A Few Words About A few words about...™ Wonder Woman -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I too applaud having more women directors. It's just too bad that Jenkins had to direct a bland, seen-it-all-before superhero script that lent itself to rote acting and storytelling. How about some other better project?

WW was IMHO just an okay film. Nothing special. Sure, a female lead in a superhero roll making lots of money is cool and all, but again I'm sorely disappointed in the overall effort. My goodness, the villain was lousy and the third act was weak.

Did we all forget Aliens? Sigourney Weaver carried that action classic, which also made some bank in the day (people went to see Ripley without a fuss), and had a solid script that made her tough, yet also vulnerable like a regular person. I'll give Cameron credit here. Say what you will about his dialog sometimes, but he doesn't write female rolls as men with lady parts.

Aliens was made over 30 years ago! Anyhow, Cameron appears to have the old gang back again for Terminator 6 with Linda Hamilton and Arnold, though, he's just producing and writing this one. Point is, a 60 year old female kicking butt along with a 70 year old male.

 

[eddieb187]

Sorry I meant HDR NOT UHD.
Also the 3D digital copy you get is UHD so that is the only way to buy if you are a 3D fan.

I redeemed my WW 3D digital copy but it redeemed as HDX not UHD. How did you get your UHD copy?

 

[dpippel]

And that's exactly the problem with Best Buy and their exclusive 4K/3D/BRD steelbook releases. They make a scant few, scalpers get most of them, and everybody else is SOL. (No 3D release, otherwise. )

I've never had a problem getting the BB 4K/3D/BRD titles I've wanted, but I understand that others have.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Aliens was made over 30 years ago! Anyhow, Cameron appears to have the old gang back again for Terminator 6 with Linda Hamilton and Arnold, though, he's just producing and writing this one. Point is, a 60 year old female kicking butt along with a 70 year old male.

Wait, Linda Hamilton in a new Terminator? Is this for certain?

 

[Jason_V]

Did we all forget Aliens? Sigourney Weaver carried that action classic, which also made some bank in the day (people went to see Ripley without a fuss), and had a solid script that made her tough, yet also vulnerable like a regular person. I'll give Cameron credit here. Say what you will about his dialog sometimes, but he doesn't write female rolls as men with lady parts.

My only counter is that Wonder Woman is a comic book character, Ripley isn't. Ripley is a creation for the movie with no basis in existing source material (IIRC). Wonder Woman goes back decades. Ripley was also the first female action characters so she didn't have anything to live up to (or down to), really. WW had to combat the incredibly...awful...Catwoman and Elektra, not to mention keep the DCEU afloat.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Wait, Linda Hamilton in a new Terminator? Is this for certain?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/linda-hamilton-set-return-terminator-franchise-1040948

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well, I think a lot of the reaction is based on the previous DC movies. Man of Steel was competent, but a lot of people had problems with it. BvS was...um...what's the word I'm looking for...a disaster? Wonder Woman did exactly what DC, Warner Bros. and the fans needed: it didn't screw up. It was engaging and, more importantly, proved a DC Comics movie could be made without being asinine. It also proved a female could lead one of these movies and a female can direct it to great acclaim and box office numbers.

For my money, of the 3 pre-"WW" DCEU flicks, "Man of Steel" was the worst - gah, what an abomination!

"BvS" was problematic theatrically but MUCH improved in its extended cut.

"Suicide Squad" is a mess - it has some good moments but isn't satisfying as a whole.

"WW" is unquestionably the most consistent of the bunch and the most satisfying - I just don't think it's a great film in its own right...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's irony that I think those films are overrated in my opinion. I thought they were good films, but I never had the appreciation of them as some other HTF members. As to Wonder Woman, I enjoyed it more than those Spider-Man movies.

I loved the 2002 "Spidey" because it was the first superhero movie I'd seen that I thought really "got" the character. I disliked a few liberties but overall, it "felt like" Spidey and left a big smile on my face because it seemed true to the source...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I loved the 2002 "Spidey" because it was the first superhero movie I'd seen that I thought really "got" the character. I disliked a few liberties but overall, it "felt like" Spidey and left a big smile on my face because it seemed true to the source...

I'm in a very small minority, but I didn't care for the Raimi Spider-Man movies -- they're okay, but I prefer the Andrew Garfield ones, even though those aren't great either.

