The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

Gadot works as Wonder Woman the same way Arnie worked as Conan the Barbarian, there is something 'off' about her and that perfectly syncs up with the character. I don't think she could do it on purpose, or not, if she tried, but for this role it's perfect.

I sort of see what you're saying, but I don't think it makes her come across as eloquent. It makes her come across like an actress delivering her lines awkwardly. Not, by the way, that I think she's talentless: she seems to respond to direction. In the WW movie she's... okay. In the Justice League movie (and indeed her brief appearance as WW in Batman v Superman), she came across as a worse actress than, I think, she actually is.

Dogfish wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Gadot works as Wonder Woman the same way Arnie worked as Conan the Barbarian, there is something 'off' about her and that perfectly syncs up with the character. I don't think she could do it on purpose, or not, if she tried, but for this role it's perfect.

I thought Arnold was great as Conan, one of his better outings

I mean.......... Arnold's selling point was never his ACTING was it? We're talking about a man here who'se single best acting moment was that bit in True Lies where he's glaring because he thinks his wife had an affair (entirely non-verbal)

(There's a man contemplating murder if I ever saw it)

I always thought we were all half there specifically BECAUSE he was a bad actor who was consistently FUN?

I mean if we want to talk about what he 'worked' as... we ought look no further than the original Terminator, where he works so well specifically BECAUSE he doesn't actually have to do much acting at all... but what he DOES have to do is non-verbal... which, again, he's somewhat capable of.

I like Gadot as WW alright... but I don't think she actually has a ton of range or anything... but similarly to an Arnold film... we aren't necessarily going to a WW film looking for an Oscar winning performance. We're looking for a good time. For that Gadot is perfectly adequate.

Gal Gadot is not exactly the best actress, but the first movie called for a bit of awkwardness being mostly a fish out of water scenario, and that worked to her advantage. Not sure how that would work in later movies when she's supposed to demonstrate more confidence having been in man's world for quite a few decades now. But yeah, just like Arnie, as long as she can do the action scenes well, then she should be fine for the role.

Femina wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I mean.......... Arnold's selling point was never his ACTING was it? We're talking about a man here who'se single best acting moment was that bit in True Lies where he's glaring because he thinks his wife had an affair (entirely non-verbal)

(There's a man contemplating murder if I ever saw it)

I always thought we were all half there specifically BECAUSE he was a bad actor who was consistently FUN?

I mean if we want to talk about what he 'worked' as... we ought look no further than the original Terminator, where he works so well specifically BECAUSE he doesn't actually have to do much acting at all... but what he DOES have to do is non-verbal... which, again, he's somewhat capable of.

I like Gadot as WW alright... but I don't think she actually has a ton of range or anything... but similarly to an Arnold film... we aren't necessarily going to a WW film looking for an Oscar winning performance. We're looking for a good time. For that Gadot is perfectly adequate.

One of the reasons I thought he was better in the Conan movies, he knew at the point he was there for his muscles and his accent.

Other than as Wonder Woman and the Fast and the Furious what has she done?

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Other than as Wonder Woman and the Fast and the Furious what has she done?

She was in "Keeping up with the Joneses" as a spy.

Awesome trailer

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Other than as Wonder Woman and the Fast and the Furious what has she done?

She has a central role in the new Kenneth Branagh movie Death on the Nile, which is set to come out on October 23rd. It's a new adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel.

Spoiler

She plays the doomed heiress Linnet Ridgeway Doyle, the murder victim.

Lurkndog wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Other than as Wonder Woman and the Fast and the Furious what has she done?

She has a central role in the new Kenneth Branagh movie Death on the Nile, which is set to come out on October 23rd. It's a new adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel.

Spoiler

She plays the doomed heiress Linnet Ridgeway Doyle, the murder victim.

A little off topic, but I hate when they try to remakes. I am a big Branagh fan, Henry V is one of my 10 favorite movies. But I wish they would just pick another Christie book that has not been a movie

There are a few exceptions but most I want to scream Please No!

A few stills from the new WW trailer.

Oh no! Wonder Woman is getting her ass kicked this time around!

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

A little off topic, but I hate when they try to remakes. I am a big Branagh fan, Henry V is one of my 10 favorite movies. But I wish they would just pick another Christie book that has not been a movie

There are a few exceptions but most I want to scream Please No!

