Anyone watch WW84?

[zekko]

Can you imagine Trump with a non-white son?

I don't think Trump is a racist, if that's what you're getting at. He seems to favor Eastern European women.
Anyway, I didn't say the character was Trump, but he was based partly on Trump. That has been confirmed by the movie's creators. I can see where those references are coming in. He's literally making a speech from the presidential podium. If you don't see the references, that's great for you. Nearly any form of escapist entertainment is better enjoyed without the politics injected into it.

 

[Travel memoir21]

Oh I think WW84 is indeed a political and literary movie. Why do you think it has the year 1984 in it?

It's inspired by George Orwell's novel 1984. The book deals with totalitarianism, how the government enslave the people which causes them to rebel and raise havoc in various ways.

In the movie all hell break loose with the people and there's riots in the streets. Hollywood tends to give hints about the future and dude society is decaying, there's bound to be more riots and carnage to come. We are living in an age of Greed, self centeredness and moral decadence and I think that's what WW84 is also talking about. In the movie a lot of people got their wishes but at what price? Especially that chick Minerva ( If I spelled her name correctly), she was nerdy and a social loser but Diana liked her because she had warmth and other great qualities like caring about the poor/homeless. But once her character got her wish to be popular and beautiful like Diana, she lost all that and became Diana's enemy. I won't give too much spoilers away right now but if you haven't seen it, go check it out not just for the CGIs but for the movie's many lessons.

There's plenty of symbolisms involve in that movie. You just gotta find it. Cheers.

 

[corrector]

Oh I think WW84 is indeed a political and literary movie. Why do you think it has the year 1984 in it?

It's inspired by George Orwell's novel 1984. The book deals with totalitarianism, how the government enslave the people which causes them to rebel and raise havoc in various ways.

In the movie all hell break loose with the people and there's riots in the streets. Hollywood tends to give hints about the future and dude society is decaying, there's bound to be more riots and carnage to come. We are living in an age of Greed, self centeredness and moral decadence and I think that's what WW84 is also talking about. In the movie a lot of people got their wishes but at what price? Especially that chick Minerva ( If I spelled her name correctly), she was nerdy and a social loser but Diana liked her because she had warmth and other great qualities like caring about the poor/homeless. But once her character got her wish to be popular and beautiful like Diana, she lost all that and became Diana's enemy. I won't give too much spoilers away right now but if you haven't seen it, go check it out not just for the CGIs but for the movie's many lessons.

There's plenty of symbolisms involve in that movie. You just gotta find it. Cheers.

Put SPOILER ALERT! next time. You gave some points away. I have a feeling some points like that will be seeping out which is another reason why I tried renting it now.

 

[corrector]

The spin people are taking on this movie is making it sound like a "woman" version of Joker (2019) and is using the past as political commentary in today's society. People rebelled and rioted in that movie as well for different reasons. Joker was more realistic but WW84 too still to airy fairy to be taken seriously as it's irrational for everyone's wish to be fulfilled. Take for example, if 1000 people want to be president of the USA and wish it, there is only one position. How can all wishes of 1000 people be fulfilled in such a way?

Is 84 Orwellian? There was no real government beyond a wish. It's only Orwellian if you wish it to be. The movie logic is irrational....and I can't wish it to be logical.

 

[corrector]

Just finished watching this for the third time. Third time again on the projector. The quality on the projector was so/so, as the streaming quality can vary and sometimes appear pixilated, but overall the HD came though and I was satisfied with the size of the picture. My dad accompanied me on the third viewing, but he got turned off by the movie somewhere in the middle when the pacing dragged too much and the suspension of disbelief started falling apart. This is the equivalent of walking out of a movie theatre half way in. I don't blame my dad because the movie is too long to hold attention if the story-line itself is too weak or silly.

Anyway, I feel I've got my money's worth if this was viewed three times and there was company on the third part of the viewing. If I divide the amount of viewings and fact my dad was added in the last viewing, then that would be $ 30 / 4 = $7.50 per person per view which works out to about half the price of a regular cinema ticket. There is more extraction of this movie than at the cinema if I factor in that watchalong video.

