- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Wonder Woman Actually That Good?
Posted on 6/7/17 at 6:43 pm to jeff5891
Posted on 6/7/17 at 6:43 pm to jeff5891
It was very good . Gal was a smoke show. She looks amazing on camera.
I think if you remove Chris Pine from the movie, it becomes average.
Def. check it out.. best DC film so far other than BB and TDK .
I think if you remove Chris Pine from the movie, it becomes average.
Def. check it out.. best DC film so far other than BB and TDK .
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:55 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Is Wonder Woman Actually That Good?
IDK. Haven't seen it. Not going to see it. YW
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:55 pm to Patrick_Bateman
Nope, I started browsing TD after 30 minutes of watching it, the shield and lasso hadn't entered the picture. I will stick with the Lynda Carter version.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:39 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Hrrmmm. See I put Cap 1 and 2 on GotG level. So when you say WW is better than Cap 1, that to me is a major endorsement. Irrespective of that, it sounds like it's probably worth seeing
Wonder Woman was good. But not GOTG good...and certainly not GOTG 2.0 good.
That being said, it's easily the best of the DC efforts.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:42 pm to DoUrden
I really enjoyed it. If you go in expecting a Marvel movie then you will be sorely disappointed but if you have no preconceived notions or expectations then it's a very solid movie.
The dialogue and some of the characters can be very hokey at times, but it's a great origin film. Gal Gadot was a terrific choice for the role and aside from being a stone cold fox she is very likable as well.
I'd give it a 7.5/10.
The dialogue and some of the characters can be very hokey at times, but it's a great origin film. Gal Gadot was a terrific choice for the role and aside from being a stone cold fox she is very likable as well.
I'd give it a 7.5/10.
Posted on 6/8/17 at 7:40 am to ohiovol
quote:
quote:
There already was a Starlord,
Really?? Now that is funny!
quote:My guess is that he is referring to Quill's title... early on in GOTG, when he referred to himself as that, people stopped and said "who?".
What? Am I missing something?
Later, when the same bad guy saw him and said "Starlord", Quill said "finally!"
But yeah, all the characters in GOTG have already been developed to where they are now.
Even Quill was known as as womanizing rogue, as Gamora points out when she says she's heard of him, and won't fall for his pelvic sorcery.
So Marvel has done the ensemble thing twice, and hit it big both with developed characters (Avengers), and with new-to-the-audience characters (Guardians).
It's good to hear that Wonder Woman successfully mixed Thor and Captain America; I liked both of those films for what they are, and if this matches them, it should be a good movie.
Posted on 6/8/17 at 8:09 am to Peter Venkman
quote:
I'd give it a 7.5/10.
I would put it in that range as well.
It was mostly entertaining, had interesting characters, and did not come across as a chore to watch. That means it blows the rest of the DCU out of the water.
I don't think it was the single greatest movie or superhero movie ever made. But it was a solid double from a studio that has been striking out.
DC needs to get away from the whole desaturated color pronto though. I don't see the appeal of having your movie look like it was filmed through a muddy camera lens.
Posted on 6/8/17 at 8:40 am to Arksulli
quote:Well, when done properly, it lends a sense of gravity to the film. Super-bright colors are more tied to TV and children's shows, whereas a more somber tone is pushed by the desaturation. Also, you get better clarity and depth of field when the colors are muted, which can be striking imagery.
DC needs to get away from the whole desaturated color pronto though. I don't see the appeal of having your movie look like it was filmed through a muddy camera lens.
But I agree with you on dropping it ASAP- whatever the original intentions, it should have been complementary and barely noticeable, unless you REALLY look for it.
And right now, it's the first thing you look for in a DC movie, which just distracts from everything else.
I found it hilarious that Marvel tweaked DC with the palette; GOTG 2 couldn't have been more vibrant, and it worked
Posted on 6/8/17 at 8:57 am to Scoob
quote:
Well, when done properly, it lends a sense of gravity to the film. Super-bright colors are more tied to TV and children's shows, whereas a more somber tone is pushed by the desaturation. Also, you get better clarity and depth of field when the colors are muted, which can be striking imagery.
An excellent point. When done properly it can be very effective but they haven't really pulled that off.
Posted on 6/8/17 at 11:32 am to tiger94gop
quote:
I believe it's the female hero thing. I liked it, but I would say Marvel has several that were better. It is a good movie, it checks the boxes, and a wife/girlfriend will see it as opposed to other "Superhero" movies.
I agree. I saw it with my adult children and they both liked it. My daughter liked it more because she would prefer to more hero stories where women don't need to be rescued.
It was a good movie. The beginning was interesting enough to keep the pacing and it was a satisfying conclusion. I prefer to not complain about CGI as we have come so far from the claymation monsters of the 1960's.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News