The only time I really object to a remake is when the original had something unique and impossible to recapture, and they try to recapture it anyway as a cheap cash grab. Extra penalties for bad scripts and uninspired production. See Ghostbusters 2016.

On the other hand, sometimes a remake can be different enough to kick ass in its own right.

If you ever get a chance, see the Jet Li movie Fist of Legend, which is a remake of Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury a.k.a. The Chinese Connection. It works because it's a very different movie than the Bruce Lee original.

The original is a classic, but it's mainly a showcase for some amazing fight scenes. The Jet Li movie is more character-driven, and the fight scenes are quite different in tone and presentation, while still being excellent in their own right.

Lurkndog wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

A little off topic, but I hate when they try to remakes. I am a big Branagh fan, Henry V is one of my 10 favorite movies. But I wish they would just pick another Christie book that has not been a movie

There are a few exceptions but most I want to scream Please No!

The only time I really object to a remake is when the original had something unique and impossible to recapture, and they try to recapture it anyway as a cheap cash grab. Extra penalties for bad scripts and uninspired production. See Ghostbusters 2016.

On the other hand, sometimes a remake can be different enough to kick ass in its own right.

If you ever get a chance, see the Jet Li movie Fist of Legend, which is a remake of Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury a.k.a. The Chinese Connection. It works because it's a very different movie than the Bruce Lee original.

The original is a classic, but it's mainly a showcase for some amazing fight scenes. The Jet Li movie is more character-driven, and the fight scenes are quite different in tone and presentation, while still being excellent in their own right.

I was thinking of the Orient Express they had a few years ago, which was so bad when you compare it to the Finney/Bacall one

Sometimes a remake can be better, for instance the Bogart version of "The Maltese Falcon" is much better than the two earlier versions so they aren't remembered. But I agree most remakes aren't even equal and are just ways to cash in on the name.

The good thing about remakes at least is that if the original is superior it brings it out of the cellar for a look, and these days that kind of thing can save a film long term. It's kind of a worry how old films can literally cease to exist, even in this day and age. And I know that sounds like a bit over dramatic, but think of something like Star Wars, the original cuts of that movie are unavailable now, just the beshitted new editions.

The original prints of Star Wars still exist, and Lucas had archival quality color separations of it made.

They are only putting out the new editions at present, but that was a business decision, not a necessity. At some point Disney will either allow Criterion to make a definitive collector's edition, or do it themselves. Because that is money they are leaving on the table. Might also help to restore some good will with the fans.

Back to the actual topic of this thread...

I like the new trailer and I think that Cheetah looks ok from the few seconds she was in it.
It's hard to create her with CGI without it looking completely stupid. I would say they seemed to achieve that.
Can't wait for that catfight!

brdiy wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Gal Gadot is not exactly the best actress, but the first movie called for a bit of awkwardness being mostly a fish out of water scenario, and that worked to her advantage. Not sure how that would work in later movies when she's supposed to demonstrate more confidence having been in man's world for quite a few decades now. But yeah, just like Arnie, as long as she can do the action scenes well, then she should be fine for the role.

I will agree with you that Gal Gadot may not be the best actress, she does have a presence about her, and all jokes aside about her obvious beauty, there is something appealing about her that makes you want to watch her.

Lynda Carter wasn't the greatest actress in the world either, but she made a great Wonder Woman.

I think Gal Gadot has the same qualities of being instantly likeable as Wonder Woman, and seeming at home in the role.

Maskripper wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Back to the actual topic of this thread...

I like the new trailer and I think that Cheetah looks ok from the few seconds she was in it.
It's hard to create her with CGI without it looking completely stupid. I would say they seemed to achieve that.
Can't wait for that catfight!

Thats true.

But as I said several months ago, I wish they would have make her a stand alone foe.

Cheetah was for most of the Wonder Woman saga her number one foe

WB for the DC movies likes to have lots of villains to face a single hero ever since the first Keaton Batman movie where he only face the Joker and the first Superman movie with Lex Luthor. It makes the hero have to face greater obstacles instead of single foe.

I would agree that a stand alone foe is better so you get a clear story and the single foe is capable of taking on the hero as an equal. After all the Joker, Lex Luthor, and the Cheetah as that level and just have minions for the grunt work.

