Wonder Woman 1984 Subjected To More Criticism Because of Multiple Moves? No, It Just Wasn’t As Good As The First Film

Wonder Woman 1984 ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The opinion piece quoted below makes some good points about movies that are moved around being subjected to more scrutiny, but I think Wonder Woman 1984 is a bad example to use. The film was underwhelming compared to the first, as are the vast majority of sequels. Did it help that it was delayed multiple times? No, but by the time we got to see it, over a year later than originally planned and through 9 months of a crippling pandemic, people were expecting a better movie than screened. That’s on Patty Jenkins and her creative team.

But check out the piece.

Nielsen continued, “I think that what happens psychologically is that a lot of movies like that then get into this insecure territory where they’re up for a judgment that would not normally have happened. The fact that it was moved so many times, put it under scrutiny that it did not deserve. It also, as a sophomore film, will always be compared to the one before.” “Wonder Woman 1984” was originally going to open on December 13, 2019, before Warner Bros. settled on November 1, 2019. The movie’s first big release push came when the film bumped to June 5, 2020

Connie Nielsen Defends Wonder Woman 1984: Release Day Caused Backlash | IndieWire

Had Wonder Woman 1984 released originally, instead of the studio getting greedy and trying to milk more $$$ out of it in summer 2020 it would have made more money. I don’t think anybody would argue differently there, but if you want to do so, the comments area is below.

Hindsight is 20/20 but we all know what happened in March 2020 and it spelled doom for that release date. There weren’t any theaters open to show the movie, so they had to push it back again — and again. Ultimately Christmas 2020 wasn’t much of a present when the movie wasn’t that good.

Now, to go back to the beginning of this post, even if Wonder Woman 1984 had released in 2019 has planned, I don’t think the reviews would have been any less critical. We’ll never know, but the article speculates this contributed to the overall criticism of the film itself. I can’t disagree any more. It simply doesn’t matter how or when a movie is released what the review community will think of the movie. I might prefer a movie be screened in a theater vs. home, but that doesn’t have any impact on the review itself. If I like the story, the acting, the experience enough, it’s getting a recommendation. I could care less when it is reviewed.

Look at Avatar 2 for perhaps a better as yet unproven example. We don’t know anything about if the film will be any good and it’s been delayed more than Wonder Woman 1984 ever could have been. Whenever we finally see Avatar 2 in theaters — presumably December 2022 as of this current writing, but who knows if that date will hold — will the many delays make critics more critical? I think some will focus on the delays in their commentary but I don’t think it will increase their criticism of the movie itself. Maybe I’m wrong.

Back to Wonder Woman 1984.

What do you think? Did Wonder Woman 1984 received more negative reviews simply because of the delayed screening date? This seems like a bogus argument to me. Did it make less money? Absolutely I think it did. Sooner is better than later I think with most movie releases, especially those that have already been marketed. If you don’t market and promote the film releasing it sooner will hurt the sales. The movie, once release, stands on its own with critics. I don’t see how there is a correlation otherwise. What do you think?

Patty Jenkins Still Batting .667 on Rotten Tomatoes, despite Wonder Woman 1984 being deemed “Rotten”

Wonder Woman: 1984 ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Predictably, many are focused on Wonder Woman 1984 underperforming. This is something that has bothered me since diving into the world of movies in greater depth> That these big budget movies have way too much pressure to make money. It’s all about making money instead of telling a good story.

Now many filmmakers will tell you otherwise. They need the big budgets so they have the “freedom” to tell their stories the way they want, so they can secure the biggest name actors, shoot in exotic locales, hire the best crew, pay for the fanciest CGI and effects, and so on.

Oceanfront property is available in Phoenix, Arizona, you know. Really, it is 😉

Also, it’s bizarre to suggest that a mere 377 critics can declare a movie that costs $200+ million either good or bad, but that’s how small the Rotten Tomatoes critic pool is these days to judge director and writer Patty Jenkins’ output.

Guess I’m sticking up for Jenkins in this post somewhat. Not because Wonder Woman 1984 is better than the critic reviews — it’s not, I thought the film was average at best, and a major step down from the first film — but because this is just a nightmarishly bad time to release a big budget film. Any film, really, regardless of budget, but those with more modest budgets will always, always, always have less financial pressure.

In these times, don’t you want your project to have less financial pressure?

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Jenkins is personally responsible for the lacking script, much less solely responsible. It also doesn’t mean the only problem with the movie is its writing. The overwhelming majority of complaints about the movie, however, do relate to its writing and structure. For example, the often cartoony tone, the bizarre MacGuffin of the Dreamstone, the inconsistent fluctuation of Diana’s fleeting powers, and most definitely the disturbing logistics of Steve Trevor’s return.

