criterionforum.org

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

At the very least I see it picking up a lot of technical awards.

I would say I didn't regret seeing this (on a family outing), but would classify it as no better than solidly mediocre overall.

"Solidly mediocre overall?" That would define most Oscar material.

hearthesilence wrote:"Solidly mediocre overall?" That would define most Oscar material.

This is true.

I would say Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero movies of the last 20 years, and a great blockbuster by any metric.

That being said, I think the whole Weinstein thing can actually help WW get that best picture nomination.

knives wrote:At the very least I see it picking up a lot of technical awards.

In the same year as Blade Runner and Dunkirk? No chance.

'Wonder Woman 2' Setting Teased by Patty Jenkins and DC's Geoff Johns

Wonder Woman fighting for Reagan against evil Russians sounds tailor made for #Resistance types

1984 has significance outside the Cold War. I imagine the setting is more than just "Lol Reagan".

At least I hope so.

The movie’s being shot in DC for six weeks, though, so there probably will be some element of that

https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1006887729618194432

Spoiler

https://twitter.com/PattyJenks/status/1 ... 5532740608

That’s certainly one way to undermine a successful movie.

Wow. I had to click the tweet to know who that was. I thought it was Justin Theroux or Dermot Mulroney at first. Also.... why?

He really does look like Dermot Mulroney in that pic!

black&huge wrote:Also.... why?

Why not? Who in 2018 expects comic book movie characters to stay dead?

Werewolf by Night wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:31 pm

black&huge wrote:Also.... why?

Why not? Who in 2018 expects comic book movie characters to stay dead?

Said character was brought back just to spite this forum. Patty Jenkins confirmed it.