I didn't and don't get the praise those movies got, particularly about them being original or reinventing the form - they seemed to be from the same mold of 1990s superhero movies, simply with better effects because of the CGI advancements in the early 2000s. Plotwise, I think they're entirely predictable, and although I like Tobey Maguire as an actor, they scripted his Peter Parker in such a way that I'm angry at every choice the guy makes from start to finish -- his version of the character (which again, I blame on the script, not the actor) always seems to pick the worst way to go about things, which is blindingly obvious at the time, and then things go wrong in entirely predictable fashions. It's so tough to watch. It just feels like a little kids' movie with better production values, and yet values that aren't good enough for what photorealism would demand.

For my money, of the 3 pre-"WW" DCEU flicks, "Man of Steel" was the worst - gah, what an abomination!

"BvS" was problematic theatrically but MUCH improved in its extended cut.

"Suicide Squad" is a mess - it has some good moments but isn't satisfying as a whole.

"WW" is unquestionably the most consistent of the bunch and the most satisfying - I just don't think it's a great film in its own right...

I've grown to like Man Of Steel... at least up until the final Metropolis battle or possibly the Smallville battle. But I enjoy the first hour or first 90 minutes, I think the setup is an interesting take, and I like the cast a lot. For whatever the film got wrong, it got the casting just right. And I love the score from Hans Zimmer. I wish the film didn't get weighed down by the mindless destruction at the end (and I wish Kevin Costner's death scene had made some kind of sense) but there's more good than bad there in my view.

Batman V Superman begins with a conception of its heroes that I just don't buy, so the entire film is problematic in that sense. However, the extended version at least makes sense in and of itself and is internally consistent. I still think the death of Superman at the end plays like writers in a room forcing the story towards an ending for the sake of having that ending, rather than feeling like a story beat that was earned and necessary as part of the story, but there are some good things in the film.

Suicide Squad was a disaster from start to finish. It gets the characters of the Joker and Harley Quinn completely wrong (to begin with, neither have tattoos!), and I don't buy the supernatural characters like Killer Croc in the mostly realistic world that had been previously established. From Man Of Steel and BvS, it's established that if you're a superpowered person, it came from either ancient gods (WW herself) or alien contact (Superman), so the idea of all of these superpowered villains just doesn't fit in with what had been a fairly realistic portrayal of people from earth. Structurally, the movie is a mess. Storywise, I don't care. I think Batman and Wonder Woman are so well known that Warner could get away with having a teamup movie be their introduction, but I think that was a mistake with these villains. But because Warner decided they needed to do a Batman-Superman team-up, they've now rushed everything, and Suicide Squad is a movie that certainly breaks my old screenwriting professor's rule of "Show, don't tell." Since the most interesting things in this universe have now been made to happen offscreen before BvS and SS begin, all they can do is tell. Like BvS, the very foundation of the movie is flawed, so the best they can come up with within that can never be great.

I think WW is a perfectly competent, paint-by-numbers origin story, like Captain America: The FIrst Avenger. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, nor does it try to. The nature of the film as a prequel means that the outcome to a certain degree is predetermined, so the film lacks suspense and urgency. You know that she can't die, but because she mentions being alone and not working with humanity anymore, you know that she's not going to establish lasting relationships with any of the characters onscreen. It's as good as a film made under those limitations can be. The ending of the WW movie is inconsistent with where her character is in BvS, but I think that's a continuity thing that bothers no one else other than me. I think they made some bad choices in BvS but I think actions have consequences and as someone being asked to believe in this world that they're creating, it irritates me that they introduce the character one way, and then immediately change her in the following film.

What would be great would be to see a DC film where the content isn't limited by all of this world building they've rushed or poor decisions that handicap entire storylines and characters.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Man of Steel - 10/10
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice UE - 9/10
Suicide Squad - 5/10
Wonder Woman - 9/10


Man of Steel is right up my alley, and a lot about what I love about it is what pisses other people off - specifically, the ending. I love seeing the landscapes and people among that landscape become a victim of the circumstances, because one of my major pet peeves is when a movie has to "protect me" by telling me that everyone/thing in this huge set piece is gonna be okay. I'm looking at you, BvS and Avengers. Superbeings tussle, innocents get harmed. There's truth in that that I respect.

