Why '84?


Other than a quick scene in a mall, nothing about this was remotely evocative of the '80s, and nothing would have changed had it been set in the present day. Other than as an excuse to create a slick trailer, which was far, far better than the awful film itself, why did they even bother labeling and marketing this as being set in the '80s?

reply

No reason, the title and setting made no sense at all.

reply

the director is on record saying she intentionally set the movies in the 80s so she could ignore Justice League and The DCEU...

the director hated JL and hated what they did with Wonder Woman in JL and she also wanted to make her "own" without any of the baggage of any of the DCEU....


reply

Did Wonder Woman know how to fly in the Justice League movie? If she acquired that skill in the '80s you'd think she'd have continued to use it.

reply

Are DC even trying to do a shared cinematic universe at this point?

Or are they putting all their hopes on the Snyder Cut being the second coming that will fix everything and they’ll build sequels from it?

Justice League was terrible, but honestly Patty Jenkins has made a stinker here as well. A boring, overlong movie with nothing interesting to say at all and an absolute waste of an 80s setting.

reply

The trailer with the New Order song was a masterpiece. I'll watch that again many times in the coming years, and tell my grandchildren that it was the sequel; DC opted to make a short, arty piece for part two.

reply

Haha, I agree so much about the trailer, whoever edited that to that song did an amazing job, they really fooled me into thinking we had a great movie to look forward to (happened with Suicide Squad as well, I keep getting fooled)


reply

@FilmBuff. Yep. That trailer was one of the best. And completely misleading!

Beware of super-powerful trailers with stunning music. It's always as though one of the greatest records/songs of the whole rock/pop era (Blue Monday, Creep, Immigrant Song...) has been refreshed and given $50-$100 million for a new music video. *That's* amazing and what we all react to. We should know by now that *that* is its own thing and almost certainly can't carry over to 2+ hour film, but every year or two we get fooled again. We simply *can't* stop irrationally getting our hopes up...

reply

If that's the case, the new Batman is going to suck because man that trailer is amazing...

reply

Seems like pretty weak justification, could have easily been modern day and still ignored it all. Other super hero movies do it all the time, and the shitty DCEU doesn't need a reason to be ignored.

reply

It's not ignoring the movie itself that is important, but it needed to be set in a time before the other characters come to be, otherwise it would stand to reason they would join her to stop the Mandalorian.

reply

Like I said, many super heroes have stand alone movies. They don't need a reason to not include other super heroes.

reply

+1

reply

fanboys would have been up in arms.

reply

It's funny how JL ended up being better than this trash.

reply

While I feel WW84 is a complete Misfire and literally one of the ODDEST CBMs I've ever seen....

IMO Its not remotely as horrifically AWFUL as JL....

I mean, IMO JL isnt even an actual film, Its a Frankenstein Monster of scenes edited together to meet a 2 hour runtime...

although I must admit, I can see how some might "enjoy" JL more than WW84 as at least JL has a Fair amount of Decent action scenes While WW84 Is just boring as hell with very little action and The action that takes place is just Awful....

reply

"IMO JL isnt even an actual film, Its a Frankenstein Monster of scenes edited together to meet a 2 hour runtime..."

That's how I feel about WW84 except its 2 and a half hours.

At least JL had coherent decisions behind it. You take away the silly mustache situation and its an average film.

WW84 didn't do anything right. The intro was straight out of Superman 3. This is the second movie where WW needed a male sidekick. WW thinks about Steve and he appears in someone else's body that we don't even know if WW sees or not. Everyone else has to say their wish. Steve has never seen fireworks, but knows how to fly a modern jet. WW makes it invisible because of powers we've never seen before, and she does it at a time where she's losing her powers. Cheetahs aren't anything close to an apex predator. No idea how Cheetah got her final abilities. Max Lord bleeds a little here and there. There wasn't anything 1984 related except a mall scene. And on top of being silly, it was boring. Ugh.

reply

She hated it and made something worse, kind of funny. I actually think JL is slightly better than this film and that's saying a lot since JL is a complete dumpster fire.

reply

I would say they probably saw how people reacted to the 80s settings with Stranger Things and they wanted to just catch those 80s loving movie goers.

