigating stuff and is killed all while Superman is being mind controlled it doesnt parallel at all. Not to mention that Max was in control of Checkmate.
If this somehow does end up being Max it wont be because of Geoff Johns because he never wrote a story that would work as a WW movie. Justice League sure but WW no. Shoehorning him into the film when there are actual WW villains that can do what he does and make way more sense would be stupid and honestly pointless and I just dont see Patty doing it. If it was a popular character maybe but I bet 75% of he people who see the film wont even know who he is and the ones who do will be rather confused.
Not totally on the Max train but for the new thread I just want to post these again...
I mean... Let's not pretend that there's not a little bit of resemblance to 80's Max Lord.
Also... Look at how Pascal looks and tell me you don't see the current POTUS?
Okay... Here's what Andy Helfner, JLI era editor wrote for a collected version of that time frame's Justice League which featured Max:
Again... Pascal is just a guy in a suit but, I don't know... The styling is pretty damn spot on for Max. I mean, if you were Jenkins and wanted to use this character and cast the part and had your costume and make up people use the JLI, Kevin Maguire era as a reference... Wouldn't what Pascal looks like be the result?
A "little"? That's practically ripped from the page I just hope there won't be any snapping redo, too soon, too soon
As long as it's not just me seeing it.
When Grace said, "There were some ideas during preproduction which would have been *disastrous* for this film, and I hope Patty Jenkins had the sense to take them out" I thought I heard Maxwell Lord's neck snapping.
Yeah, they seem to be going for an allegory of current politics. Need to go light on that, of course, or risk offending half the voters. Maybe they will balance it with an endearing Reagan; he has to appear you know: it's an 80's film - or I want my money back.
Ideas are not bad, how they are received depends on the execution. For example, I thought there was a lot of corny dialogue in Thor Ragnarok, but the way director presented it made it palatable (to most), same for some scenes in that movie.
Ragnarok was played as a farce from the very first line, so you knew what you were in for, and it (kind of) worked because they had the guts to go all the way with it (totally over the top characters, Grand Master, Stone Guy, etc.) and the silliness was balanced by sorrow too great to bear (death of Odin, obliteration of Asgard, blinding of Thor).
So it was a recipe of extremes and kind of tasted ok as a whole.
I'm ok if WW1984 goes total farce: play the TV series theme song at the start, Circe casts an aging spell on Wonder Woman half way through, and Lynda Carter kicks butt in costume to the end. It's not the film people are asking for, but it could be serious fun, once you realize you're not getting a sequel to the first film.
My fear is that they are going half way, and it will not succeed as either genre: not over the top enough to be a farce, and not self respecting enough to be an epic drama (which the first film was).
I know many people absolutely loved Thor Ragnarok but farcical comedy is not for me, I hate it, if WW84 is anything like that, I would be disappointed.
Well, there are certainly exceptions..
You also thought Superman was Bizarro in BvS because of a look he gave Lex and thought OMAC was somehow involved
I bet if you found random pictures of a guy in a suit from the comics a lot of them would resemble Pascal too. And what the heck does Donald Trump have to do with anything?
So is it the contention that somehow Max skips the entire JLI (since no heroes were around in 1984 that we know of least of all enough to form he JLI) and Superbuddies deal and goes straight to villain...even though the so called hard evidence (the blue and gold) is directly a reference to that era? (including the pictures you posted) Seems thin to me
Put it this way, the character would have no heft to him. His main character arc would have never happened and the story that leads to his death would never have happened either. It is like having Doomsday but never having him kill Superman. (or having some rando CIA guy named James Olson in BvS) He is then pretty worthless and could be ANY character. Difference is even half of the comic fans probably have zero clue who Max Lord is let alone the average WW moviegoer.
Plenty of movies, specially superhero movies, specially specially marvel movies, are middle of the road, and they work just fine, because guess what: most superheroes are middle of the road between silly and serious.
And this idea again about the TV show, as if it was a comedy...
Here's an excerpt from one episode:
Now tell me this isn't perfectly in line with a geopolitical take a WW movie set in Cold War could have.
Also, the leaked sneak peek looks a lot like teenage 80s movies rather than anything else. I was watching Bill & Ted the other day, and the part where they go to the mall with the historical figures is uncanny.
No doubt that scene in the mall will be lighthearted, just Wonder Woman being a crimefighter, but that doesn't mean farcical, and that doesn't mean it can't be good for not being TOTALLY SERIOUS AND EPIC either.
Right on all counts, which is why Maxwell Lord should not be in WW1984. And yet, there he is.
Why is he there? Only Geoff knows. Maybe it's so Wonder Woman will have someone's neck to break.
Patty was hyper focused on the tone of the first film; in particular she wanted to avoid the self-aware winking at the audience which most comicbook movies have. She nailed the tone of the first film, and everyone loved it. And it was a lesson to WB, who has had such a hard time setting the tone of their comicbook movies.
So it makes perfect sense for Patty to abandon said tone for the second film. Apparently.
Winking to the audience is something entirely different than between silly and serious. Look at Black Manta in the Aquaman movie. He's both and it's not winking at the audience at all. And he just reflects the whole movie.
Batman '66 is farcical and it winks to the audience. Superman '78 and Batman '89 are between silly and serious and don't wink to the audience.
Guardians of the Galaxy (silly) is fundamentally different from Thor Ragnarok (straight up comedy).
And there are plenty of silly scenes in Wonder Woman, with comedy soundtrack and everything. The whole dig at being a secretary (which Diana Prince was originally) and "she puts on glasses and suddenly isn't the most beautiful woman you've ever seen" specifically was 100% "wink at the audience" moments as well.
Honestly, fans don't know what the heck they want until they see it. People will only like Wonder Woman movies if it's a muddled 'war drama' with terrible CGI fest 3rd acts from now until the ends of time?
The Cold War setting actually could serve for something even more serious than what they made with WWI, of all things, in the first movie.
Now tell me what's "winking at the audience" about the leaked footage. Lots of baseless inferences going around.
The way I see it, except for the lighting, it doesn't look any more lighthearted or comedic or whatever than the alley scene in the first movie, which even had the last bad guy being punched and slowly falling to a comedic sound effect! Watch it again and see how at odds with your "serious epic movie" that scene is. Immediately after that, one of them commits suicide. If we are being nitpicky, the tone is all over the place.