Visitor wrote: ↑

3 years ago

WB for the DC movies likes to have lots of villains to face a single hero ever since the first Keaton Batman movie where he only face the Joker and the first Superman movie with Lex Luthor. It makes the hero have to face greater obstacles instead of single foe.

I would agree that a stand alone foe is better so you get a clear story and the single foe is capable of taking on the hero as an equal. After all the Joker, Lex Luthor, and the Cheetah as that level and just have minions for the grunt work.

Good point but the preview shows Cheetah as a pawn.

Of course(I know I am beating a dead horse) Pricilla Rich was never a pawn.

I think we're being a little premature, aren't we? We have no way yet of knowing what the interplay between Cheetah and the other villain (Max Lord?) is going to be like. For all we know, by the end of the second act Cheetah will have murdered him.

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

.... For all we know, by the end of the second act Cheetah ....................

"we know?"
From what?
Helloooo? Thanks for the spoilers! (if that is true)
I didn't know that....
and there is a spoiler function at this forum!

Maskripper, the expression "for all we know" means "we don't know one way or the other." I am not privy to any special info.

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Maskripper, the expression "for all we know" means "we don't know one way or the other." I am not privy to any special info.

Well, ok, then I'm sorry about the spoiler rant.
But what a stupid expression that is, I never knew the real meaning of this unlogical construction.
Well, always learning.

Maskripper wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Maskripper, the expression "for all we know" means "we don't know one way or the other." I am not privy to any special info.

Well, ok, then I'm sorry about the spoiler rant.
But what a stupid expression that is, I never knew the real meaning of this unlogical construction.
Well, always learning.

What is logical for one is nonsense to another. I would never think twice about using "For all we know ..." as affirming that a something is possible. For all we know Pearl Harbour could have been an inside job. For all we know, the moon landings were faked. For all we know the sun could explode tomorrow ...

Likewise, trying to explain english to a spanish friend, english is not logical ... for example - "I get up at about 7am" ... how can one "Get" ... "up" ? Getting is to obtain something, and up is a direction - how does one "get" "up" ? And why does it mean what it does? In spanish there is a verb for getting up. In english we tend to use an expression instead. We could use, "I rise at 7am", but it's not used frequently! The important lesson here is we are in a multinational forum where we can frequently be divided by a common language.

You should be so lucky! Unlogical construction? Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Spoiler rant? Just let me get this off my chest. Always learning? Better late than never!

Goddammit!

Variety: ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Release Date Pushed to Christmas

At this point, just put it on streaming already, or pirate bay, I don't care which. I'm done being patient.

Or, hell, put out the Blu-Ray for $50, and include a Polaroid of Gal Gadot.

Its odd they don't release it cause here in Vegas the theaters are open. Red Rock has several movies running. Its like 1/3rd occupancy but they are running. Mostly older movies like the first WW movie and Rocky Horror etc.

Covid changed the whole market. But maybe that's good. Movies as a big event were dying. Before Covid movie houses were having a hard time staying open. Covid seems to be that forest fire that burned away a lot of dry brush. For all we know (hee hee) movies as big events are on the way out.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Its odd they don't release it cause here in Vegas the theaters are open. Red Rock has several movies running. Its like 1/3rd occupancy but they are running. Mostly older movies like the first WW movie and Rocky Horror etc.

Covid changed the whole market. But maybe that's good. Movies as a big event were dying. Before Covid movie houses were having a hard time staying open. Covid seems to be that forest fire that burned away a lot of dry brush. For all we know (hee hee) movies as big events are on the way out.

Movies especially for a family have become very expensive add the food and drink for a family of 4. You are talking $75-100

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Movies especially for a family have become very expensive add the food and drink for a family of 4. You are talking $75-100

Well ok, when someone goes with family then food and drink are required more or less. At least for the kids.
I go 10-15 times a year to the cinema, as long there isn't a pandemic on the loose.
The last time I bought something to drink or eat was at the (original) airing of one of the Lord of the Rings movies......
At home I do eat stuff while watching, but at the movies it's just a ridiculous expensive distraction.
And besides I don't like hearing people crunching through piles of popcorn and chips in the direct neigborhood. And there are folks who dig likes moles for hours in their popcorn bucket to find the single best popcorn.
Especially when it's getting really thrilling at the big screen noises like that are a real downer.

