Wonder Woman (2022)

bluebison8 said:Maybe you don't care if they completely rewrite the narrative in a "historical" epic, but most people actually do. Specifically, Black Americans, who were the intended audience for this film. It particularly offended them that they made a movie about the worst slave owners in history and then played dumb about it.
The film is a total crash and burn at the box office, and frankly, I hope we don't see more garbage like this in the future.

It's just great how you think the Box Office is the only way to judge if a movie actually worked.

Timothy King said:This isn't an action flick; it's supposed to be a historical drama. And while a cliché can be executed brilliantly, this one really went overboard by throwing in that trope where a villainous twin shows up after twenty years. It's ridiculous. If we're talking about recent historical films that actually avoid clichés, I'd point to Dunkirk as a relatively fresh example.

Well, every single movie has a limited budget; I haven't heard of a production with an infinite bankroll. Of course they have to use technical tricks, but executing them successfully requires a level of skill that simply isn't present here—that's the real issue. Plenty of absolute masterpieces have been filmed with even less money.

And let's get one thing straight: it's not a "guy," it's a director. So what if she lacks funds? She also seems to lack the expertise of her male counterparts, whom she's clearly obsessed with, yet she expects us to applaud her "masterpiece" just because, my God, she's a woman making a film about women for women—not to mention leaning heavily on racial themes for extra credit. This isn't just a poorly made film; it's blatant emotional blackmail.

When I said you weren't a "big shot," I was talking about you—you're really not cutting it, are you?
Look, the movie isn't a masterpiece—not by a long shot—but it's definitely not the total garbage some people here are acting like it is...

Mark White11 said:It's just great how you think the Box Office is the only way to judge if a movie actually worked.

If a film is a total disaster, then sure, the numbers are a great indicator. In the opposite direction? Not so much.

The Box Office isn't really a great indicator for anything, in any direction.

🙂 Yes, I suppose that's just an indicator of successful marketing—basically, a clever way of baiting people into theaters to pad out the Box Office. There are quite a few instances where certain films have absolutely flopped at the box office simply because the marketing was lackluster, even though the movies themselves were actually quite good.

What’s next, he's gonna claim that an IMDb score is some kind of holy grail that actually defines if a movie is good or not? 🙂

If you actually trust the numbers on IMDb, the budget was $50 million and the Worldwide Gross hit $91,105,451, with the Domestic Gross sitting at $66,005,451. It turned a profit—so I'm curious where everyone is getting this "epic fail" narrative from.
Plus, the IMDb rating isn't even that bad.
And the Metascore is in the green at 77, which means the critics actually liked it.

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said:If you actually trust the numbers on IMDb, the budget was $50 million and the Worldwide Gross hit $91,105,451, with the Domestic Gross sitting at $66,005,451. It turned a profit—so I'm curious where everyone is getting this "epic fail" narrative from.
Plus, the IMDb rating isn't even that bad.
And the Metascore is in the green at 77, which means the critics actually liked it.

So, $150 million worldwide? The studio only sees about 50% of that (and they’d get more if it were a major blockbuster). That leaves them with $75 million. You also have to consider that the $50 million budget doesn't include marketing, which often costs as much as the production itself. This means they either just broke even or lost a massive amount of money.
That is a fail.

With a Worldwide Gross of 91 million, the movie lost money. Look, losing cash doesn't inherently mean the film was bad, but it sends a clear signal to the suits in Hollywood: they aren't going to throw money at projects that don't pay off. Nobody invests just to watch their capital vanish. It’s a weird cycle—sometimes things go great, sometimes they tank. When superhero flicks make a killing while genuinely high-quality films earn nothing and bleed cash, the entire industry shifts its focus entirely toward capes and tights. As Tarantino once noted, most people are just sitting around waiting for this superhero bubble to finally burst. Ultimately, the Box Office tells you exactly where the industry is headed; when one thing makes a mountain of money, studios just chase that high by churning out endless sequels, cinematic universes, or cheap imitations. That’s just how the business works.

Yeah, but unfortunately, that superhero bubble isn't popping anytime soon. Kids, teens, and adults—well, everyone—just loves this stuff. Especially the younger crowds.