I feel refreshed after viewing this and the news or other content doesn't seem to be as negative. Its like you just see the good in people and feel inspired that things will get better in the next year. Whatever it is I complained about earlier I guess is resolved. Have not seen any other movies in the WB listings that I would think of renting for that much money and honestly doubt any other such movies will generate as much hype as this movie, except maybe Matrix 4, but that will be left to be seen. Very rarely do I look at a movie three times in a rental period which means there is something nice about this movie.

Thanks everyone who participated in this thread for your insights into this movie.

 

[redskinsfan92]

I imagine it is a bunch of feminist horsesh1t

 

[corrector]

SPOILER-ALERT. There is one issue that I'm seeing online with the movie that has basically KILLED this movie that I only picked up on during the second viewing (which was pointed out in watchalong because it was too crazy for me to pick up on). A body-swap went on. Diana's boyfriend possessed an innocent man, so Diana essentially raped an unsuspecting man, went into his apartment, and saw him again at the end of the movie in a cheery holiday scene, and she got away with that and that's it?

I've sort of missed this on the first viewing as that didn't click. The second viewing it did click mentally (not emotional/conscience), and I'm thinking I must have done a third viewing because while I understood the concept, the gravity of that sin or implication has not been processed.

However, the online backlash is real, the wikipedia and other sources panning this movie. Even people who are positive about the movie will say you have to check of your brain to ignore the story & logical plot points of the movie to enjoy the movie.

While this innocent guy was possessed, apart from being raped and having his apartment invaded by a strange woman he doesn't know, , he put himself up for all sorts of physical risk of harm throughout the movie while he was possessed and not in control of his faculties.

Now, I did look at a Christian movie review during the refund period and thought this movie checked out based on that review. However, with this issue being in the movie it would have failed it and if it was acknowledged and mentioned in that review, and this would have been moral grounds to request a refund and wait to view until a later time. The body-swap was not necessary for the narrative and if WW was losing her powers anyway, she did pay for her boyfriend to come back, and a wish thing was capable of bringing him back exactly in the same form rather than in a stranger's body. I can no longer in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone based on that issue.

 

[christie]

SPOILER-ALERT. There is one issue that I'm seeing online with the movie that has basically KILLED this movie that I only picked up on during the second viewing (which was pointed out in watchalong because it was too crazy for me to pick up on). A body-swap went on. Diana's boyfriend possessed an innocent man, so Diana essentially raped an unsuspecting man, went into his apartment, and saw him again at the end of the movie in a cheery holiday scene, and she got away with that and that's it?

I've sort of missed this on the first viewing as that didn't click. The second viewing it did click mentally (not emotional/conscience), and I'm thinking I must have done a third viewing because while I understood the concept, the gravity of that sin or implication has not been processed.

However, the online backlash is real, the wikipedia and other sources panning this movie. Even people who are positive about the movie will say you have to check of your brain to ignore the story & logical plot points of the movie to enjoy the movie.

While this innocent guy was possessed, apart from being raped and having his apartment invaded by a strange woman he doesn't know, , he put himself up for all sorts of physical risk of harm throughout the movie while he was possessed and not in control of his faculties.

Now, I did look at a Christian movie review during the refund period and thought this movie checked out based on that review. However, with this issue being in the movie it would have failed it and if it was acknowledged and mentioned in that review, and this would have been moral grounds to request a refund and wait to view until a later time. The body-swap was not necessary for the narrative and if WW was losing her powers anyway, she did pay for her boyfriend to come back, and a wish thing was capable of bringing him back exactly in the same form rather than in a stranger's body. I can no longer in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone based on that issue.

this just gave me the creeps.

did you just basically say that gynocentrism has gone so far that a leading superhero type woman is raping men/raping any gender in movies and there's no discussion on this? A superhero is typically a character we look up to. Raping is unacceptable behavior, even in a fictional movie.
They didn't make the Fountainhead movie for that rape scene but this is ok?


This is unacceptable, if the reverse were true there would have been news on this(ex. captain america or ironman raping in their movies would have been in the news)

Why is this going unreported? I'm glad I trusted my instincts not to pay for this movie.
I assure you the oldtime WW is still feminine, submissive, compliant and nurturing as a personality in the tv show dvds I bought. Not a rapist ffs.

