A lot of criticism here is directed at Disney, but let's remember how much of this was worked on by PIXAR. All the people behind the scenes on this, that's how it came to be nicknamed PIXAR's live action debut.
I was neutral about the shift in it's release date announced last year - it was originally going to open this week; June 8 2012. While March has become fertile box office ground for many films, perhaps this felt like a summer film released out of season, when it did come. The Hunger Games also didn't help, being the worldwide hit it was. The awareness wasn't there for the public, even though test screenings and audience reaction for this was very good; frustrating.
Anyway, bought the 3D Blu-ray combo pack yesterday. Future Shop here in Canada does this stylish packaging with their 'steelbook' editions, so it feels very distinct. I now have a reason to go buy the glasses, to go with that 3D HDTV I got last Christmas!
Originally posted by roughrider
Anyway, bought the 3D Blu-ray combo pack yesterday. Future Shop here in Canada does this stylish packaging with their 'steelbook' editions, so it feels very distinct. I now have a reason to go buy the glasses, to go with that 3D HDTV I got last Christmas!
Let me know how you feel about 3D TV in general. I'm considering making the upgrade at some point..
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Let me know how you feel about 3D TV in general. I'm considering making the upgrade at some point..
My office, we bought a 55" Samsung 3D HDTV for one of the boardrooms. So I got a preview of what it looked like; even brought in a couple of my own 3D Blu-ray combo packs to sample; it's pretty good.
The decision you have to make is passive glasses vs. active glasses. Active glasses have batteries in them and need charging periodically; they sync with the monitor. Other models like LG televisions have the same passive glasses they pass out in movie theatres. That means the TV has to do more work and use more power to create the 3D effect. I saw that demonstrated in a store - I concluded I liked the models with active glasses more.
I got my 3D TV just after last Christmas with the sales, and it was an open box sale on a 46" Sony; half price. I had my previous, smaller HDTV for about six years before it; think I got my money's worth from it. Holidays are a good time to buy. Just remember, besides the 3D TV you will need a 3D player, the glasses and a 3D capable HDMI cable; they come cheap at Wal-Mart.
Originally posted by roughrider
My office, we bought a 55" Samsung 3D HDTV for one of the boardrooms. So I got a preview of what it looked like; even brought in a couple of my own 3D Blu-ray combo packs to sample; it's pretty good.The decision you have to make is passive glasses vs. active glasses. Active glasses have batteries in them and need charging periodically; they sync with the monitor. Other models like LG televisions have the same passive glasses they pass out in movie theatres. That means the TV has to do more work and use more power to create the 3D effect. I saw that demonstrated in a store - I concluded I liked the models with active glasses more.
I got my 3D TV just after last Christmas with the sales, and it was an open box sale on a 46" Sony; half price. I had my previous, smaller HDTV for about six years before it; think I got my money's worth from it. Holidays are a good time to buy. Just remember, besides the 3D TV you will need a 3D player, the glasses and a 3D capable HDMI cable; they come cheap at Wal-Mart.
Oh, cool. Thanks for the info, dude. 😄
Gave this another chance after all these years and the things I liked I still liked and the things that bothered me I tried to forgive. For example the two main leads, Kitsch and Lynn Collins, they seemed to have a little more chemistry than I remembered (And I gained more respect for Kitsch after seeing him in that WACO miniseries). The powerful "godlike" characters were somewhat less annoying to me because I see why they needed them to tell the story they wanted to; however, I still think they should have done without their shape-shifting abilities. That still just reeks of lazy writing. Do I still wish it wasn't Disney and it was R-rated? Sure, but goddamn you can't argue with that budget! It still looks amazing after all these years (most of it anyway). $250 million budget and it only made about $280 million worldwide. So yeah, it was a total disaster. Makes me wonder why they didn't bring James Cameron on at least as a producer to help market it. Throw his name on there and they probably would have gotten more butts in seats.
So yeah, I appreciated the way they were attempting to put the story together even though it didn't seem much like the book at all. I'm still saddened that it will never see any sequels, because they would have been really fun. But anyway it will still exist as an impressive spectacle on film.
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't "love" it, but it was a solid entertaining epic and I felt it was good enough for a sequel.Also, Lynn Collins:
Crazy sexy levels of hotness. Mmmmmmmm. MMMmmMmmMMM. MMMMMMMmm.
...cause I agree with Robbie 100% on this...
specially the Lynn Collins bit... woof woof bow wow WOOF!
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't "love" it, but it was a solid entertaining epic and I felt it was good enough for a sequel.Also, Lynn Collins:
Crazy sexy levels of hotness. Mmmmmmmm. MMMmmMmmMMM. MMMMMMMmm.
Honestly, when I first heard of the Wonder Woman film, she was my second choice, with the chick that played Faora in Man Of Steel being my first.
Gal to me does not have the amount of meat and muscle on her to be Diana. Plus both actress are far hotter than Gal.
Originally posted by SquallX
Honestly, when I first heard of the Wonder Woman film, she was my second choice, with the chick that played Faora in Man Of Steel being my first.Gal to me does not have the amount of meat and muscle on her to be Diana. Plus both actress are far hotter than Gal.
Collins is seven years older than Gadot, so they might have held the studio back in castng her in a role they're expecting will span a good 8-10 years. But I do think she physically looks more like Wonder Woman than Gadot does.
I love Antje Traue too, I dont see her as WW though.
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't "love" it, but it was a solid entertaining epic and I felt it was good enough for a sequel.Also, Lynn Collins:
Crazy sexy levels of hotness. Mmmmmmmm. MMMmmMmmMMM. MMMMMMMmm.
I never thought she was super hot in the film until the end. I think it must be the weird red skin and dark hair that throws me off. But toward the end of the movie she looks less red and was pretty striking then. I've honestly never heard of the actress in anything else. Just not familiar with her work.
Oh, and I'll be looking for this film to get a 4k release. I would highly consider buying it in 4k. I never bought it before.
Originally posted by Robtard
Collins is seven years older than Gadot, so they might have held the studio back in castng her in a role they're expecting will span a good 8-10 years. But I do think she physically looks more like Wonder Woman than Gadot does.I love Antje Traue too, I dont see her as WW though.
You are the first person that I’ve talk too about Antje being Diana not being a good fit.
Her jaw structure alone made her Diana too me. All she had to do was grow her hair, and add a few more pounds of muscles, and she would have been near perfect.