Batman v Superman has lower lows which bug me, but I find it an endlessly fascinating film. In some ways the way it strives for much, much higher points than most films in the genre ever attempt is what brings me back again and again. It's handled imperfectly and I dislike some very specific moments, but the positives I have with the film far, far outweigh it's negatives.

Suicide Squad, on the other hand, makes me upset whenever I think about it. I think it nailed the casting for the most part, but the story the characters are places in is so poorly conceived and then handled. I have no interest in ever seeing it again. However, put some of these characters in a better movie and I'm there. That Ayer isn't writing the one film he's still associated with for the DCEU going forward (Gotham City Sirens) is a plus in my book.

Wonder Woman is generally great, and is solid across the board. It's the most even throughout of all the films. Wherein I love MoS in how it ratchets up the tension and stakes at the end, I totally get where someone wouldn't be in to that. Wonder Woman doesn't make such an attempt and keeps things "normal" in its stakes per the genre. Wherein BvS really tries to high-wire walk some heavier and less traditional concepts for a comic book film (to mixed results), Wonder Woman keeps its ideals and themes firmly into the hero's journey staples. Wherein Suicide Squad tries to mask a weak screenplay with a snazzy post-modern presentation (and fails with both, IMO), Wonder Woman trusts its workmanlike screenplay and well defined characters with sensible and assured direction by Jenkins. In the end, Wonder Woman is great and solid. But of the three films of the DCEU so far that I like it's easily the least interesting for me because it is so traditional.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I love seeing the landscapes and people among that landscape become a victim of the circumstances, because one of my major pet peeves is when a movie has to "protect me" by telling me that everyone/thing in this huge set piece is gonna be okay. I'm looking at you, BvS and Avengers. Superbeings tussle, innocents get harmed. There's truth in that that I respect.

I'm okay with the implications of the violence in the film - and, as an example, I think the first scene in BvS where we see that battle from Bruce Wayne's perspective is fantastic. My criticism about the ending battles in Man Of Steel isn't about the ideas behind them, but rather the execution and length. At a certain point, the ending battle ceases to be entertaining for me, and is just loooong. It just becomes a jumble of fists. I have the same complaint about a bunch of the Marvel movies, where they are generally saving all citizens - the sequences just go on too long.

That said, I think in the first Avengers movie, the effort to save people fit in with how Captain America would face a 21st century problem with his WWII boy scout personality, and I thought it was great storytelling the way they allowed his character to shine in those moments. The Avengers also have a different mission, and I think there's a difference because they're not "superbeings" in the same way that Superman and Zod were. Basically, I think both approaches are valid as long as it's done well. And there were far more consequences in Avengers: Age Of Ultron, so I like how Marvel made a story point about what people can and can't be saved.

Batman v Superman has lower lows which bug me, but I find it an endlessly fascinating film.

That, I agree with. The things that bug the hell out of me in that movie might be different from the things that bug other people. I think the movie missteps whenever it tries to use our memory of the Christian Bale Batman to substitute for actual character development in this film, or when it apes the formula from those films. The ludicrously and inappropriately named composer, Junkie XL, came up with a Batman theme that rips off the Hans Zimmer work from the Nolan films, and this Batman shouldn't have a similar theme. It's an unfair cheat because it subconsciously causes the audience to apply feelings and emotions from those films into this film. On a similar note, I hate Ben Affleck's ending voiceover, because it's again a rip off of how Nolan constructed his films - and if this is meant to be a different take and a different character, they shouldn't be putting in these signifiers from the other, unconnected series of films.

But it's still a film that doesn't quite make sense and betrays a lot of what was established in Man Of Steel, and has already been somewhat invalidated by Wonder Woman. It's a movie that is going to cause a lot of problems for DC for a very long time. Unless the rumor is true that the new Flash movie will wipe out everything except for the WWI-era parts of Wonder Woman. And frankly, to do that so quickly after beginning a new franchise would be massively unsatisfying. They've asked people to get invested into this world, and to invalidate that so quickly is a betrayal. But continuing down the path as is doesn't leave many options either.

Wonder Woman is generally great, and is solid across the board.

