DC Comics on Film

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#426 Post by Never Cursed » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:33 pm

She's Spanish, though in the scene I think you're thinking of (the raid with Chris Pine in the chemical factory early on) she's working in an Ottoman lab with Turkish test subjects and scientists.

And as to Domino's comment, that description isn't even mentioning the good guys, consisting of a Greek demigoddess, Chris Pine, a French Arab spy (because of course the sneaky stealth guy that doesn't fight fair is French,) a hard-drinking Scottish sharpshooter, and a Native American shaman/demigod.

EDIT 2: Knives and I share a brain!
Last edited by Never Cursed on Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#427 Post by knives » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:37 pm

Yes, that's what gave the impression. They emphasized it a lot in the scene and I must have not heard when they said she was Spanish.
domino harvey wrote:
Werewolf by Night wrote:Which villain is Muslim, the Spanish scientist, the German general, or the Greek god in disguise as an English cabinet minister?
Is this film the Burger King Kids Club?
That's nothing compared to the heroes.

Werewolf by Night

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#428 Post by Werewolf by Night » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:42 pm

knives wrote:I must have misheard. I thought they said she was Turkish (though even that would make confusing why her notes are in Arabic).
Ah, right, the notes. Doctor Poison herself is (allegedly) Spanish, but her notebook is in, according to Wonder Woman’s own translation, in Sumerian and “Ottoman.” The latter is apparently not really a language (according to this person), but she could have meant Ottoman Turkish.

My guess is the notebook is written in dead and/or obscure languages/scripts as a form of code, which was smart since nobody but Wonder Woman could decipher it.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#429 Post by knives » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:45 pm

Werewolf by Night wrote:
knives wrote:I must have misheard. I thought they said she was Turkish (though even that would make confusing why her notes are in Arabic).
Ah, right, the notes. Doctor Poison herself is (allegedly) Spanish, but her notebook is in, according to Wonder Woman’s own translation, in Sumerian and “Ottoman.” The latter is apparently not really a language (according to this person), but she could have meant Ottoman Turkish.

My guess is the notebook is written in dead and/or obscure languages/scripts as a form of code, which was smart since nobody but Wonder Woman could decipher it.
There's a close up on them when she hands them over and they're clearly in Arabic which could never by mistaken for Sumerian to make this all weirder.

Werewolf by Night

Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#430 Post by Werewolf by Night » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:34 pm

Yeah, look at that thing I linked to. The guy says the alphabet is in the Arabic script family, but not actually Arabic because it uses a letterform not used in Arabic. The Sumerian uses different letterforms, and you can see a screencap of that.

User avatar
cantinflas
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:48 am
Location: sydney

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#431 Post by cantinflas » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:50 am


User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#432 Post by Ribs » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:58 am

I... don't... understand why the press is taking this like it's not a totally normal thing to just put literally everyone you have in every movie for your consideration? The only ones that matter are the ones they bother to advertise in the trades, which will be far more limited. Literally tab over to the Lego Batman movie's page on the WB website and see it's being submitted for Best Director.

WB's going to have to make a choice to have either this or Blade Runner as their supplemental campaign for a BP nod after Dunkirk and I'm increasingly convinced it'll be this.

(It's not really related to this in anything more than the most superficial terms and in fact kind of contradicts my point, but I was very surprised to see in an old Variety issue this past week that the FYC campaign for Se7en literally only put forward Morgan Freeman for Best Actor with no other actors in any of the other categories.)

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#433 Post by dda1996a » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:08 am

I hope they will campaign for Blade Runner and not for this

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#434 Post by Ribs » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:18 am

The whole appeal of this campaign is that people saw the movie - which Blade Runner has failed at. I just really don't see much awards season narrative behind BR other than "it's good!" Wonder Woman has the commercial success / first superhero movie to be nominated / female talent things all in its favor (and also it's good), whereas Blade Runner pretty much has just whatever goodwill Denis Villeneuve might have developed (the Academy, of course, also does not particularly care for Harrison Ford and thus has only ever nominated him once). It's commercial failure has really hurt it from this perspective, in my opinion anyway.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#435 Post by djproject » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:18 am

Ribs wrote:The whole appeal of this campaign is that people saw the movie - which Blade Runner has failed at. I just really don't see much awards season narrative behind BR other than "it's good!" Wonder Woman has the commercial success / first superhero movie to be nominated / female talent things all in its favor (and also it's good), whereas Blade Runner pretty much has just whatever goodwill Denis Villeneuve might have developed (the Academy, of course, also does not particularly care for Harrison Ford and thus has only ever nominated him once). It's commercial failure has really hurt it from this perspective, in my opinion anyway.
I'm sure the push for BR2049 will be for Roger Deakins for Best Cinematography, which would be another aspect it could share with its predecessor.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#436 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:24 am

dda1996a wrote:I hope they will campaign for Blade Runner and not for this
Why? Why shouldn't a studio campaign for whatever films they deem to qualify for awards considerations? As Ribs said above, this conversation is so absurd.