 

[corrector]

this just gave me the creeps.

did you just basically say that gynocentrism has gone so far that a leading superhero type woman is raping men/raping any gender in movies and there's no discussion on this? A superhero is typically a character we look up to. Raping is unacceptable behavior, even in a fictional movie.
They didn't make the Fountainhead movie for that rape scene but this is ok?


This is unacceptable, if the reverse were true there would have been news on this(ex. captain america or ironman raping in their movies would have been in the news)

Why is this going unreported? I'm glad I trusted my instincts not to pay for this movie.
I assure you the oldtime WW is still feminine, submissive, compliant and nurturing as a personality in the tv show dvds I bought. Not a rapist ffs.

You are right, and people are saying the same thing. If it was a man doing that to a woman, it would be all over the news. That problem with these movies is issues like this do not filter down fast enough when the movie is freshly released.

Yeah, you saved your money. The best thing I'm thinking is to wait at least a couple of weeks before renting any premium PVOD or visiting a cinema and entertain "spoilers" if there is a drastic drop in RT score so that no mistakes are made, because sometimes there is a reason for that. It started with an 82% RT score and now it's 60% and one % away from being a Rotten Tomato.

 

[christie]

You are right, and people are saying the same thing. If it was a man doing that to a woman, it would be all over the news. That problem with these movies is issues like this do not filter down fast enough when the movie is freshly released.

Yeah, you saved your money. The best thing I'm thinking is to wait at least a couple of weeks before renting any premium PVOD or visiting a cinema and entertain "spoilers" if there is a drastic drop in RT score so that no mistakes are made, because sometimes there is a reason for that. It started with an 82% RT score and now it's 60% and one % away from being a Rotten Tomato.

oh!!!

Sucks this came out at Christmas, means a lot of young, impressionable girls have already seen it in that high demand viewing holiday.
I would have walked out if I had seen that scene. I try to limit what garbage I'm exposed to.

Remember I told you in email, that I walked out when the female lead was slapping the male in the old Groundhog Day they played in the theatre this past summer. I honestly didn't remember that scene, when I paid for it after work, to get cooled down in the theatre a/c.
I wouldn't have chose that movie.

 

[Lookatu]

There's plenty of symbolisms involve in that movie. You just gotta find it. Cheers.

I just watched this over the holidays and I didn't think it was good as the first WW.

As for symbolisms, here is my exhaustive things I've picked up on right away. SPOILER ALERT!!!



Right off the bat, it shows an island where women are trying to be masculine and like men. Fierce competition and nothing else. Yet in the real world, only strong feminist's competition is primarly with men. If you look at all the single and not single mothers these days, they want everyone to "win". Jordan Peterson has a good lecture about this.

And clearly the Political Correctness is through the roof of course. Fat black lady being in a high position role(aka Oprah) supervising or being the boss of white people(BLM directive) back in the 80's. I've lived through the 80's and none of this was there back then. Then you have Pedro Pascal's(Max Lord) character having an Asian son. WTF??? Absolutely no resemblance to him. Not to mention no strong family unit. Where was the mom in all this or why didn't they show her? And what kind of mom would just drop off their kid at a corporation without waiting on the dad? There were more family units back in the 80's than there are now. Totally unnecessary and trying to depict a single mother/father setup but very innacurate in today's society as custody is often rewarded to the mother.

Also there is a hidden message indicating that men are and have always been visual creatures hiring hot women. Max Lord's secretary is some hot looking secretary. This was pretty common in the 80's. Now you see ugly girls and land whales taking over various positions including news anchor spots for major stations.

Also back in the 80's, most girls were avg to slim back then so if you didn't have a great face or body, guys didn't give a second look to you. This is clearly demonstrated when Kristin's nerdy character drops her papers at work and two guys just look at her with pity and keep walking without willing to help her pick up her papers. Fast forward to today, just being slim automatically makes you attractive and if that happened today, you'd have tons of thirsty simps practically running to help her out.

This movie also shows total white knighting on the behalf of WW's boyfriend. This has always been a classical Disney trait but it was more rampant back in the 80's I feel.

WW when at the bf's apartment shows her trying to pickout outfits for him. They got one wrong with the neck scarf. This as far as I know wasn't fashionable in the 80's. This also shows a beta and feminine behavior in trying out clothes for WW and having her pick something for him. This is what women do with each other.

