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.willoneill wrote: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.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.
Wonder Woman / Wonder Woman 1984 (Patty Jenkins, 2017/20)
- Ribs
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
- Apperson
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:47 pm
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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...
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.Ribs wrote: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.willoneill wrote: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.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.
- dda1996a
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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 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.
- dda1996a
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
Having stated that opinion re: the women working on this film several times, I think your point has gotten across.
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
At the very least I see it picking up a lot of technical awards.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
I would say I didn't regret seeing this (on a family outing), but would classify it as no better than solidly mediocre overall.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
"Solidly mediocre overall?" That would define most Oscar material.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
This is true.hearthesilence wrote:"Solidly mediocre overall?" That would define most Oscar material.
-
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:06 pm
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
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.
That being said, I think the whole Weinstein thing can actually help WW get that best picture nomination.
-
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm
Re: Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)
In the same year as Blade Runner and Dunkirk? No chance.knives wrote:At the very least I see it picking up a lot of technical awards.
- cantinflas
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:48 am
- Location: sydney
- Luke M
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Re: DC Comics on Film
Wonder Woman fighting for Reagan against evil Russians sounds tailor made for #Resistance types
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: DC Comics on Film
1984 has significance outside the Cold War. I imagine the setting is more than just "Lol Reagan".
At least I hope so.
At least I hope so.
- Ribs
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Re: DC Comics on Film
The movie’s being shot in DC for six weeks, though, so there probably will be some element of that
- cantinflas
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:48 am
- Location: sydney
- Luke M
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Re: DC Comics on Film
That’s certainly one way to undermine a successful movie.
-
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am
Re: DC Comics on Film
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?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: DC Comics on Film
He really does look like Dermot Mulroney in that pic!
Re: DC Comics on Film
Why not? Who in 2018 expects comic book movie characters to stay dead?black&huge wrote:Also.... why?
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: DC Comics on Film
Said character was brought back just to spite this forum. Patty Jenkins confirmed it.Werewolf by Night wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:31 pmWhy not? Who in 2018 expects comic book movie characters to stay dead?black&huge wrote:Also.... why?