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#437 Post by dda1996a » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:26 pm

I said my personal hope would be that they would push BR. I also disliked WW so there's also that. But I was voicing a very personal opinion that I hope they also invest in BR because I think it's a very worthy picture and I hope they won't let the box office influence its chances.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#438 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:47 pm

That isn't what you said, though. You said that you hope they campaign for Blade Runner and "not for this." When something is as inconsequential in the long run as a FYE campaign, it seems odd to be investing in a studio not campaigning for a particular film, when they could just campaign for both. We're talking about a few web ads and ads in trade magazines, they're don't have to ignore one film to campaign for the other.

felipe
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#439 Post by felipe » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:30 am

Satori wrote:
R0lf wrote:I read Cameron's statements as an extension of his previous comments about not liking comic book movies. For a woman to succeed and be included in the most generic lowest common denominator of movies isn't progress and it doesn't elevate women. We need to make better movies.
But isn't Wonder Woman important precisely because it is the first big dumb superhero action movie directed by a woman? Women have already been making "better" movies. Of course there should be more female directors for all kinds of film, but I don't think there is anything particularly novel to most people about a great female-directed art film. How many think pieces are written about how the latest Reichardt or Denis movie is a big deal because it was directed by a woman? There are still important conversations to have about the embarrassingly low percentage of women directors in indie or art film, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than mainstream Hollywood releases.

So if there are going to continue to be big dumb superhero action movies (and of course there will be, just like there were DeMille epics in Classic Hollywood), then it would be nice if a good chunk of them were directed by women. That is progress. The fact that Wonder Woman happens to be much better than most of them is a nice bonus, too.
I think a lot has been made about a woman finally being able to direct a blockbuster, but would that still be news if the movie was bad? Twilight and 50 shades were also blockbusters directed by women, but most people thought the movies sucked so it was like the media felt it was inappropriate to emphasize them being directed by woman, as if that would be negative for female directors in general. But it's been a trend for a while now to get a female director for big-budget movies aimed at/starred by women. Wonder Woman did nothing new there. Yeah, it's the first superhero movie directed by a woman, simply because it's the first one starring one. That doesn't mean Catherine Hardwicke will be asked to make the next Avengers film.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#440 Post by willoneill » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:28 am

mfunk9786 wrote:That isn't what you said, though. You said that you hope they campaign for Blade Runner and "not for this." When something is as inconsequential in the long run as a FYE campaign, it seems odd to be investing in a studio not campaigning for a particular film, when they could just campaign for both. We're talking about a few web ads and ads in trade magazines, they're don't have to ignore one film to campaign for the other.
Well, they can't (or even shouldn't) necessarily campaign for both. These campaigns cost a lot of money (rightly or wrongly), and take up a lot of resources. Now Warner Bros. has deeper pockets than say someone like A24, but then there's also the fact the campaigns for both WW and BR could end up cannibalizing each other, if they're both pigeon-holed into the "token genre picture" nomination. So I think there's some justification is someone hoping that a studio campaigns for one film over another.

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#441 Post by Morbii » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:05 am

felipe wrote:I think a lot has been made about a woman finally being able to direct a blockbuster, but would that still be news if the movie was bad?
Sadly, it was much worse than bad.
Last edited by Morbii on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#442 Post by Ribs » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:27 am