When WW uses her Lasso towards the end of the movie to initiate Max Lord's life and flashbacks, it shows feminists disdain for certain male characteristics and tries to paint a negative picture around it. Flashbacks of wife abuse(only seen through a women's eyes like she didn't do or couldn't have done nothing wrong), the way guys discipline or correct bedwetting in their kids(women will be more lighthearted about this and that's why you see kids bedwetting until they are 7-9 years old), Kids being picked on(kids gotta be tough or be picked on so they can grow to be tough). A lot of actions here that hardcore feminists or liberals despise.

Hollywood is trying to boost the power of women even more by altering the original character and not staying true to the original character with limited abilities. Now all of a sudden, you have WW that also has Spiderman like powers(swinging from building to building with her infinite lasso) and Superman like powers(that can literally shatter guns with her hands and all of sudden fly like Superman). Further example of subtle brainwashing.

Movie inconsistencies - Her being able to make plane invisible by touching it but why not make herself invisible to fight the characters? Kristen's character toward the end not electrocuted when touching the electrical lines but electrocuted when high power lines falls into the water she's in.

There is anti-Arab racism with them wanting to build a border wall. This did not need to be in the movie.

There's also a Jewish subliminal message when she tries to save the 4 kids playing in the roads by diverting the missile headed towards them. This can be linked to Israel killing 4 Palestine kids back in 2014. Gal Gadot(WW) has received criticism in the past for defending the Israel army in which she served on(compulsory).

Double standard here with Kristen Wiig who is an actual lesbian playing a straight female character while there was backlash from the LGBTQ community for James Corden playing a gay character when he is supposedly straight. You didn't hear one peep around this from straight people.

Then I've always had an issue with Gal Gadot(WW) who is a single mom somehow getting a major break to play a major leading role in the first WW movie. Before that, she had a small part in the Fast and Furious franchise. But other than that, no major acting in any major movies. She was crowned Miss Israel in her younger years. The fact that she's Jewish and Hollywood is run by Jewish people(not bashing them as I have friends/relatives that are Jewish). The cynic in me thinks that there was some thirsty simp producer that she got romantically involved with to fast track her to stardom(nothing new other than the casting couch being covered up through "romantic" situations instead).

So there's my $.02. Feel free to chime in with anything else you might've noticed, other than the accurate portrayal of shoulder pads used by women(and men) to look more masculine in the 80's. LOL

TL;DR: Lot of subtle feminist brainwashing as usual in this movie

 

[corrector]

I just watched this over the holidays and I didn't think it was good as the first WW.

As for symbolisms, here is my exhaustive things I've picked up on right away. SPOILER ALERT!!!



Right off the bat, it shows an island where women are trying to be masculine and like men. Fierce competition and nothing else. Yet in the real world, only strong feminist's competition is primarly with men. If you look at all the single and not single mothers these days, they want everyone to "win". Jordan Peterson has a good lecture about this.

And clearly the Political Correctness is through the roof of course. Fat black lady being in a high position role(aka Oprah) supervising or being the boss of white people(BLM directive) back in the 80's. I've lived through the 80's and none of this was there back then. Then you have Pedro Pascal's(Max Lord) character having an Asian son. WTF??? Absolutely no resemblance to him. Not to mention no strong family unit. Where was the mom in all this or why didn't they show her? And what kind of mom would just drop off their kid at a corporation without waiting on the dad? There were more family units back in the 80's than there are now. Totally unnecessary and trying to depict a single mother/father setup but very innacurate in today's society as custody is often rewarded to the mother.

Also there is a hidden message indicating that men are and have always been visual creatures hiring hot women. Max Lord's secretary is some hot looking secretary. This was pretty common in the 80's. Now you see ugly girls and land whales taking over various positions including news anchor spots for major stations.

Also back in the 80's, most girls were avg to slim back then so if you didn't have a great face or body, guys didn't give a second look to you. This is clearly demonstrated when Kristin's nerdy character drops her papers at work and two guys just look at her with pity and keep walking without willing to help her pick up her papers. Fast forward to today, just being slim automatically makes you attractive and if that happened today, you'd have tons of thirsty simps practically running to help her out.

