|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 17:42:38 GMT
SMH & WW are very similar SMH and WW aren't similar. SMH is a high school comedy movie (and it's not just me saying that; Box Office Mojo also categorizes SMH as a high school comedy). WW is the 1st superhero movie that depicts the horrors and tragedy of war without turning war into a big joke like MCU movies always do and WW is a serious contender for a Best Picture Oscar nomination. what is an origin film really, what males WW an origin and not SMH An origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. That's what we see in movies such as Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four (2005), Iron Man, Hulk, Green Lantern, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, Ant-Man, Max Steel, Doctor Strange, Power Rangers, and Wonder Woman. But not SMH. scabab simply pointed out that you did instigate things which is true I didn't instigate anything. I wasn't even replying to seahawksraawk00. I was replying to another user who brought up SMH in this thread about the highest-grossing superhero origin film of all time, which isn't SMH.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 5, 2017 18:29:16 GMT
SMH & WW are very similar SMH and WW aren't similar. SMH is a high school comedy movie (and it's not just me saying that; Box Office Mojo also categorizes SMH as a high school comedy). WW is the 1st superhero movie that depicts the horrors and tragedy of war without turning war into a big joke like MCU movies always do and WW is a serious contender for a Best Picture Oscar nomination. what is an origin film really, what males WW an origin and not SMH An origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. That's what we see in movies such as Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four (2005), Iron Man, Hulk, Green Lantern, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, Ant-Man, Max Steel, Doctor Strange, Power Rangers, and Wonder Woman. But not SMH. scabab simply pointed out that you did instigate things which is true I didn't instigate anything. I wasn't even replying to seahawksraawk00. I was replying to another user who brought up SMH in this thread about the highest-grossing superhero origin film of all time, which isn't SMH. Stop cut and pasting shit to make it seem like you have a point, I said how WW & SMH are similar in a sense how people may consider them in the same light, I didn't say they had the same tone or were the same story so shut the fuck up about comparing quality, this isn't what this fucking topic is about.
As far as the origin thing that's why I asked why does X-Men have multiple origin classified films when almost every film techinaically has a characters origin in it or has multiple films in the same continuity be the origin film of the same things, why is X1 an origin film when all the heroes are already powered up and in place? if that can be considered and origin film by Box Office Mojo then why shouldn't SMH? and as you used Mojo to classify SMH as a HS comedy you have to take that into account here, SMH simply cuts out the first act of a Spidey origin film other than that it's an origin film, does 30 minutes of rehashing the exact same story we saw twice already justify this? not really hence why SMH is and is not an origin film depending on perspective.
As for instigating things yes you did, there was no other reason to shit on SMH in this thread, 1 guy said SMH did better but it wasn't a true origin in the same post, you had no need to go into a diatribe about how SMH is ashamed and all this other bullshit, you did that for only 2 possible reasons !: you are so defensive you feel the need to shit on anything even remotely mentioned in a way that may not go along with your own myopic view, B: you were looking to rile people up like a shit stirrer, so it's your choice which are you defensive or a shit stirrer?
Also like I said SMH technically is an origin film for Vulture making it a origin film for the villain just not a true one for the hero, though if Batman 89 is an origin film again classified by Box office Mojo then why isn't Spidey since it does the exact same thing as does The Incredible Hulk, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Blade, all of which have the main character already engaging in their normal shit when the film starts but are classed as origin films, the only justification is because SMH wasn't the characters debut, but then neither is WW for well WW, so it's all nonsense really.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 21:31:52 GMT
SMH simply cuts out the first act of a Spidey origin film SMH cuts out the part where Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider and discovers he has superpowers and initially decides to use his superpowers for financial gain and lets a thief get away and that theife kills Uncle Ben and Spder-Man catches up to the killer and realizes that he let the thief get away and that brings him to the realization that he has a "great responsibility" and that's what motivates him to become a superhero and use his superpowers to help people rather than using them for self-gain or self-profit. That's a huge part of Spider-Man's origin which is completely skipped in SMH. Instead, SMH replaces that by showing that Peter's entire motivation for using his superpowers is not because he feels a "great responsibility" but simply to show off and try to impress Tony Stark. That's an immature and shallow motivation for Peter using his superpowers and completely betrays Spider-Man's comic origins and that's why SMH is the worst Spider-Man movie adaptation ever. hence why SMH is and is not an origin film depending on perspective. SMH isn't an origin movie. Like I explained before, an origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. That's what we see in movies such as Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four (2005), Iron Man, Hulk, Green Lantern, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, Ant-Man, Max Steel, Doctor Strange, Power Rangers, and Wonder Woman. But not SMH. SMH technically is an origin film for Vulture making it a origin film for the villain The subject is highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all-time. A movie about the villain's origin doesn't count as a superhero origin movie. Batman Returns had the origin of Penguin and Catwoman and Spider-Man 2 had the origin of Doctor Octopus, but neither Batman Returns nor Spider-Man 2 are superhero origin movies. And neither is SMH. the only justification is because SMH wasn't the characters debut, but then neither is WW for well WW, so it's all nonsense really. No, whether or not it's the 1st appearance of the character has nothing to do with whether it's a superhero origin movie. Like I explained before, an origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. Wonder Woman is a superhero origin movie because: 1. We see Diana discover her superpowers for the 1st time. 8-year-old Diana and 10-year-old Diana wasn't aware she had superpowers. It wasn't until adult Diana was training and slapped her bracelets together that she discovered she had some special powers. 2. We see how Diana reacted when she discovered for the 1st time that she had special powers. 3. We see why Diana chose to leave Themyscira and go fight Ares. 4. We see Diana using her powers in public for the 1st time to cross No Man's Land and liberate a village from the German soldiers. SMH isn't a superhero origin movie because not only do we not see any of those things but SMH also completely changes Peter's motivation for being a superhero by making him just an immature and shallow show-off whose only motivation is to try to impress Tony Stark.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 22:50:45 GMT
SMH cuts out the part where Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider and discovers he has superpowers and initially decides to use his superpowers for financial gain and lets a thief get away and that theife kills Uncle Ben and Spder-Man catches up to the killer and realizes that he let the thief get away and that brings him to the realization that he has a "great responsibility" and that's what motivates him to become a superhero and use his superpowers to help people rather than using them for self-gain or self-profit. That's a huge part of Spider-Man's origin which is completely skipped in SMH. It was mentioned in Civil War, so there was little need to do it in SMH again. Especially since his origin is so well known. SMH decided to focus on other stuff neglected in prior installments, like how he'd react to being in a world with other superheroes who'd been doing their thing for years. As opposed to WW taking the lazy way out.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 23:12:15 GMT
SMH cuts out the part where Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider and discovers he has superpowers and initially decides to use his superpowers for financial gain and lets a thief get away and that theife kills Uncle Ben and Spder-Man catches up to the killer and realizes that he let the thief get away and that brings him to the realization that he has a "great responsibility" and that's what motivates him to become a superhero and use his superpowers to help people rather than using them for self-gain or self-profit. That's a huge part of Spider-Man's origin which is completely skipped in SMH. It was mentioned in Civil War, so there was little need to do it in SMH again. Especially since his origin is so well known. SMH decided to focus on other stuff neglected in prior installments, like how he'd react to being in a world with other superheroes who'd been doing their thing for years. You obviously missed the point of this thread. The point isn't that SMH had to include those things. The point is that by not including those things, SMH can't be categorized as a superhero origin movie so Wonder Woman is in fact the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all-time.
Yu can't have it both ways. If SMH wanted the title of "highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time", then it needed to include those things. SMH didn't so SMH can't claim the title of "highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time" because SMH isn't a superhero origin movie.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 23:14:57 GMT
It was mentioned in Civil War, so there was little need to do it in SMH again. Especially since his origin is so well known. SMH decided to focus on other stuff neglected in prior installments, like how he'd react to being in a world with other superheroes who'd been doing their thing for years. You obviously missed the point of this thread. The point isn't that SMH had to include those things. The point is that by not including those things, SMH can't be categorized as a superhero origin movie so Wonder Woman is in fact the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all-time.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that when adjusted for inflation the prior Superman, Batman and original Spider-Man movies still did better.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 6, 2017 8:42:21 GMT
SMH simply cuts out the first act of a Spidey origin film SMH cuts out the part where Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider and discovers he has superpowers and initially decides to use his superpowers for financial gain and lets a thief get away and that theife kills Uncle Ben and Spder-Man catches up to the killer and realizes that he let the thief get away and that brings him to the realization that he has a "great responsibility" and that's what motivates him to become a superhero and use his superpowers to help people rather than using them for self-gain or self-profit. That's a huge part of Spider-Man's origin which is completely skipped in SMH. Instead, SMH replaces that by showing that Peter's entire motivation for using his superpowers is not because he feels a "great responsibility" but simply to show off and try to impress Tony Stark. That's an immature and shallow motivation for Peter using his superpowers and completely betrays Spider-Man's comic origins and that's why SMH is the worst Spider-Man movie adaptation ever. hence why SMH is and is not an origin film depending on perspective. SMH isn't an origin movie. Like I explained before, an origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. That's what we see in movies such as Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four (2005), Iron Man, Hulk, Green Lantern, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, Ant-Man, Max Steel, Doctor Strange, Power Rangers, and Wonder Woman. But not SMH. SMH technically is an origin film for Vulture making it a origin film for the villain The subject is highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all-time. A movie about the villain's origin doesn't count as a superhero origin movie. Batman Returns had the origin of Penguin and Catwoman and Spider-Man 2 had the origin of Doctor Octopus, but neither Batman Returns nor Spider-Man 2 are superhero origin movies. And neither is SMH. the only justification is because SMH wasn't the characters debut, but then neither is WW for well WW, so it's all nonsense really. No, whether or not it's the 1st appearance of the character has nothing to do with whether it's a superhero origin movie. Like I explained before, an origin movie is the movie where we see the hero discover their special or extraordinary abilities or powers for the 1st time. We see how they react when they discover their powers for the 1st time and how they adjust to having those powers. We see why they chose to use their powers to be a hero, what motivates them to use their powers to be a hero rather than use their powers for self-gain or self-profit. We also see them use their powers in public to help people for the 1st time. Wonder Woman is a superhero origin movie because: 1. We see Diana discover her superpowers for the 1st time. 8-year-old Diana and 10-year-old Diana wasn't aware she had superpowers. It wasn't until adult Diana was training and slapped her bracelets together that she discovered she had some special powers. 2. We see how Diana reacted when she discovered for the 1st time that she had special powers. 3. We see why Diana chose to leave Themyscira and go fight Ares. 4. We see Diana using her powers in public for the 1st time to cross No Man's Land and liberate a village from the German soldiers. SMH isn't a superhero origin movie because not only do we not see any of those things but SMH also completely changes Peter's motivation for being a superhero by making him just an immature and shallow show-off whose only motivation is to try to impress Tony Stark. And once again you ignore vital parts of my argument to make it seem like you have a valid one, and instead of making points you simply regurgitate the same horse shit over again.
I will keep it simple because you, you cannot seem to handle too many things at once unless we are talking about...no I wont go there, no matter how annoying you are I will not make jokes about you being rent boy, I'm better than that.
Ok so to keep it simple for you answer me this if Batman 89, Blade, Ninja Turtles & X-Men are all considered as origin films why shouldn't SMH?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 13:00:40 GMT
Whether it is the biggest selling origin movie or not ‘Wonder Woman’ has done more for the comic book movie genre than any movie has in the last decade and due to the success of Wonder Woman we are now getting new movies of Red Sonja, Batgirl, Fathom, Painkiller Jane, Razor, Avegeleyne, the Pro, Silver & Black, Strangers in Paradise, Nonplayer, Gotham City Sirens, Princeless, Wonder Woman 2 etc – All of which the industry would not take a chance on before ‘cause they were female lead comic books. ‘Wonder Woman’ also holds the titles of ‘biggest selling Female Superhero of All Time’ and ‘Biggest selling Female Lead Comic Book Movie of All Time’ in a genre which is now going to get a WHOLE lot bigger. It was never a question of whether a ‘Spider-Man’ movie could compete with it. The question is if Marvel can compete with Wonder Woman and Batgirl with ‘Captain Marvel’ and as a Carol Danvers fan I am looking forward to seeing ‘Captain Marvel’ but I don’t see it competing with Batgirl, Wonder Woman 2 or Red Sonja (if Gail Simone is hired to write the script).
Haters can hate on Wonder Woman all they like. The fact of the matter is Wonder Woman was a big success when millions of haters said for months it was going to be a “bigger flop than Ghostbusters (2016)” and the “Death of the DCEU.” They were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 7, 2017 16:45:33 GMT
Whether it is the biggest selling origin movie or not ‘Wonder Woman’ has done more for the comic book movie genre than any movie has in the last decade and due to the success of Wonder Woman we are now getting new movies of Red Sonja, Batgirl, Fathom, Painkiller Jane, Razor, Avegeleyne, the Pro, Silver & Black, Strangers in Paradise, Nonplayer, Gotham City Sirens, Princeless, Wonder Woman 2 etc – All of which the industry would not take a chance on before ‘cause they were female lead comic books. ‘Wonder Woman’ also holds the titles of ‘biggest selling Female Superhero of All Time’ and ‘Biggest selling Female Lead Comic Book Movie of All Time’ in a genre which is now going to get a WHOLE lot bigger. It was never a question of whether a ‘Spider-Man’ movie could compete with it. The question is if Marvel can compete with Wonder Woman and Batgirl with ‘Captain Marvel’ and as a Carol Danvers fan I am looking forward to seeing ‘Captain Marvel’ but I don’t see it competing with Batgirl, Wonder Woman 2 or Red Sonja (if Gail Simone is hired to write the script).
Haters can hate on Wonder Woman all they like. The fact of the matter is Wonder Woman was a big success when millions of haters said for months it was going to be a “bigger flop than Ghostbusters (2016)” and the “Death of the DCEU.” They were wrong. No ones arguing against WW being a success Deb, i'm just poking fun at DC Fan for being a mental midget, and he's just licking the windows on the short bus as per usual, as for WW you are spot on, personally I feel sad you are spot on because I mean wtf, what sort of backwards fuck wits doubted a decent CBM with a female lead would be a success, I mean I know people did but why? what made them think that the audience that go to non CBM but still action films rated PG-13 wouldn't see the same thing if it just happened to be a CBM.