willoneill wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:That isn't what you said, though. You said that you hope they campaign for Blade Runner and "not for this." When something is as inconsequential in the long run as a FYE campaign, it seems odd to be investing in a studio not campaigning for a particular film, when they could just campaign for both. We're talking about a few web ads and ads in trade magazines, they're don't have to ignore one film to campaign for the other.
Well, they can't (or even shouldn't) necessarily campaign for both. These campaigns cost a lot of money (rightly or wrongly), and take up a lot of resources. Now Warner Bros. has deeper pockets than say someone like A24, but then there's also the fact the campaigns for both WW and BR could end up cannibalizing each other, if they're both pigeon-holed into the "token genre picture" nomination. So I think there's some justification is someone hoping that a studio campaigns for one film over another.
Yes; WB basically has Dunkirk locked up as a major BP player so they should be able to spread the wealth and get a second thing seriously in the mix for a nomination with a hard push. But I maintain there's really no narrative for Blade Runner that's compelling besides its quality, considering America as a whole just didn't care about it - whereas Wonder Woman is a good movie that audiences flocked to en masse, its continued success important to WB as it builds its franchise further. I just can't imagine the decision-making process that would lead a room of executives to decide to put their resources into Blade Runner in major categories over Wonder Woman, regardless of the actual quality of either.

Apperson
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:47 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#443 Post by Apperson » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:33 am

Well if there was an entry in the franchise that comes out in the same year that kneecaps its importance due to poor quality then they might switch campaigns...

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#444 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:43 am

Ribs wrote:
willoneill wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:That isn't what you said, though. You said that you hope they campaign for Blade Runner and "not for this." When something is as inconsequential in the long run as a FYE campaign, it seems odd to be investing in a studio not campaigning for a particular film, when they could just campaign for both. We're talking about a few web ads and ads in trade magazines, they're don't have to ignore one film to campaign for the other.
Well, they can't (or even shouldn't) necessarily campaign for both. These campaigns cost a lot of money (rightly or wrongly), and take up a lot of resources. Now Warner Bros. has deeper pockets than say someone like A24, but then there's also the fact the campaigns for both WW and BR could end up cannibalizing each other, if they're both pigeon-holed into the "token genre picture" nomination. So I think there's some justification is someone hoping that a studio campaigns for one film over another.
Yes; WB basically has Dunkirk locked up as a major BP player so they should be able to spread the wealth and get a second thing seriously in the mix for a nomination with a hard push. But I maintain there's really no narrative for Blade Runner that's compelling besides its quality, considering America as a whole just didn't care about it - whereas Wonder Woman is a good movie that audiences flocked to en masse, its continued success important to WB as it builds its franchise further. I just can't imagine the decision-making process that would lead a room of executives to decide to put their resources into Blade Runner in major categories over Wonder Woman, regardless of the actual quality of either.
I probably could've said what I did in a more polite fashion - but this is ultimately what I was trying to get across. If they did need to choose one of those two films (and I still think they don't), Wonder Woman would be the clear choice by just about any metric. By all accounts, Blade Runner is a very impressive, very good film but not a revelatory one - and its overall quality might be the only thing it has in its corner over a film that is beloved by many, many more people for a whole lot more reasons. I don't think either will get a Best Pic nomination, but if Wonder Woman does in a weak year, it makes a ton more sense from a narrative perspective for the Oscars, and for WB.

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#445 Post by dda1996a » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:45 am

My biggest issue is that Wonder Woman isn't only a bad film, it did nothing new either, except have a female lead and director.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#446 Post by knives » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:53 am

Filmicly that might not be terribly important, but historically (and with the defeat of Clinton this is a question much more on the mind of Academy type people) it is significant. The last time any woman had a chance like this was nearly two decades ago with Deep Impact.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#447 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:59 am

dda1996a wrote:My biggest issue is that Wonder Woman isn't only a bad film, it did nothing new either, except have a female lead and director.
I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to the quality of Wonder Woman with any specificity, but I think you're pretty vastly outnumbered in this opinion in the general population, and almost certainly still when that circle shrinks to only include Academy voters, too.

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#448 Post by dda1996a » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:39 am

Like always my Cinematic taste and the general taste is vastly different. Honestly, and this might be a controversial thing to say, but if the film wasn't the first woman directed woman led, and by being marginally better than former DCU films made it better reviewed. Personally I would be highly disappointed if this is the film that gets all those Oscar first, rather than a film that is actually worthy both culturally and cinematically.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#449 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:59 am

Having stated that opinion re: the women working on this film several times, I think your point has gotten across.

Werewolf by Night

Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

#450 Post by Werewolf by Night » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:09 pm

I also agree that Wonder Woman was quite bad. Charming in spots, occasionally admirable, better than most DC superhero films, yet still bad. But let's not kid ourselves for a single moment that that's going to stop it from from being nominated for—and possibly winning—Oscars. I wouldn't even be mad if Patty Jenkins won for directing, given that she made something watchable and popular out of the mess of a script she was given.
Last edited by Werewolf by Night on Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply