well, that didn't happen

[orangerful]

My brilliant plan to start rewatching Lord of the Rings early, starting today, quickly fell apart. First, I forgot that Tuesdays were our game night. Then our friend cancelled so all seemed well, but Tim had to stay a little late after work so I was like "Oh I'll just wait for you to get home to eat dinner". He thought he would be home at 7, he didn't get home until about 8:30 :| So by the time dinner was ready and we had eaten, it was 10pm, which felt kinda late to start a two hour movie.

Sooooooooo NEVER MIND! I hear you, nerd gods, I will keep the LotR watch in its traditional present-wrapping place of December.

Speaking of things that didn't happen, I am an episode behind on Riverdale now, so that will be my breakfast show in the morning.

This week.

OH, also, I finally saw Wonder Woman...Gal Gadot is beyond gorgeous, but I feel like maybe the reviews built the movie up too much. I wasn't as blown away as I was lead to believe I would be. I'll post proper thoughts later, but if you posted WW thoughts that maybe had spoilers (so I didn't read them), I'd love to read them now! Better late than never, right?

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

No, I don't think anything of his was used in this. That was like a decade before this film was being prepared and probably all of the people involved had moved on. Also, I'm sorry because I meant Part 2 of what I wrote rather than 3. I'd originally written about his script, then about the movie, and then compared the two and their strengths and weaknesses.

I agree that Gadot would have no problem being the lead in another film and there's obviously going to be a huge audience for it. Apparently it's going to be set in the 80s during the fall of the Berlin wall. Not a great choice for me, given that I will always associate that setting now with Atomic Blonde which really did give us a kickass heroine. Pity it got so little attention, but then Theron played a woman much more in line with Whedon's take on WW.

And yes, I think the bar was set very low. I think that could spell trouble for the sequel because people will expect more of it and the studio will also be expecting a big ROI.

[orangerful]

Okay, read Part 2, that's better LOL.

Why the heck are they setting it in 80s Berlin? What an odd choice. Can we not have a modern WW solo movie?

Adding Atomic Blonde to my watchlist now!

[yourlibrarian]

My guess is that the Berlin setting is becoming popular because of the return of Cold War tensions. Even though Bridge of Spies was set in the 50s, it used Berlin as its setting and that also came out recently. At least in the west I think it's the most recent symbol of governmental oppression and change, plus the closest thing to a "war victory" that the U.S. can point to in the generation since WWII.

Also, I suspect that it's exactly because of WW's feminist symbolism that they want to keep her away from modern times. More of a chance to say "look what's changed!" when in fact a lot has not.

And yay! I'll be curious to hear what you think of it once you've seen it.