Of course you can. You choose not to.
True, though Marvel outshines DC overall.
Which Marvel Universe movies was Wonderwoman 84 better than? I’d say:
Thor
Thor 2
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
It’s probably about equal to:
Captain Marvel <–I would say Captain Marvel was a bit better, though
All the other Marvel movies were either a bit or a lot better than WW84.
Every doctor, lawyer, and cop is going to find a million things in doctor, lawyer, and cop movies that would be wrong in real life.
Yet doctors, lawyers, and cops largely seem to love doctor, lawyer, and cop movies. Well I know the lawyer one for sure. Those of us who know about the law will happily pick apart the nonsense shown in a lawyer movie. However that doesn’t ruin the movie. We accept it on its own terms.
I’ve noticed that people with other kinds of technical expertise get way more worked up about realism. Like firearms people. And in this thread it look like fighter jet people. Hmm and I’ve noticed that it’s military people who get worked up over Starfleet. Maybe it’s not these movies that are the issue. Maybe people with purported expertise in military related topics have some hang ups. Look not to the fault in your stars but in yourselves.
If I ever see a movie where a journalist from the early 1900s is transferred into the modem newsroom and says, “I got this, I used to use an Underwood!” before booting up a Dell, going into Word, writing a few pages of properly formatted stuff, importing some photos off his phone, saving it and e-mailing it to his editor, I’m going to think that’s stupid as well. Because that’s the standard were looking at here.
I’m not a fighter jet person. It was too silly of thing for too weak of a joke with too many things wrong. The movie was too inconsistent. I’m glad you liked it, but overall it looks like on the Dope at least, it was not well thought of.
It is only getting a 5.8 on the IMDB too, which normally rates kindly. So enjoy, but know you enjoyed it more than average.
And some don’t take us out and some are so egregiously dumb that they do. I have been taken out of medical shows, even ones with interesting characters well acted, by needlessly stupid on the medical side.
Again lots else to like equals high tolerance for that stupidity. For you those scenes were things you liked so much that your dumb tolerance is set high. Good for you. For me at least none of those scenes were worth much. They were in fact pretty horrible. Cringey mostly. And the dumb was piled so very high that it would have taken lots to like to offset it.
No conscious effort to ignore the very dumb would work for me. Happy it does for you.
Okay, I finally saw it (in a theater), and read through all the comments here. I have a couple comments myself:
Regarding the issue of comic book magic versus technical accuracy, I think the problem is that this was set in the recent past in a very real location. My husband, native to northern Virginia spent the movie geeking out on the DC landmarks and details like the Bartles and James bottle on a table. Comic book magic works better on movies like Batman because it’s not set in a real, identifiable location. Yes, Gotham City has many parallels to NYC, but it’s not NYC. Setting this movie in 1984 Washington DC ruined the suspension of disbelief for the magic.
I agree with everyone about Trevor not realistically being able to jump into a “modern” (compared to WW1) fighter jet and fly it, but the movie also lost me by letting him fly out of a very busy airspace (the DC area has TWO international airports very close together) without either a near miss with another aircraft, or the Air Force being summoned to investigate a rogue craft too near the White House. There was a very brief scene when they were on the runway of air controllers freaking out, but they called themselves “approach” which I am skeptical about. I would think it would be Washington Departure coontrollers jurisdiction, not Washington Approach. (I could be wrong, but can you tell that I’ve flown in and out of Dulles a fair amount and listened to Channel 9 on United? LOL!)
Many things were visually stunning in the movie (Asteria’s armor) but a lot of the CGI (action scenes with Cheetah) were obviously CGI and bad.
While I liked the score, after the movie my husband and his friend pointed out that they missed an opportunity of using 1984 pop music in the score. And Hans Zimmer was the perfect composer to do that. No idea what happened there, but I have to agree, it was a bad miss. The movie itself didn’t even use the jump-up-exciting music from the preview!
And omg but I can’t stand Chris Pine. He’s just so ugly. I know that’s not nice to say and not fair to himm. But it ruined both WW movies for me. I would think someone as drop dead stunning as WW would have a man who is also fairly attractive.
Nearly every fantasy movie (including romcoms) featuring journalism has very basic problems way before you get to technology, like someone who loves an upper middle class lifestyle by filing a feature piece more frequently than once a week or even once every few months.
If I can get over that I can get over any technology related issue faced by someone who died 70 years ago and has been brought back to life in another person’s body. Flying planes is nothing once you have accepted that.
Whereas my wife (who routinely draws and paints live nude models) looked over my shoulder and told me that Gal Gadot is average-looking.
Me, I was happy with both of them and wanted to watch them cuddle more.
I’ve actually never heard this opinion before. It may be more shocking to me than Steve Trevor being able to fly a 1985 jet 
.
We never found out the name of guy whose body Steve was transplanted into, did we? I think even the end credits just listed him as “Handsome Man.” They even had the perfect opportunity to reveal his name at the end, when he met Diana.
The comic book geek in me was hoping that his name would turn out to be “Steve Howard.” Anyone else geeky enough to get that?