This movie also shows total white knighting on the behalf of WW's boyfriend. This has always been a classical Disney trait but it was more rampant back in the 80's I feel.

WW when at the bf's apartment shows her trying to pickout outfits for him. They got one wrong with the neck scarf. This as far as I know wasn't fashionable in the 80's. This also shows a beta and feminine behavior in trying out clothes for WW and having her pick something for him. This is what women do with each other.

When WW uses her Lasso towards the end of the movie to initiate Max Lord's life and flashbacks, it shows feminists disdain for certain male characteristics and tries to paint a negative picture around it. Flashbacks of wife abuse(only seen through a women's eyes like she didn't do or couldn't have done nothing wrong), the way guys discipline or correct bedwetting in their kids(women will be more lighthearted about this and that's why you see kids bedwetting until they are 7-9 years old), Kids being picked on(kids gotta be tough or be picked on so they can grow to be tough). A lot of actions here that hardcore feminists or liberals despise.

Hollywood is trying to boost the power of women even more by altering the original character and not staying true to the original character with limited abilities. Now all of a sudden, you have WW that also has Spiderman like powers(swinging from building to building with her infinite lasso) and Superman like powers(that can literally shatter guns with her hands and all of sudden fly like Superman). Further example of subtle brainwashing.

Movie inconsistencies - Her being able to make plane invisible by touching it but why not make herself invisible to fight the characters? Kristen's character toward the end not electrocuted when touching the electrical lines but electrocuted when high power lines falls into the water she's in.

There is anti-Arab racism with them wanting to build a border wall. This did not need to be in the movie.

There's also a Jewish subliminal message when she tries to save the 4 kids playing in the roads by diverting the missile headed towards them. This can be linked to Israel killing 4 Palestine kids back in 2014. Gal Gadot(WW) has received criticism in the past for defending the Israel army in which she served on(compulsory).

Double standard here with Kristen Wiig who is an actual lesbian playing a straight female character while there was backlash from the LGBTQ community for James Corden playing a gay character when he is supposedly straight. You didn't hear one peep around this from straight people.

Then I've always had an issue with Gal Gadot(WW) who is a single mom somehow getting a major break to play a major leading role in the first WW movie. Before that, she had a small part in the Fast and Furious franchise. But other than that, no major acting in any major movies. She was crowned Miss Israel in her younger years. The fact that she's Jewish and Hollywood is run by Jewish people(not bashing them as I have friends/relatives that are Jewish). The cynic in me thinks that there was some thirsty simp producer that she got romantically involved with to fast track her to stardom(nothing new other than the casting couch being covered up through "romantic" situations instead).

So there's my $.02. Feel free to chime in with anything else you might've noticed, other than the accurate portrayal of shoulder pads used by women(and men) to look more masculine in the 80's. LOL

TL;DR: Lot of subtle feminist brainwashing as usual in this movie

SpoilerAlert.
My dad was absent allot when I grew up as a kid and he had a double life. I feel resonant with the boy in the movie because I was around that age at the time. When I saw them hugging at the end I also remember how loving I was to my dad. I would wait for him to come home sometimes and stare at an empty driveway and ask mom when he would be coming home. The boy and 1984 anchored me on that aspect. I still am with my folks today and my dad today is a senior and I am his age back in the 80s now. Max Lord did choose his son in the end and redeemed his character in the end.

The 80s as a setting is very important because you are right, how that nerdy woman was treated would be unrealistic by today's standards. Putting this in the 80s gives a carte blanche on these things. This movie could not exist in that way in today's time.

In terms of the other issues youve raised some great points. Sometimes I wish I was wrong on these things but you confirmed what I wrote in an earlier post about atheistic/anti-religious Jews who are part of the cabal or some nefarious secret organizations that have an agenda. I was not serious about it.

