Waffles Inc. posted:

The wife of a friend of mine absolutely detests comic book movies from basically every angle (and she's right most of the time about why they're bad), but she's been gushing about WW from the second it was over

~~AS A MAN~~ it really seems like this was a capital I Important movie for women (at the very least those in my life, all of whom have said as much), which is pretty rad imvho

Super Fan posted:

What exactly does she hate about CB movies and how is WW any different?

Steve Yun posted:

Was Dr Poison supposed to be Turkish?

quote:

Box Office: 'Wonder Woman' Soars Over $300 Million Worldwide

Scott Mendelson

As the headline exclaims, Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman has now earned over $300 million at the worldwide box office in just over a week. That includes a $9.3 million Wednesday gross in North America, a drop of 35% from its boffo $14.4m Tuesday and $138.7m total after six days of domestic release. The worldwide total as of yesterday was $283m and Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. just confirmed that it made it over the hunch thanks to Wednesday's numbers.

It is now already one of the highest-grossing movies ever from a female director (sans a male co-director). Offhand, the milestones in question are Pitch Perfect 2 ($288 million in 2015), Twilight ($391m worldwide in 2008), Fifty Shades of Grey ($571m in 2015), Mamma Mia! ($609m in 2008) and Kung Fu Panda 2 ($665m in 2011). And the domestic milestones remain Mama Mia! ($144m), Fifty Shades of Grey ($166m), Kung Fu Panda 2 ($165m), Pitch Perfect 2 ($184m), Twilight ($191m).

That's not accounting for inflation, but Tom Brueggemann over at Indiewire went into a deep dive on that note last week. The short version: If Wonder Woman tops $309 million domestic (Look Who's Talking), it'll be the biggest domestic hit ever with a (solo) female director even adjusted for inflation. And, at this admittedly early juncture, such a thing is entirely possible. Patty Jenkins' superhero adventure continues to play like The Secret Life of Pets, which opened with $104m in July of 2015 and legged it to $368m.

It is just as likely that Wonder Woman could play closer to The Hunger Games: Mockingjay part II and end up with something closer to $285 million, which ironically would be right around where the upper-level (but not top-tier) MCU movies end up in terms of post-debut legs (2.7x) and close to the unadjusted grosses of the Twilight sequels. But the film has the wind at its back heading into its second weekend, with rave reviews, white-hot buzz and... less-than-favorable reviews and buzz for The Mummy as its primary competition.

The only complication is that its weekday numbers are so strong (the Monday and Tuesday grosses were bigger than the film's Thursday preview number) that the demand might have been siphoned off prior to the Fri-Sun frame. Having said that, while much of the country is out of school already, pretty much everyone is on summer vacation next week meaning that we might (emphasis on "might") see smaller-than-normal Monday-to-Monday and Tuesday-to-Tuesday (and so forth) drops leading up to the third weekend of release.

There have been a few big releases on this weekend over the years (Finding Nemo, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Up, X-Men: First Class, Snow White and the Huntsman, Maleficent, Maleficent, etc.). In 2014, Walt Disney's Maleficent made $24.4 million on its first Mon-Thurs frame and then another $16.3m (-34%) on its second Mon-Thurs frame. It was a different time, but Pixar's Finding Dory dropped just 30% in 2003 from its Mon-Thurs frame to its second.

But for the moment Wonder Woman is now the 14th-biggest worldwide grosser of 2017 and the ninth-biggest in North America (just ahead of M. Night Shyamalan's Split on both counts). It'll be in fifth place by the end of the weekend, and it'll be in third (past Logan's $226 million gross) soon enough. It's presumably not passing Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ($359 million-and-counting) or Beauty and the Beast ($500 million), but there isn't much out there that can approach it (barring a mega sleeper) aside from Despicable Me 3, Spider-Man: Homecoming and MAYBE Transformers: The Last Knight or War for the Planet of the Apes. Assuming nothing shocks us,

Assuming nothing shocks us, Wonder Woman should enter the month of November as the year's third or fourth biggest domestic earner. Worldwide is a different story, but that can wait until tomorrow.