I definitely agree about solid... I'm not sure about great. It's too cookie cutter to be truly great; each prior scene predicts what will happen next. Because it's a prequel, we know what can and can't happen in advance. And then the film attempts to add an inspiring coda which is just bizarre for me to watch, because the film makes it seem that Wonder Woman has always been out on the prowl fighting crime, but her intro in Batman V Superman makes it explicitly clear that she's been hiding for nearly 100 years and not participating in humanity. The implication being that something happened in World War I that so completely shattered her faith in humanity that she was done with everyone and everything. And yet, nothing like that happens in the movie. Instead, humanity proves itself to her, and she comes to respect them and want to live among them. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide if this massive inconsistency ruins BvS for them or ruins WW for them, because these movies do not fit together. And that kind of sloppiness drives me nuts, because it was an unforced error.

 

[Richard V]

I'm in a very small minority, but I didn't care for the Raimi Spider-Man movies -- they're okay, but I prefer the Andrew Garfield ones, even though those aren't great either.

I didn't and don't get the praise those movies got, particularly about them being original or reinventing the form - they seemed to be from the same mold of 1990s superhero movies, simply with better effects because of the CGI advancements in the early 2000s. Plotwise, I think they're entirely predictable, and although I like Tobey Maguire as an actor, they scripted his Peter Parker in such a way that I'm angry at every choice the guy makes from start to finish -- his version of the character (which again, I blame on the script, not the actor) always seems to pick the worst way to go about things, which is blindingly obvious at the time, and then things go wrong in entirely predictable fashions. It's so tough to watch. It just feels like a little kids' movie with better production values, and yet values that aren't good enough for what photorealism would demand.



I've grown to like Man Of Steel... at least up until the final Metropolis battle or possibly the Smallville battle. But I enjoy the first hour or first 90 minutes, I think the setup is an interesting take, and I like the cast a lot. For whatever the film got wrong, it got the casting just right. And I love the score from Hans Zimmer. I wish the film didn't get weighed down by the mindless destruction at the end (and I wish Kevin Costner's death scene had made some kind of sense) but there's more good than bad there in my view.

Batman V Superman begins with a conception of its heroes that I just don't buy, so the entire film is problematic in that sense. However, the extended version at least makes sense in and of itself and is internally consistent. I still think the death of Superman at the end plays like writers in a room forcing the story towards an ending for the sake of having that ending, rather than feeling like a story beat that was earned and necessary as part of the story, but there are some good things in the film.

Suicide Squad was a disaster from start to finish. It gets the characters of the Joker and Harley Quinn completely wrong (to begin with, neither have tattoos!), and I don't buy the supernatural characters like Killer Croc in the mostly realistic world that had been previously established. From Man Of Steel and BvS, it's established that if you're a superpowered person, it came from either ancient gods (WW herself) or alien contact (Superman), so the idea of all of these superpowered villains just doesn't fit in with what had been a fairly realistic portrayal of people from earth. Structurally, the movie is a mess. Storywise, I don't care. I think Batman and Wonder Woman are so well known that Warner could get away with having a teamup movie be their introduction, but I think that was a mistake with these villains. But because Warner decided they needed to do a Batman-Superman team-up, they've now rushed everything, and Suicide Squad is a movie that certainly breaks my old screenwriting professor's rule of "Show, don't tell." Since the most interesting things in this universe have now been made to happen offscreen before BvS and SS begin, all they can do is tell. Like BvS, the very foundation of the movie is flawed, so the best they can come up with within that can never be great.

I think WW is a perfectly competent, paint-by-numbers origin story, like Captain America: The FIrst Avenger. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, nor does it try to. The nature of the film as a prequel means that the outcome to a certain degree is predetermined, so the film lacks suspense and urgency. You know that she can't die, but because she mentions being alone and not working with humanity anymore, you know that she's not going to establish lasting relationships with any of the characters onscreen. It's as good as a film made under those limitations can be. The ending of the WW movie is inconsistent with where her character is in BvS, but I think that's a continuity thing that bothers no one else other than me. I think they made some bad choices in BvS but I think actions have consequences and as someone being asked to believe in this world that they're creating, it irritates me that they introduce the character one way, and then immediately change her in the following film.

What would be great would be to see a DC film where the content isn't limited by all of this world building they've rushed or poor decisions that handicap entire storylines and characters.