The fact that this is what I’m thinking about after seeing the movie should give you some indication of my opinion of it. 
No, man, I really can’t. I’ve got standards, and I can’t just turn them on and off. It’s great that you can be entertained by whatever crap is put up on a screen, but not everyone is wired that way.
Yes, but these are generally done in service of the story. If the star character is a doctor, you can’t have that character off screen for 95% of the doctoring because that’s how doctoring actually works. We don’t see ‘real’ trials because real trials are slow and boring.
Introducing the “invisible jet” for fan service purposes doesn’t require stealing and effectively destroying a valuable museum asset, an inexplicably fully fueled and operational fighter jet stored under minimal security at the Smithsonian’s secret airport. It doesn’t require a person who literally doesn’t understand an escalator, and last lived when fighter planes had stacked wings, to be able to fly an advanced fighter jet with 20 seconds of flipping switches. There are numerous ways to get the Invisible Jet on screen without this silliness. Diana could fly it, all it would take is one line “let me show you”, or it could be HER jet rather than one she stole from a museum. She could have property nearby with the jet hidden away, all sorts of things are possible that aren’t ridiculous.
Yes, and that 100% misses the point. The point people have isn’t about Steve’s pilot income or whether he has the right kind of license or if he has the right flight helmet or how many training hours of refresher courses he took in the last period – it’s basic nonsense about being able to competently use extremely complicated technology he’s never been exposed to before because “But pilot!” Stuff SO obvious that it leaps out into the face of the layman viewer who has never been in a cockpit in their life and STILL knows “Wait, this makes no fucking sense”.
Nah, that’s just lazy. It’s called verisimilitude. A world is believable because it works based on normal rules except where explicitly stated otherwise and they explain why. There is an explanation given that works within the world for why Steve is alive (it is, in fact, the central premise of the movie). A reason is given why a woman is wielding a glowing magic rope. No reason is given for why Steve knows how to fly the jet except some lame “But comic books!”. You don’t just add flying cars or trees that grow pizzas without explanation and say “But a guy was brought back to life so…” and expect to be taken seriously.
Had they shown Steve playing in a jet simulator at Air & Space or buying a book on modern aircraft controls at the gift shop and kicking back with it on the subway or any of other numerous things, the viewer could at least feel like they made the attempt. Heaven knows there was enough of the movie they could have trimmed to make room for it. And, yes, some people would still complain but at least there’d be a better defense than “But comic books!”
And, just to return to the central point, even if they HAD made this scene less dumb, it still would have been a terrible movie. Had it been a GOOD movie, people would be mentioning the jet scene as an aside since they wouldn’t have cared much about it in the moment.
Again, you are making a choice. You’re not stating some immutable truth.
I don’t think it is a matter of choice. When something ridiculous pops up on screen, the viewer can’t simply choose to not think it is ridiculous. To state that getting pulled out of a scene is the fault of the viewer is way off the mark.
Put another way, there has to be a line somewhere right? I mean, certainly you aren’t asserting that NOTHING can be so ridiculous as to draw a viewer out of a movie.
I really don’t think you’re right here. If you are able to make a conscious choice whether to like or dislike something, your brain works very differently from mine.
You can recognize something is ridiculous and then you choose whether or not to let it go. Of course it’s ridiculous. That doesn’t make the movie good or bad because it’s a genre in which ridiculous feats are part and parcel of the foundation of the genre.
The movie’s job is to take me along for the ride. If it kicks me out of the cart with nonsense, that’s not my fault as the passenger, that’s the movie failing to do its job. WW84 spent most of its plodding 2.5hrs with me out of the cart.
“But superhero movie!” is no excuse when the genre is loaded with films full of illogical or ridiculous stuff that nevertheless kept me in the moment for hours on end (and without any conscious effort on my part to ignore how stupid it was). WW84 just did a bad job.
I have a fair number of criticisms of the movie–bad dialogue, characters acting out of character, unexplored opportunities. But those criticisms would have been there even if there’d been no ridiculous comic book shit. For me, the ridiculous comic book shit is irrelevant to whether it’s good. I don’t normally overlook the dumb stuff because everything else is good: I overlook the dumb stuff because that’s how these movies work. In a good movie, that’s how it works, and the other stuff is good. In a bad movie, that’s how it works, and the other stuff is bad.
I loathed the first Harry Potter movie, but not because of the flying broomsticks. I loathed it because the pacing was terrible, the acting sucked, the camera-work was amateurish, and the script was a lousy port of novel to screen. I would’ve loathed it exactly the same amount if it’d been a similar movie without any magic.
Same thing here. I have mixed feelings about this movie, but not because of the comic book conventions (“planes have the fuel the plot needs, experts in a field are masters of anything related to that field”). Those are just genre tropes, and I don’t have to get past them; they stand apart from whether it’s a good or bad movie.
That said, one other missed opportunity. This is a movie in which the Greek gods are real and interfere with mortals, and it’s a movie where a mysterious item shows up and initially looks good but seems to delight in causing chaos, and not once did they mention Eris? Come ON, script writers!