Super Fan posted:

What exactly does she hate about CB movies and how is WW any different?

teagone posted:

I'm making an assumption here, but maybe she's not super into big action movie spectacles and is more into dramas? I have friends like this. Things I observed/noticed in WW that are typically absent in other CB movies were the more sensual aspects of film, both serious and comedic. The whole "pleasures of the flesh" talk on the boat, the Steve "above average" scene, etc., and the romance being really effective and genuinely affecting (imo). Sorta comes with the character I suppose, but the film embraced those kind of elements, which are things you might find more so in a romantic drama/comedy. This is a big reason why I enjoyed the film as much as I did, personally.

Dark_Tzitzimine posted:

Dark_Tzitzimine posted:

Dark_Tzitzimine posted:

Vegetable posted:

it's facetious, m8

Waffles Inc. posted:

]In addition to the fact that the hero was a powerful woman raised by powerful women. It's empowering.

teagone posted:

Oh yeah, I was pointing out things that (I think) weren't as clear/obvious to a dude as to why a woman would be more drawn to liking Wonder Woman over other comic book movies.

poptart_fairy posted:

I really, really enjoyed the film, but drat if that first trench scene didn't take me out of things. Just like Captain America's shield, it was a little too silly to accept that every single German would be using machine guns on the exact same point of an indestructible shield. Aim a little lower guys, you would have won.

LionArcher posted:

And no mans land is a more emotional honest beat than anything out of the marvel universe.

LionArcher posted:

And no mans land is a more emotional honest beat than anything out of the marvel universe.

Waffles Inc. posted:

I mean I dunno I don't usually interrogate people about why they don't like a thing, but it's probably a lot of this v v v v v v

Mars4523 posted:

Still, it's a pretty good movie. Not a great movie, and not as good as Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (which holds together much better throughout) or Logan (I just really like how that movie uses the beat of the score to emphasize the growing tension of the scene), but for D.C. it's a huge step up.

NikkolasKing posted:

Here's something I don't understand. The movie wants moral complexity of some kind but then, why choose WW1? It's never been a subject of great interest to me but I thought the tragedy of the whole thing was because it was a giant clusterfuck of alliances and people in charge and then all the little folks got dragged into it.

quote:

Wonder Woman is a movie that thrives on its ability to be funny, empowering and corny — a word director Patty Jenkins loves — all at once. It’s a testimony to writer Allan Heinberg’s talents, but one of the best scenes in the movie was completely improvised.

[Warning: The following contains spoilers for Wonder Woman.]

In between the first and second acts of the film, there’s a moment where Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), the American spy who accidentally ended up on the mystical island of Themyscira, are trying to get comfortable on a small boat before turning in for the night. After creating a makeshift bed for Wonder Woman to sleep in, the two engage in a pretty funny back-and-forth about the intimate relationships human men and woman share.

It’s a little lengthy to summarize, but let’s just say it ends with one of the best lines in the movie, which ended with “when it comes to procreation, men are essential, but for pleasure, not necessary.”

In an interview last month with Entertainment Weekly, Gadot and Pine confirmed that the entire scene was improvised. The magazine reported that Jenkins allowed Gadot and Pine to improvise quite a bit, letting them find their chemistry and bring out the best humor.

“WHEN IT COMES TO PROCREATION, MEN ARE ESSENTIAL, BUT FOR PLEASURE, NOT NECESSARY”

It’s a defining moment for the characters and their relationship, which is personally my favorite aspect of the film, but the scene acts as more than just that. The open dialogue the two can have about how men and women are seen to each other in relationships and how society views their roles is a strong underlying theme in the film. Gadot said she wanted to demonstrate that her character would never talk about how men should treat or respond to women, but rather act on her own ideas and will.

“It was important to me that my character would never come and preach about how men should treat women,” Gadot told Entertainment Weekly. “Or how women should perceive themselves. It was more about playing oblivious to society’s rules. ‘What do you mean women can’t go into the Parliament? Why?’”

Pine manages to play off Gadot’s lead perfectly. When Wonder Woman asks Trevor questions about why men or women do certain things in his world, he never treats her like less than him or as an idiot. Instead, the two manage to have a heartfelt, interesting conversation about relationship constructs, with Gadot using her role as an outsider to point out just how archaic it all seems. Remember, this takes place at the end of the first World War.

The scene could have been offensive or silly, but Jenkins, Pine and Gadot all managed to make it one of the most sincere moments between Trevor and Wonder Woman. It sets the course for their relationship and, as those who have seen the movie will know, that’s what keeps the audience invested the entire way through.