If I would manage a movie theater you couldn't buy popcorn or chips there.....and if you get too loud your chair would get lowered quickly below the ground so you would stay in the cinema dungeon for the rest of the movie where only replays of a documentary about german Volksmusik are running.
And there would be gorgeous female security guards in black latex catsuits with tasers who shock everyone who doesn't behave.
Ok, I get carried away a bit....

-
Back to topic:
The delay sucks but there isn't a good alternative.
The movie must be shown on the cinemas and not on some on-demand shit.
I hope it will be shown at least early in 2021.

Why aren't you a cinema manager?

It is what it is I guess.

I can sort of understand the delay but honestly at this point I would be tempted to just try to get the movie out there. Try and do the home streaming big tentpole movie thing bigger than anybody else. Break some records. See what you can manage. Because the situation isn't getting better and with winter on the way it might just get worse, and the hype train won't stay on the rails forever.

Covid shutting down production on Batman also indicates that even production of movies isn't safe and reliable any more.

Seems optimistic to keep pushing it back.

If this go streaming then its probably good bye to the DC cinematic universe and to super big budget movies.

Sony already announced they were holding up $200 million films until later so they can make money. The numbers for Tenet show that releasing now isn't profitable.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

3 years ago

If this go streaming then its probably good bye to the DC cinematic universe and to super big budget movies.

Depends on Batman and The Suicide Squad I would say. They're both absolutely huge movies still on the hook.

I am starting to suspect that Marvel is going to start scaling back though. I don't know how they top End Game and I suspect they might not even try to.

Endgame was expensive with all the major cast members being included even for just cameos at the end. They will have other major stories, but not with that many characters. Eternals is supposed to be huge, so we will see.

tallyho wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Why aren't you a cinema manager?
...

Yeah, it's gonna be off-topic, but I need to reply to that:

When I ever hit the lottery jackpot.....
I will become one....at least until I slide into bankruptcy with these ideas
....AND of course I would become a producer for fetish videos ASAP as I have quite a lot of ideas that need to be filmed.

Visitor wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Sony already announced they were holding up $200 million films until later so they can make money. The numbers for Tenet show that releasing now isn't profitable.

A $20 million take for the first real weekend back suggests otherwise. That's just audiences dipping their toes back in the water, it would only have ramped up from there. I think that if they stayed on target, Wonder Woman would have opened at $40 million at least. There are a lot of us that want to see that movie, and have been waiting a long time.

Moreover, WW84 would have run uncontested for several weekends after that, until Black Widow opened at the end of the month. And even then, history suggests the movie would have stayed in theaters for months.

But lets see what the numbers for the second weekend of Tenet are like.

Never found movies to be that "expensive" quite honestly, and if at this point you aren't using one of the many movie apps or plans you are throwing away money. Prior to Covid I was using AMC's stubbs and going to 5-6 movies a month and earning enough free points that if I did buy concessions it was super cheap. I could have gone to as many as 12 movies a month at zero additional cost. It's no secret that movies have overpriced snacks and drinks...they are as bad as airports, but you don't have to buy them. If you can't get through a 2-3 hour movie w/o food or drink...I don't know. I get that it's part of the experience, but I've personally never found movies to be that expensive. My buddy has 5 kids and uses one of the app programs and it's never that bad for him and his family to go to the movies. There are always ways to save costs and budget.

That said, I thought about going back to see a film when AMC opened here, but as soon as people get past the front door and get in they are taking off masks, not distancing, etc. and I'm just not willing to deal with that right now.

There is a Japanese trailer for Wonder Woman 1984 that has some different shots in it, including a little bit of Wonder Woman flying in the Golden Eagle armor:

And now Death on the Nile has been pushed back to December 18, 2020. :(

There were rumors this week that WW84 would go directly to streaming, but AFAIK they are still just rumors. There have also been statements from Patty Jenkins that contradict this.

Now there are rumors that DC has cancelled the December movie tie-in comics yet again, which would signal that the Christmas release date for WW84 is going to slip.

Death on the Nile currently has no release date listed either.

The second wave has knackered Christmas and Christmas related fun times.

So it's on TV at Christmas then. Woohoo..?