Also what I don't get is how does the success of the most famous female comic book characters live action film somehow convince studios to do half of those other films, some I get but apart from the fact the main characters are women what crossover appeal is there between Wonder Woman and some of those other projects? shows just how fucked up Hollywood is if their sitting on project like Painkiller Jane and their like the only thing were worried about is that the leads a women.
I mean how do people that mentally fucked up get to be in charge of movies is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 7:10:04 GMT
Whether it is the biggest selling origin movie or not ‘Wonder Woman’ has done more for the comic book movie genre than any movie has in the last decade and due to the success of Wonder Woman we are now getting new movies of Red Sonja, Batgirl, Fathom, Painkiller Jane, Razor, Avegeleyne, the Pro, Silver & Black, Strangers in Paradise, Nonplayer, Gotham City Sirens, Princeless, Wonder Woman 2 etc – All of which the industry would not take a chance on before ‘cause they were female lead comic books. ‘Wonder Woman’ also holds the titles of ‘biggest selling Female Superhero of All Time’ and ‘Biggest selling Female Lead Comic Book Movie of All Time’ in a genre which is now going to get a WHOLE lot bigger. It was never a question of whether a ‘Spider-Man’ movie could compete with it. The question is if Marvel can compete with Wonder Woman and Batgirl with ‘Captain Marvel’ and as a Carol Danvers fan I am looking forward to seeing ‘Captain Marvel’ but I don’t see it competing with Batgirl, Wonder Woman 2 or Red Sonja (if Gail Simone is hired to write the script).
Haters can hate on Wonder Woman all they like. The fact of the matter is Wonder Woman was a big success when millions of haters said for months it was going to be a “bigger flop than Ghostbusters (2016)” and the “Death of the DCEU.” They were wrong. No ones arguing against WW being a success Deb, i'm just poking fun at DC Fan for being a mental midget, and he's just licking the windows on the short bus as per usual, as for WW you are spot on, personally I feel sad you are spot on because I mean wtf, what sort of backwards fuck wits doubted a decent CBM with a female lead would be a success, I mean I know people did but why? what made them think that the audience that go to non CBM but still action films rated PG-13 wouldn't see the same thing if it just happened to be a CBM.
Also what I don't get is how does the success of the most famous female comic book characters live action film somehow convince studios to do half of those other films, some I get but apart from the fact the main characters are women what crossover appeal is there between Wonder Woman and some of those other projects? shows just how fucked up Hollywood is if their sitting on project like Painkiller Jane and their like the only thing were worried about is that the leads a women.
I mean how do people that mentally fucked up get to be in charge of movies is beyond me.
Oohh. Okay. You are right. It is sad we have had to wait this long for the studios to make female lead comic book movies and it has taken the success of 'Wonder Woman' to make them open up their eyes and see people want female lead comic book movies and the fact it took around 40 years just to get a movie of 'Wonder Woman' after the TV show with Lynda Carter was successful goes to show where the problem has lied. Sadly there have been people in positions of power in Hollywood that have been dead against having any female superhero movies and we saw how long it took for the female lead Action genre to take off and up until recently anytime there was an Action movie with a female lead that was a hit like 'Kill Bill' the studio executives didn't see it as people liking female lead Action movies and just saw it as an exception to the rule of being something people wanted to see. A lot of people working in the industry have said the problem was for a long time the heads had backwards views and thought women only wanted to see Romance movies while males were the only ones that wanted Action movies but that belief was shattered when movies like 'Resident Evil', 'The Hunger Games', 'Underworld' and 'Wonder Woman' become hits. They also didn't count on men also wanting to see female lead Action and superhero movies and ignored the sales of female lead comic book series.
There have been dozens of female lead comic book movies in development that didn't go through 'cause the studios wouldn't take a chance on a female lead movie as we have talked about before and while it is dumb it has taken the success of one to change that it is great we are finally going to get them and like many other fans who are excited about these movies are only concern is if one of them flops the backwards heads will see it as a sign of people not wanting female lead comic book movies and go back to the way they were before with them and it shouldn't be that way 'cause a movie should be judged on its writing and not the gender of the character. Past movies like 'Catwoman', 'Barb Wire', 'Elektra', 'Black Scorpion' and 'Red Sonja' all flopped before 'cause they were poorly written and had nothing to do with the character or more importantly, the genre of the character. I have lost count of how many male lead comic book movies we have seen flop and there has been something 10 times as many male lead comic book movies flop in the 80s, 90s and 00s and still get movie after movie but the studio executives saw them differently which was a joke. Hopefully the next few movies we get are successful so we see more in the future.
|
|