Wonder Woman is currently playing in theaters worldwide.

Charlz Guybon posted:

I think the likelihood of WW beating MOS's domestic haul (291 million) is growing. Worldwide (668 million) is a little more iffy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/06/08/box-office-wonder-woman-soaring-past-300-million-worldwide/#5267e29db6d3

LionArcher posted:

Also, it has a more humanistic sensibility to some of the war horror. And no mans land is a more emotional honest beat than anything out of the marvel universe.

Admiral Joeslop posted:

Minor spoiler that I probably missed: Did Steve say at any point that he worked for the Americans or what? He's doing spy work for the British, including answering directly to generals but he has no British accent and Chief refers to him when Diana asks who took away Chief's freedom.

I assume that I either didn't hear the explanation or it's just a thing they didn't feel the need to outright explain.

Also: Chris Pine has a multiple movie deal. Use god trickery to bring him back to life in modern times so he can be the fish out of water that Diana slowly teaches about the world

Yaws posted:

So why bring it up in the first place

Charlz Guybon posted:

The sex discussion on the boat was improvised! What?

https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/9/15772134/wonder-woman-improv

NikkolasKing posted:

Here's something I don't understand. The movie wants moral complexity of some kind but then, why choose WW1? It's never been a subject of great interest to me but I thought the tragedy of the whole thing was because it was a giant clusterfuck of alliances and people in charge and then all the little folks got dragged into it.

The movie wants to juxtapose Wonder Woman's idealism with more realism. Killing Ares won't solve everything because People Are Bad All On Their Own. But this is provably false here. The Real Life Ares that caused WW1 are entirely to blame.


World War 1 is not a case of...I dunno what to call it. Grassroots activism is the positive so I guess call it grassroots violence. The kind of racial, ethnic, religious and class tensions that exist everywhere but are more obvious since the end of the Cold War. If the moral of the story is that people can be good and bad, maybe look at the people? WW1 is a story of people being puppeted around by what might as well be gods of war. If you want to highlight the banality of evil, maybe set it during a conflict that involves average folks being awful instead of average folks being sent off to fight and die for some aristocrats who, if they were removed, would have solved a lot of problems.


This movie was no Man of Steel. It's very simplistic and when it tried to do something more complex, it failed because it was very cheap and forced and lasted five minutes. It's a very "safe" movie with nothing to say. Just enjoy the action and cool music.

khwarezm posted:

The poet's interpretation of WW1 as Lions lead by Lambs tends to go way too far in popular culture. Here's the thing, one of the most unsettling things about the war is that it was immensely popular among almost all the combatant countries for years, its difficult to understand in this day and age how deeply propaganda permeated into peoples lives, anti-German sentiment was massive in France for the decades leading up to war and vice versa, most of the countries involved were exceptionally heavily militarized, training pretty much their entire male populations for the event of such a war and as a result being able to call upon reserves of manpower that had never been seen before in human history. That allowed them to throw away previously inconceivable amounts of lives in attritional warfare and continue to fight for years and years, all of this was only possible because of the creation of Nationalist states that had significant popular support based on that nationalism.

The popular response to initial outbreak of war was ecstatic, massive amounts of recruits in places like Britain joined up and people were heavily ostracized if they didn't join up (look up the white feather movement). Britain didn't even need to introduce conscription until 1916, while Australia had such levels of enthusiasm they never had conscription at all. In France you had legends like the taxis of Marne of everyone pitching in whatever it took to help the effort, while battles like Verdun, despite their horror, became almost a legendary part of the French national struggle for survival with its Commander, Philippe Pétain, gaining a rock star like status in the country. Popular movements that could have stemmed the war did little, Socialists and Communists in particular had argued about the prospect a pan European war prior to the actual war, it was conceivable that simultaneous national strikes in places like France and Germany could have forced the governments to stand down and go back to the negotiating table, but in the end they did nothing and roundly supported their governments decisions to move ahead with hostilities. It was only late into the war, around 1917, that the strain got so extreme that popular support began to falter in many countries, Russia had their revolutions, France had mutinies, in Britain the fallout from battles like Passchendaele was far, far more negative among the public than previous battles, including the Somme, while in Germany their food situation was getting really bad and the home front began to unravel. And yet it was only Russia that year where the war effort actually collapsed, even the mutinies in France were more about poor conditions and lack of supplies and leadership rather than fighting the war itself. In Germany the effort finally collapsed in 1918, after almost 2000000 people were killed at the front and thousands of civilians were starving to death every day by the end, and yet many people were shocked and infuriated that the war was lost. It was then that a myth emerged that the German army was not defeated in the field and could have marched to victory but politicians safe at home had surrendered prematurely, this idea was something the Nazis made an integral part of ideology.