It's a comic book world. I'll go along with Killer Croc, Diablo, etc. The Marvel Universe has its' mutants, why can't DC?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's a comic book world. I'll go along with Killer Croc, Diablo, etc. The Marvel Universe has its' mutants, why can't DC?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't have mutants. Marvel Comics do, but they're not part of the world of Iron Man, Captain America, etc. It's clear in the MCU films where powers come from, and they don't come naturally. The films establish that the U.S. government was successful in experimenting and was able to create one super soldier (Captain America), and that HYDRA, working with the Soviet Union, was able to recreate that work to create a few more. It was then shown in the series of films that aliens invaded earth, and that forced exposure to and experimentation with alien weapons, technology and genetics led to the creation of different types of enhanced people, but people who were born human. There's an internal logic within those stories about who has powers and where those powers come from.

I have a hard time with those guys in Suicide Squad because that's not the world we were introduced to. It was made clear in Man Of Steel that Superman was the first powered individual to be seen on Earth. The idea was originally that the arrival of Superman would be the catalyst for both heroes and villains to rise, in response to his existence, which I thought was a neat premises. But then Suicide Squad goes, "Nope, just kidding, super powered people here all along".... which then makes everyone's response to Superman in Man Of Steel nonsensical. If powered people already existed, then Superman shouldn't be a shocking development. If anything, they shouldn't even believe he's alien because they're used to humans like that already. There's no internal consistency in who has powers and when and why, and a universe with so few movies shouldn't be experiencing this level of continuity issues at the start.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

I redeemed my WW 3D digital copy but it redeemed as HDX not UHD. How did you get your UHD copy?

Hey sorry your right! Vudu shows the UHD logo at the top (on my laptop) but that's not what I own- that's why I was confused. When I click on it then it shows what I own and only that it's available to rent in UHD. However on my iPhone it shows the HDX code at the top. I hate Vudu and Ultra Violet . Sorry about that.
I can't wait to get my Apple TV4K next week when I get all my HD movies upgraded to UHD for nothing from iTunes .

 

[Richard V]

Lucky enough to pick up the last 3D Wonder Woman in my local BB. Looking forward to watching in on my OLED, which I think has superior 3D capabilities.

 

[Tino]

Hey sorry your right! Vudu shows the UHD logo at the top (on my laptop) but that's not what I own- that's why I was confused. When I click on it then it shows what I own and only that it's available to rent in UHD. However on my iPhone it shows the HDX code at the top. I hate Vudu and Ultra Violet . Sorry about that.
I can't wait to get my Apple TV4K next week when I get all my HD movies upgraded to UHD for nothing from iTunes .

Not all. Only those that are already available in 4K. I ordered one too.

Btw I love vudu and UV. Can’t wait to stream vudu on my new Apple 4K TV.

 

[Jason_V]

"BvS" was problematic theatrically but MUCH improved in its extended cut.

I can't comment on the extended cut because I haven't seen it. I've heard it's better than the theatrical, but all of my long-standing DC movie and TV criticisms will undoubtedly stand:

1) The movie as a whole is too dark. It's hard to see what's going on and who is doing what. (See: Arrow)
2) They're rushing. Instead of establishing each character on their own, Warner Bros. is throwing everything into each movie, so they become a massive pile of exposition. We got Man of Steel (who DOESN'T know Superman's origin story at this point?) and Batman's origin is shown in BvS (at least the third time we've seen this in a movie in the last 30 years).
3) Martha.

Snyder and the execs got to fix all of their mistakes after the audiences weighed in on the original cut. Isn't that what test screenings before the film are supposed to do? Allow them to fix everything? I feel it's very disingenuous to release a movie theatrically and then have a longer cut almost immediately afterward. It's like taking a test, failing, getting the answers, studying what you did wrong and fixing those questions so you pass.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Snyder and the execs got to fix all of their mistakes after the audiences weighed in on the original cut. Isn't that what test screenings before the film are supposed to do? Allow them to fix everything? I feel it's very disingenuous to release a movie theatrically and then have a longer cut almost immediately afterward. It's like taking a test, failing, getting the answers, studying what you did wrong and fixing those questions so you pass.