However, one thing glaringly out of place in an 80s setting is that computer monitors also doubled as TV. This is one cardinal sin.
You could not make a pet computer or 80s computer technology broadcast anything audio-visual period. This was only TVs. The satellite technology could only broadcast and interfere with compatible technology. I never used my own computer for TV purposes until the 00s decade. I used to have a CRT TV up to the early 00s and eventually got rid of it when it didn't work. After a length of time without a TV, I started noticing there was youtube becoming an option to view videos. Apart from that I had watched DVDs through my laptop/computer, but never live-TV. I don't even recall Netflix much in the 00s but I do remember various DVD stores and online places where you could get various DVDs mailed to your home for a monthly subscription. Therefore, to just portray a live-TV broadcast on a Pet computer monitor or any computer in the 80s just takes you out of the movie. It becomes an alternate 80s in another dimension rather than a true retro-80s.

 

[Lookatu]

SpoilerAlert.
My dad was absent allot when I grew up as a kid and he had a double life. I feel resonant with the boy in the movie because I was around that age at the time.

I guess growing up with a two parent household which was more common back then has made me insensitive to that part of it. Thanks for enlightening me from a different perspective.

Let me ask you though, if your dad was around more and provided more guidance/leadership/mentorship, do you think your life would've turned out different?

Also great observation about broadcasting on monitors back then. I missed that inconsistency.

 

[corrector]

Let me ask you though, if your dad was around more and provided more guidance/leadership/mentorship, do you think your life would've turned out different?

Possibly. I was not brought up as a regular boy (ie going into sports, cars, etc... and what not) so I don't feel I was taught to be or act with things of masculine value or what guys would value. (i.e. again sports, weight-lifting, cars, going after women, etc....). So I feel a bit maybe too soy-boy and that's the only difference I can think of. However, I think genetically my dad is less masculine anyway. He came from a twin birth. His twin brother is very masculine while my dad is less so in comparison and I have a disposition similar to my dad.

 

[zekko]

Double standard here with Kristen Wiig who is an actual lesbian playing a straight female character while there was backlash from the LGBTQ community for James Corden playing a gay character when he is supposedly straight.

I've never heard anything about Kristin Wiig being lesbian. She's been married (to a dude) and she's engaged to another guy now. You might be thinking about Kate McKinnon, another comedic actress who comes from SNL. I agree there are double standards in the Woke community, however.

 

[Lookatu]

I've never heard anything about Kristin Wiig being lesbian. She's been married (to a dude) and she's engaged to another guy now. You might be thinking about Kate McKinnon, another comedic actress who comes from SNL. I agree there are double standards in the Woke community, however.

My bad, I did get them mixed up.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

This movie is COMPLETE Garbage. Homie from Narco's is not a convincing villain, neither is Kirsten Wig, the choices in actors are just mind boggling.

I don't want to spoil, but the story of the movie is ridiculous, like in an era of Time Travel, Alternate Time Lines and now outright Magical Wishes, who the hell needs even a decent writer?

They could of done ANYTHING with the wishes concept, yet this is what they choose to do? Turn Kirsten Wig into a cat lady? Really?

 

[zekko]

They could of done ANYTHING with the wishes concept, yet this is what they choose to do? Turn Kirsten Wig into a cat lady? Really?

They don't use her name in the movie, but Wiig plays The Cheetah. In the comics, she's like Wonder Woman's version of The Joker, she's her main rival. I thought Wiig did a good job, she was an interesting choice to play her.

As for the magical wishing, I agree it stretches credibility, but Wonder Woman's origins are tied in with Greek mythology. That's why she fought Ares in the first movie. Kind of like how Thor is based on Norse mythology. Marvel chose to present Thor in a somewhat more realistic way, however.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

They don't use her name in the movie, but Wiig plays The Cheetah. In the comics, she's like Wonder Woman's version of The Joker, she's her main rival. I thought Wiig did a good job, she was an interesting choice to play her.

As for the magical wishing, I agree it stretches credibility, but Wonder Woman's origins are tied in with Greek mythology. That's why she fought Ares in the first movie. Kind of like how Thor is based on Norse mythology. Marvel chose to present Thor in a somewhat more realistic way, however.

I can feel them sticking to the source material, I'm not into the comics n ****, more of just taking in the cinema.

 

[corrector]

I can feel them sticking to the source material, I'm not into the comics n ****, more of just taking in the cinema.

I am guessing you saw this on a small screen? I rewatched it three times because the camera work in some of the scenes was just lovely. Maybe its IMAX porn but it totally rocks with a large screen.

Take the fireworks scene or ww flying or the character screen presence. You neee a proper movie screen for that.