Even at the outbreak of war its hard to say that it was actually an intended outcome by any of the parties involved, I'd suggest reading a book called 'the Sleepwalkers' by Chris Clark that shows how much of a clusterfuck things were at the very highest governmental and diplomatic circles. The Kaiser for example, despite popular associations, seems to have been desperate to avoid a war while difficult to control elements of populist nationalism, like that which lead to Franz Ferdinand being killed, helped force events along without much control from above. When the war actually happened there were numerous atrocities carried out by regular troops in places like Serbia and Belgium.

World War 1 is probably the best example I can think of for what you're talking about, at the end of the day I don't think you could have just taken down the bad guys in each country's respective government or military and the war would have just stopped, there was way too much momentum behind it and its something that the movie gets right.

NikkolasKing posted:

Thank you for the information. Sounds like there was a lot more going on in the culture side of things than I ever knew and it wasn't just a top-down sort of thing. It's weird though because I've always heard WW1 is what helped to usher in the era of liberal democracy across Europe, as a reaction to WW1 where the powerful dragged the helpless into a nightmare. Oh well,.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely check it out .It's even on Audible, which is very helpful to me.

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

Awhile back the newspaper comic thread was posting an old comic strip from that era called The Outbursts of Everett True, and it was a little surreal seeing a comic about a man getting mad at assholes turn into a comic about that same dude going around planting flags and getting pissed at pacifists and anti-war music after the US joined the war. It's really bizarre seeing that attitude applied to WW1.

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

Awhile back the newspaper comic thread was posting an old comic strip from that era called The Outbursts of Everett True, and it was a little surreal seeing a comic about a man getting mad at assholes turn into a comic about that same dude going around planting flags and getting pissed at pacifists and anti-war music after the US joined the war. It's really bizarre seeing that attitude applied to WW1.

khwarezm posted:

Oh yeah, its probably worth mentioning America's entry into the war, that was accompanied by virulent popular anti-German sentiment, as well as the anti-pacifist stuff. Its one of the reasons why German-America seems much less prominent than other identities in America despite such a massive proportion of the population having German descent and German culture having such obvious impact (ie Hot Dogs, Pretzels).

khwarezm posted:

Oh yeah, its probably worth mentioning America's entry into the war, that was accompanied by virulent popular anti-German sentiment, as well as the anti-pacifist stuff. Its one of the reasons why German-America seems much less prominent than other identities in America despite such a massive proportion of the population having German descent and German culture having such obvious impact (ie Hot Dogs, Pretzels).

NikkolasKing posted:

Here's something I don't understand. The movie wants moral complexity of some kind but then, why choose WW1? It's never been a subject of great interest to me but I thought the tragedy of the whole thing was because it was a giant clusterfuck of alliances and people in charge and then all the little folks got dragged into it.

The movie wants to juxtapose Wonder Woman's idealism with more realism. Killing Ares won't solve everything because People Are Bad All On Their Own. But this is provably false here. The Real Life Ares that caused WW1 are entirely to blame.


World War 1 is not a case of...I dunno what to call it. Grassroots activism is the positive so I guess call it grassroots violence. The kind of racial, ethnic, religious and class tensions that exist everywhere but are more obvious since the end of the Cold War. If the moral of the story is that people can be good and bad, maybe look at the people? WW1 is a story of people being puppeted around by what might as well be gods of war. If you want to highlight the banality of evil, maybe set it during a conflict that involves average folks being awful instead of average folks being sent off to fight and die for some aristocrats who, if they were removed, would have solved a lot of problems.


This movie was no Man of Steel. It's very simplistic and when it tried to do something more complex, it failed because it was very cheap and forced and lasted five minutes. It's a very "safe" movie with nothing to say. Just enjoy the action and cool music.

Drifter posted:

I get you prefer the happier tone and less internally conflicted character arcs, but c'mon. Quit this poo poo. Unless you're only talking about Suicide Squad, in which case carry on.