Sadly what ever time period was in WW84...it was definitely not the 1984 we all know and love, the Mall scene looked completely terrible.

If there is anything 80s in the film...it's the terrible ignorant Hollywood pro-Israel stereotyping.

reply

The fanny pack also makes an appearance.

reply

I enjoyed the mall season. In fact, I'd say the first 20ish minutes are quite good. It's only after that that the film goes down the drain.

reply

This definitely a cash-in to the the 80's revival but without any 80's in it.

This could have easily been set at any time between the 1950's - 2000's.

Especially with the missile threat at end with the soviets it would have been better to set it just after the cuban missile crisis and same with the airplane scene and the perceived threat from soviet planes.

The plane ducking and diving from some anti aircraft guns/missile rather then the useless fireworks scene.

reply

1984 is a very special number. If you choose to put it in a movie title one might expect something deep and original - not a less amusing version of Bruce Almighty + Disney movie grade preachy finale.

reply

Two reasons, the first is because 80s nostalgia is hot due to "Stranger Things." The second is so Hollywood Communists can attack the capitalism of the 80s.

reply

Yet 1984 is the book which shows the Reds for what they are.

reply

The whole narrative is stupid. Hollywood are capitalists to the core.

reply

let them see communist conspiracies. these nutjobs are funny.

reply

To cash in on 80's nostalgia, like Stranger Things? and draw in the geezer audience (people like me).

But the movie barely seemed like the 80s, and as someone who lived in the 80s, it didn't seem all that accurate either, more of a caricature, like Maxwell Lord was a caricature TV hucksters, self-help gurus, and evil businessmen. And Ronald Reagan was a caricature of, well, Ronald Reagan.

reply

They even got the song at the party wrong, it's from 1985 and was a flop in the States, anyways.

reply

I don't even remember what songs were playing at the party. I recall Gary Numan and Frankie Goes to Hollywood, but both of those make sense in 1984. Which song from '85 was playing? Maybe the DJ scored an early release? :P

reply

I thought the same thing, Welcome to the Pleasuredome by Frankie Goes To Hollywood was released as an album in October 1984, the single (Which flopped in the US) came out in 1985, so at first I gave the movie the benefit of the doubt and believed they could be playing an album track at a party...but only a few scenes later they were celebrating July 4!

That DJ must have pulled some strings for that to happen! 😂

reply

He was a close personal friend of Frankie, who slipped him an acetate of some tracks he'd been working on for his upcoming album.

reply

Frankie was a band, but believe that if it helps!

I'll just assume Patty Jenkins didn't do her homework, which is weird because she was a teen in 1984, the perfect age to absorb pop!

reply

I know... I was giving a joking response. And yeah, though it's easy to forget when a song came out, especially when it comes to the month of release. I remembered Frankie Goes to Hollywood from when I was a freshman in high school, but without looking it up could not have told you if it came out in early '84 or even sometime in early '85. She might have checked to see that the album came out in 1984 then never bothered to dig deeper, or even to realize that the July 4th celebration coincided with that song being played in the film. Doesn't excuse how lousy the film is, but I can understand that kind of error.

reply

Maybe she really just likes the song and didn't care...but I do! I'm cursed to notice crap like that.

reply

I expected lots of cool old '80s music. Nope.

Completely forgettable movie. Gal Gadot is too good for the material they are giving her. I hope Marvel hires her for a role.

reply

lol, she's not above material like this. She's no Amy Adams.

reply

Bek you made a very good joke there about Gal Gadot.

Lets hope this is shows the world that so called "skinny beauty contest winners" aren't good actresses and they should stick to there day jobs.

Keep her for DCEU if they must.

reply

You don't think she's doing a good job as an Amazonian?

reply

To me she did bad job overall, she can't act and she was miscast as wonder woman.
Even the Teenage Diana looked better as an Amazonian then Gal did.

reply