I think in this case, having seen the extended version, that the 3 hour version was what the film was intended to be from the start. Snyder has had extended versions for almost all of his films, and I would bet almost anything that his contract was something like "You have final cut on the theatrical version as long as it's 2 1/2 hours or less, and you can also put out a version at whatever length you prefer on the disc." Unlike most other extended versions, the longer BvS was included with the regular BD on release date - they didn't do any double dipping, and I think they announced that would be the case before the movie opened. I am 99% sure that the R-rated, 3 hour version of the movie was announced as coming on disc before the PG-13, 2 1/2 hour version even debuted theatrically.

Now, I think there's nothing in the longer version that needs to be R -- there's slightly more blood, I think, but I honestly didn't see anything that stood out as being significantly worse than what was in the theatrical version. I think Warner felt the need to keep the movie at a 2 1/2 hour length so that they could get more showings in. In hindsight, they should have just released the 3 hour version.

The 2 1/2 hour version is just logically inconsistent within itself. Characters make decisions and take actions (or decline to take actions), and as shown onscreen, it just doesn't make sense. In the longer version, more context is added to just about everything, and the actions of the characters onscreen are now internally consistent with how these characters are portrayed in this series. If you don't love Cavill as Superman or Affleck as Batman, the longer version won't change your mind about that, but if your issue was the story not making sense, the longer version is a million times better.

Here's one of my favorite examples of what was wrong with the shorter version with what was right in the longer version:
-In the shorter version, Superman attends the Congressional hearing, and is there when the bomb is detonated in the wheelchair by the "Wally" character that had been Bruce Wayne's employee, and was now being manipulated by Lex Luther. As shown onscreen, this makes no sense. There's no "hiding" a bomb from Superman. Superman can see through everything, all the time. Superman can hear everything everywhere, all the time. This is clearly established in Man Of Steel (nevermind decades of comics and other film and TV adaptations). Therefore, this entire sequence, and everything that follows - Superman becoming disillusioned and temporarily running away, etc., make no sense, because it is simply not possible that Superman would be oblivious to the presence of that bomb. He would have heard it ticking when the wheelchair guy was brought into the room. He would have seen it in the chair when he looked over at the guy. It's simply not possible that he doesn't see it, and it's a bizarre sequence to watch as an audience member. Since it's not possible for Superman not to have seen or heard the bomb, that leaves us to conclude that he either didn't care, was indifferent, or was distracted to the point of being incompetently dangerous. Neither of those options is desirable, and probably not credible either. Superman can be hard to write for because of his powers that make these situations impossible, but that's the character.

-In the longer version, a scene is added after the explosion. Lois Lane contacts a source in the FBI or police, who reveals the forensics from the scene of the event. It turns out that the wheelchair was lined with lead, which is the one thing that Superman can't see through. This changes the entire sequence completely. With this knowledge, and more importantly, with Lois receiving this knowledge and therefore, Superman receiving this knowledge, we learn that someone is specifically targeting Superman (Lex) and that Superman is aware of it. He realizes how he was made helpless in that situation, and is filled with despair because his notion of being all powerful has been shattered. It's more distressing for him because he realizes that he can be tricked and that his senses can be deceived. And, it's a credible scenario for the scene.


There are countless examples like that from the shorter version to the longer version. Almost every single action that doesn't make sense in the shorter version or seems out of character actually makes sense when seen in the longer film.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Do modern bombs tick?

(I agree with you on your main point, BTW. Just being a bit snarky).

 

[zoetmb]

This is very difficult to answer because of the forum's politics and religion rule, but without stating an opinion on the matter, factually speaking, the current Secretary of the Treasury was a financier who invested in Warner and DC movies before assuming his current position, and took producer credit on films like Batman V Superman, Suicide Squad, The Lego Batman Movie, and Wonder Woman. Traditionally, when people take on high profile government roles such as that, they step down from whatever civilian jobs they are holding and put their finances into a blind trust. When this individual took office, he initially declined to take those traditional steps. He has recently made statements that he will now be divesting from his investment in Warner/DC films.

This is silly because it's not discussing politics, it's discussing a public fact. The funny thing is that my son-in-law is with me tonight and just before I read this post, there was a commercial on TV for the new Lego movie and I said that Mnuchin was involved with the Lego movies. One can know that Mnuchin was involved regardless of whether they think he and the administration are the greatest thing that ever happened, the worst or somewhere in-between. Joseph P. Kennedy owned RKO for a time. And there's certainly plenty of entertainment people in politics, and vice-versa: before running the MPAA, Jack Valenti worked for LBJ.