This movie is an absolute disaster.
I honestly can't believe I sat through this.
Usually, once I start a film, I have the discipline to finish it,
but maybe I should just adopt a new rule here.
I simply cannot stand listening to that broken English they used.
I know Viola Davis from countless films and series,
so seeing her struggle like this with her own native tongue was bizarre.
Was it supposed to convey the atmosphere of Africa back then?
I suppose that’s how they supposedly spoke at the time.
I have no idea who gave this such a high rating on IMDb.
It’s likely just American African-Americans who perhaps
view watching this as some sort of obligation. Africa. The motherland.
The director is a woman; perhaps that offers some context for this mess.

Here is the trailer; I don't think anyone has posted it yet.

And if you want to witness the full weight of the nonsense this film offers,
just remember that trailers are always better than the actual movie.

I see people bragging that the action sequences are almost 100% real.😁
You know that specific fighting style where one person climbs onto another's
back and then, for some reason known only to them,
spins around like a propeller?
Well, if that's your idea of combat, you've come to the right place.
Because apparently, that's exactly how they fought in Africa back then.🙂

One of the most incredible combat sequences from the old school era had to be that opening battle in Gladiator. It was absolute genius.

I honestly feel like > is just riddled with inaccuracies. I mean, not enough to justify ignoring some of the darkest moments in human history or turning the leads into literal superheroes, but those combat scenes? They’re almost entirely wrong.
None of it actually went down like that. It’s like they took bits and pieces of concepts from that era and just completely butchered how they actually worked.
Whether you're looking at the fighting tactics, how the military was portrayed, or even the way gladiators fought—it just wasn't accurate.

That whole empire represents one of the worst eras in history, yet the movie fails to show that, and then it throws in this totally unrealistic depiction of an all-female army. Definitely a skip for me.

bluebison8 said:One of the most incredible combat sequences from the old school era had to be that opening battle in Gladiator. It was absolute genius.

That whole battle? Historically inaccurate—just completely off the mark.
I’m guessing they were aiming for more of an impressionistic vibe—you know, trying to capture that specific feeling of being a barbarian when you're staring down the barrel of a highly organized, totally superior military machine.

nimblemarlin6 said:That whole battle? Historically inaccurate—just completely off the mark.
I’m guessing they were aiming for more of an impressionistic vibe—you know, trying to capture that specific feeling of being a barbarian when you're staring down the barrel of a highly organized, totally superior military machine.

Look, nobody was pulling any superhuman stunts; they just showed how devastating a Roman phalanx can be when it’s doing its job. Whether it was 100% accurate doesn't matter, as long as they didn't pull the kind of nonsense ruggedmaker99 described.

bluerider3 said:With a Worldwide Gross of 91 million, the movie lost money. Look, losing cash doesn't inherently mean the film was bad, but it sends a clear signal to the suits in Hollywood: they aren't going to throw money at projects that don't pay off. Nobody invests just to watch their capital vanish. It’s a weird cycle—sometimes things go great, sometimes they tank. When superhero flicks make a killing while genuinely high-quality films earn nothing and bleed cash, the entire industry shifts its focus entirely toward capes and tights. As Tarantino once noted, most people are just sitting around waiting for this superhero bubble to finally burst. Ultimately, the Box Office tells you exactly where the industry is headed; when one thing makes a mountain of money, studios just chase that high by churning out endless sequels, cinematic universes, or cheap imitations. That’s just how the business works.

Usually, Americans refer to "worldwide" as everything outside of the US, which is why I calculated it that way. If the total is only $91 million, then this is an even bigger failure, lol.

As a historical drama, it’s honestly pretty bad. As an action flick? Meh. Nothing special. It’s just one of those movies you forget immediately. I guess the only interesting part is setting the story in Africa, which is a nice change of scenery. But man, it’s hard to maintain any kind of suspension of disbelief when they try to sell this as a massive historical epic inspired by true events. I mean, sure, the kingdom actually existed in Africa and fought other African kingdoms with a unit of female warriors, but that's about it. Everything else feels like fiction driven by a specific agenda. I suppose you can swallow the idea of a superheroine in a bikini taking down a crowd of trained guys, but that’s pure fantasy—superheroes have superhuman abilities. In a movie trying to be realistic, it just doesn't work.

Anyway, a movie is a commercial failure if it doesn't pull in at least 3 or 4 times its budget.

bluebison8 said:One of the most incredible combat sequences from the old school era had to be that opening battle in Gladiator. It was absolute genius.

Nah, the opening battle in Rome is actually better.

Quote: was better.

Richard Wilson4 says: The opening battle in Rome

Perhaps. But I don't recall her.😁

Going off-topic here... but this scene is absolute legend.