Wonder Woman 1984 Falls To Rotten On Rotten Tomatoes

So, I’m not going to pile on Patty Jenkins in this post. Seriously, to have two out of three movies received well isn’t easy for any director. Props to Jenkins. She’s better than her most recent film effort shows.

What does her record mean for Rogue Squadron and Wonder Woman 3? Probably the odds are against both of those films being well received, but we’ll have to wait and see. Honestly, I’m more interested in seeing what Jenkins can do with a Star Wars movie than another Wonder Woman film. What do you think?

Still, the reviews played in Jenkins’ favor for Monster and the first Wonder Woman, plus more importantly than movie reviewer opinions, both were better films. If we look at all three films, two out of three is still an amazing batting average (.667).

The more interesting angle for any new post here, besides talking about Rotten Tomatoes being flawed (again), is looking at the bigger elephant in the room:

Number of audience reviews.

I’m sure in time, the number of audience reviews will increase for WW1984, but my guess is the review score average will continue to trend downward, perhaps the audience being a little more forgiving than most critics.

The fact is that most people who watch movies don’t watch them for the same reasons that critics do. It’s not their profession. Average moviegoers are trying to escape their job, their life, to relax and simply be entertained. The expectations aren’t as high for the average moviegoer as it is for a movie critic, especially a professional who reviews hundreds of movies per year. This means, generally speaking, that audience reviews will be less judgmental for most movies. Therefore, those that audiences reject must be total trash.

Eventually the numbers on Rotten Tomatoes should balance more, but it’s obvious that many moviegoers aren’t reviewing movies in the same numbers they were pre-pandemic.

Critics and audiences were most closely aligned over the excellent Monster, Jenkins first movie

Like hundreds of thousands more reviews, in fact, if you look at the numbers. Sure, this is only one website, Rotten Tomatoes, and again I’m not suggesting the site is the cat’s meow for movie reviews, but it is often the one that most publications cite as a bellwether for a movie’s reception.

Given it’s only a few weeks since Wonder Woman 1984 was released, but the number of audience reviews emphasizes the much greater problem for the movie industry. At least the movie reviewing part of the business. Fewer people reviewing movies suggests less interest overall among moviegoers. Less movies being watched overall?

We know people aren’t watching movies in theaters, because many are closed and ticket sales domestically dropped 80% in 2020 over what they were in 2019, but are less movies being streamed? My guess is no, the same amount of movies are being watched, perhaps even more. For new movies, however, people don’t have the money lying around to pay $20 for PVOD and/or subscribe to multiple streaming channels, so they’re binging TV seasons on Netflix and rewatching older movies. They might be playing more videogames, too.

This has all the major movie theater chains worried. That people will become apathetic to the cinema experience. That they won’t return to watching movies like they were before. I’ve already debunked that myth.

I do strongly believe that moviegoers will return. Sure, it won’t be this year, and it certainly wasn’t last year, but give it some time once the pandemic fully subsides. Heck, they just pushed back reopening theaters in Washington State again, meaning we can’t see a movie in a theater until at least January 18, 2021, maybe. We’re still deep in the weeds here. Anybody saying differently is drinking, smoking or using something really strong.

None of this is that surprising given many people are out of work and are concerned about much more important priorities in their lives than movies right now.

My only advice for movie studios and filmmakers is the same I’ve been giving since starting this site and before we had any pandemic: keep the budgets down. Don’t make overly expensive movies. Yes, you need to keep creating, but art doesn’t need to be expensive to be good.

On this front, I know Patty Jenkins won’t listen to me. Her next two movies, if they get made, will costs a half a billion dollars or more. If that’s the case, and it probably is, she should be bashed for that. Hey Patty, here’s a real challenge, go make an indie film next. Don’t make Rogue Squadron or another Wonder Woman. Make something with a budget of less than $10 million that is fresh, inventive and entertaining. Call up Jason Blum. He has the recipe.

Despite Lukewarm Reception for Wonder Woman 1984, Warner Bros. Greenlights Third Movie

Regardless your feelings for Wonder Woman: 1984, Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot are booked to return for a third film. Or at least, that is the plan after perhaps after Jenkins finishes Rogue Squadron for Disney.

Jenkins is saying Rogue Squadron — which has a scheduled release date of December 22, 2023 — is pretty far along in the treatment process and she’ll have to work on the third Wonder Woman at the same time. Multi-tasking alert. My guess is Wonder Woman 3 will be out in 2024 or 2025, assuming the creative process doesn’t hit some kind of snag or key people — IE. Jenkins, as she did previously pull out of Thor — pull out of the project. I don’t see Jenkins bailing on Wonder Woman 3, but it wouldn’t be totally shocking if she doesn’t feel like she can do the story she wants to do.

Early speculation on what the third film will be about have Jenkins saying it won’t be another period piece.

“I’m not pining to put it in the past again, because where are you going to go? I think it would be weird,” she said in a Hollywood Reporter interview last year. “You have to go forward. It’s definitely a contemporary story. That’s all I can say. And so where we put it and how that gets figured out, I haven’t totally nailed down.” 

Here’s Everything We Know About ‘Wonder Woman 3’ | HuffPost

So, will Wonder Woman be battling something contempary like, er, a virus? That would be about as timely as anything could be in current times. There are rumors that Chris Pine might return as well, but nothing confirmed yet. I think Steve Trevor was largely wasted in WW1984, so if that’s how he’s coming back, maybe that should be cut. Another possibility is he might be flashbacks only, which is almost as bad. Time travel? Please, no.

Must admit that at this very early and much premature stage, I’m not that interested in seeing a third Wonder Woman movie. That could easily change once the story details and a teaser trailer emerge. After seeing a sequel that wasn’t great, it reduces our enthusiasm for another sequel.

It was somewhat inevitable that the trilogy would be made. And I am glad that Jenkins will get a chance to finish her vision of Wonder Woman. Maybe instead of Geoff Johns, she should spend more story writing time collaborating with Zack Snyder like was done in the first? My faith in Patty’s screenwriting skill is shaken after seeing her most recent effort.

Are you looking forward to a third Wonder Woman movie? Or are you feeling less excited, too, after seeing the current film? There were just too many delays, too many edits, too much fooling around with the film. I wonder how much that negatively impacted the finished product. We might never know.

Wonder Woman 1984 ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Wonder Woman 1984 – PG-13 – 2 hr 31 min
NO SPOILERS Movie Review
Watched on HBO Max Friday December 25, 2020
HBO Max – Tacoma, Washington

A long-awaited Christmas 2020 present has arrived allowing HBO Max viewers, especially those of us who can’t see this in an open theater, to see this tentpole film.

Before getting to the plot, we would have both rather seen this in a theater, but didn’t want to wait. Is that what happened with you, too? Or are you waiting for theaters to open and plan to see it there?

Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is working in the 80s as a geologist when she meets shy, goofy Barbara Minerva. They analyze this artifact that Diana decodes the wording as being a dream granter, thinking of what her wish would be, sort of like a superhero version of the monkey’s paw. Meanwhile, Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) attempts to be an oil tycoon are failing, so he steals the artifact and wishes to become the artifact, so he can grant wishes to the world.

First, we need to talk about the excess runtime. My goodness, this movie wasn’t complex enough plot-wise to require over 2 1/2 hours. Apparently, director Patty Jenkins pared back some of the scenes, but I’d argue some scenes were completely unnecessary. The opening Amazonian sequence was cool, but not very necessary. Steve Trevor’s involvement and love story seemed to be living more off a dream sequence than reality.

Where were the 80s? Yes, I recognized the mall backdrop from Commando which has been in a lot of movies, but with a movie set in the 80s, it needed more 80s references and nostalgia. Then again, maybe Wonder Woman stories belong in a World War II setting. The Nazis make such great villains.

Strengths? Maxwell Lord was more than just a cardboard villain, which was appreciated. The scenes with Cheetah vs. Wonder Woman were excellent and those alone make this film worth watching. Beyond Cheetah and Wonder Woman’s awesome gold armor, the movie was a bit flat and even draggy in spots.

The scale of the movie is grand. It was clearly made to be seen on the biggest screen possible. The sound effects and score are good. Watching Wonder Woman fling that golden lasso around flying from here to there — riding the lightning as seen in the previews! — or roping antagonists is exciting and fulfilling. Viewers will look forward to seeing these parts.

As the credits rolled, we felt like the story wasn’t as rewarding as some of the individual scenes. Was this the amazing movie I’ve waited over a year to see? Sometimes yes, mostly no. Scenes with Wonder Woman and Cheetah are great, but the rest is just kind of there. Like we’re being forced to wait for the good parts. At one dramatic arc in the movie, I wasn’t engaged or interested, I wanted to get to a different part of the movie. Not a good sign.

Unlike the first movie where Diana taking care of Steve while fighting evil kept viewers constantly engaged, this one just checked out at times. It’s still recommended, but the first movie, like all too many sequels, was significantly better. Not a lot of rewatch value here, except battle scenes which, again, were excellent.

Rating (out of 5 stars): ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (Todd) ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (Kara)

No, Taxpayers Should NOT Bail Out Cinemas, Sorry Patty Jenkins and Other Millionaire Hollywood Directors

The Wonder Woman director has a right to her wrong opinion

This is rich, and that’s a major play on words.

Patty Jenkins, someone who has done some outstanding work on films like Monster and Wonder Woman and awaits the now Christmas release of the 80s timeline sequel (see: Wonder Woman 1984 Delayed Again Until Christmas Day 2020, Dune still December 18), is joining many other Hollywood directors trying to encourage the government to bail out the cinemas.

Jenkins is among dozens of top Hollywood directors appealing to the U.S. government to provide a financial lifeline to cinemas. Without it, she warned, the century-old tradition of going to the movies could disappear from American culture.

‘Wonder Woman’ director warns movie-going could become extinct

No, no, no, no. A thousand more nos. Horrible idea.

Here’s the thing, the government are people. All of us. We’re the taxpayers and we pay the taxes. So anything the government does, probably through printing money it doesn’t have since we’re multiple dozen trillions in debt, becomes a further burden on US taxpayers.

This image was taken from March 2020: $2 trillion deal stimulus package receives bipartisan support, movie theater chains likely included

Now look at the current debt clock taken from seconds ago, showing an increase of almost $4 trillion dollars.

US Debt as of 10/8/2020 — rising fast

We’re huge fans of watching movies at the theater, having paid for and watched over 100 movies in theaters the last year (see 2019 watched in theaters and 2020) — despite the pandemic wiping out most of the last six months.

If it comes down to a taxpayer bailout for cinemas to keep them from going out of business, then my answer at this point is blunt, but practical and necessary: let them go out of business. That wouldn’t be some major catastrophic failure. It’s not like the ozone layer depleted and life on earth as we know it will die. I believe that other savvy business people will rise up and seize the cinema experience, making some new, different experience. That’s America.

The whining about us not getting any or as many big budget movies? So what! (see: $100+ Million Movie Budgets Are Stupid) Great movies have been created on very modest budgets by today’s standards. Hollywood elites threatening us from their million dollar mansions is neither compelling or convincing.

Movies will still be made. Good movies will still be financed and made. Hollywood doesn’t need taxpayer funding.

I am concerned about the tens of thousands of underpaid workers who can’t work in the cinema business while they remain closed. We should have had a second stimulus plan that would have helped these people directly, but our government is too possessed with arguing over who will be president the next four years to concern themselves with helping the unemployed.

Or maybe — and this is definitely just me thinking out loud — if there was a stimulus plan before the election, then it looks like the current government did their job, that would be helpful to the current political party in power. My guess is there will be a stimulus plan, miraculous as it will be passed not too long after the result of the presidential election. Just as the Supreme Court vacancy will be filled. Movie theaters will either reopen or die. Life will go on. An asteroid hasn’t struck the earth if Hollywood has to restructure the way it works.

Perspective in life isn’t something, it’s everything.

These are the things the political powers that be are consumed by, not movie theaters. Not the majority of unemployed taxpayers. Not the people. Not us.

That’s probably the source of what Jenkins and her director group are focusing on, but these people will get jobs in some other business sector and/or maybe work in the new cinemas that pop up if/when the big three theater chains go out of business. And if some of these directors lose their mansions and luxurious lifestyle, sorry. You earned those benefits off the backs of millions of middle and lower income people paying to see your movies for escapism and entertainment. If people can’t/won’t afford to go in as large numbers to finance your next mansion, again, sorry.

It’s not just a rich vs. middle income and poor discussion though. Going out of business — or severe disruption impacting business — happens sooner or later to virtually every type of business. The same could be said of taxi drivers being disrupted over Lyft and Uber and countless other businesses through time that have been disrupted due to changing times and business. This isn’t personal, it’s just the way it is.

Bailouts are a bad idea for the entertainment sector, period. A sector that may give many of us pleasure, but isn’t a necessity. It’s entertainment, people. Pleasure. That can and will be had in a variety of other places if it goes away — and just so it’s clear, I don’t believe it will ever completely go away.

Go back to working on your next project, Mrs. Jenkins. If we can afford it, we might be interested in that.