|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 29, 2017 17:23:00 GMT
Peggy Carter and Agent Coulson didn't get their own movies, idiot! Iron Man was introduced in the incredible hulk, this was made before the DCEU, the DCEU copied Marvel. Sorry bud, you lose , again Iron Man was released before The Incredible Hulk so Iron Man already had his solo movie before his post-credits cameo in The Incredible Hulk, idiot.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 29, 2017 17:27:44 GMT
Iron Man was introduced in the incredible hulk, this was made before the DCEU, the DCEU copied Marvel. Sorry bud, you lose , again Iron Man was released before The Incredible Hulk so Iron Man already had his solo movie before his post-credits cameo in The Incredible Hulk, idiot. Guardians of the Galaxy dude. Not a single solo film for either of them, now one of the greatest comic book movies ever. Came out in 2014, want into production in 2013, way before BvS. Just wrecked that article bud.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 29, 2017 18:58:03 GMT
More time and effort put into TV shows, budgets can be equal depending on circumstances. Um. NO. Actually, yes. Most TV shows take more time to make than movies, and they're just as prone to reshoots and rewrites as movies. And just as much marketing and promotions, and movies can have their runtime cut. Plus WB only did WW after Marvel did really over the top stuff like GOTG, without which there'd be no WW. Jenkins had it easy.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 29, 2017 21:21:50 GMT
Most TV shows take more time to make than movies No, they don't. TV shows don't have as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time. For example, the Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow series finished their most recent season in April or May. Their next seasons are scheduled to start in October so they have to have filming at least for the first half of the season completed long before October. For movies, if the production is delayed, they have more flexibility to move the release date back. Not so with TV shows. they're just as prone to reshoots and rewrites as movies. No, TV shows don't do extensive reshoots and rewrites like movies do. Again, that's due to TV shows not having as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time and can't really go back and do extensive reshoots and rewrites. movies can have their runtime cut. Movie runtimes may be cut down by 10 minutes or 20 minutes or maybe even 30 minutes. But they can't just make half a movie. Agent Carter's 2 seasons were just 8 episodes and 10 episodes, which is less than half of a full TV season (22 episodes) for a normal TV show. Marvel's Netflix shows are only 13 episodes. TV actors and actresses are paid per episode so the fewer episodes the less they have to be paid and thus the lower the cost to produce a TV show. Movies don't work that way. The actors and actresses get paid the same whether the movie is 100 minutes or 120 minutes or 140 minutes. So TV shows cost less and thus are less risky than movies. That's why MCU was willing to make TV shows with female-lead characters but not make movies with female-led characters. WB took a huge risk with Wonder Woman, and Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's CBMs. Nope, Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made. And on top of all that, Jenkins had to deal with the BS rumors that MCU fans were spreading about the movie being "a complete mess" and trying to derail the DCEU's effort to make the 1st good female-led superhero movie ever.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 29, 2017 21:29:56 GMT
"Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made. "
I disagree. I won't commit to what is the riskiest but off the top of my head Guardians of the Galaxy was riskier. It had a bigger budget, a setting that wasn't consistent with any of the other MCU films, and a cast of character nobody had ever heard of. GotG was way riskier than WW.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 29, 2017 21:41:48 GMT
Most TV shows take more time to make than movies No, they don't. TV shows don't have as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time. For example, the Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow series finished their most recent season in April or May. Their next seasons are scheduled to start in October so they have to have filming at least for the first half of the season completed long before October. For movies, if the production is delayed, they have more flexibility to move the release date back. Not so with TV shows. they're just as prone to reshoots and rewrites as movies. No, TV shows don't do extensive reshoots and rewrites like movies do. Again, that's due to TV shows not having as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time and can't really go back and do extensive reshoots and rewrites. movies can have their runtime cut. Movie runtimes may be cut down by 10 minutes or 20 minutes or maybe even 30 minutes. But they can't just make half a movie. Agent Carter's 2 seasons were just 8 episodes and 10 episodes, which is less than half of a full TV season (22 episodes) for a normal TV show. Marvel's Netflix shows are only 13 episodes. TV actors and actresses are paid per episode so the fewer episodes the less they have to be paid and thus the lower the cost to produce a TV show. Movies don't work that way. The actors and actresses get paid the same whether the movie is 100 minutes or 120 minutes or 140 minutes. So TV shows cost less and thus are less risky than movies. That's why MCU was willing to make TV shows with female-lead characters but not make movies with female-led characters. WB took a huge risk with Wonder Woman, and Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's CBMs. Nope, Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made. And on top of all that, Jenkins had to deal with the BS rumors that MCU fans were spreading about the movie being "a complete mess" and trying to derail the DCEU's effort to make the 1st good female-led superhero movie ever. So basically you're agreeing it's harder to do TV than to do a movie. Good. And yes, TV shows do have to do extensive rewrites and such on the fly. In fact it's harder than with movies. There was very little risky about WW. Female superhero movies have been made before, so this was nothing new. In fact, it had an easier time because it was a mediocre film following failures so that artificially boosted it. That they chose to use the female hero who is around as old as Superman and Batman instead of someone more obscure is just more proof of how non-risky it was.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 29, 2017 23:10:20 GMT
No, they don't. TV shows don't have as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time. For example, the Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow series finished their most recent season in April or May. Their next seasons are scheduled to start in October so they have to have filming at least for the first half of the season completed long before October. For movies, if the production is delayed, they have more flexibility to move the release date back. Not so with TV shows. No, TV shows don't do extensive reshoots and rewrites like movies do. Again, that's due to TV shows not having as much flexibility to move their broadcast dates as movies do so TV shows have a short turnaround time and can't really go back and do extensive reshoots and rewrites. Movie runtimes may be cut down by 10 minutes or 20 minutes or maybe even 30 minutes. But they can't just make half a movie. Agent Carter's 2 seasons were just 8 episodes and 10 episodes, which is less than half of a full TV season (22 episodes) for a normal TV show. Marvel's Netflix shows are only 13 episodes. TV actors and actresses are paid per episode so the fewer episodes the less they have to be paid and thus the lower the cost to produce a TV show. Movies don't work that way. The actors and actresses get paid the same whether the movie is 100 minutes or 120 minutes or 140 minutes. So TV shows cost less and thus are less risky than movies. That's why MCU was willing to make TV shows with female-lead characters but not make movies with female-led characters. WB took a huge risk with Wonder Woman, and Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's CBMs. Nope, Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made. And on top of all that, Jenkins had to deal with the BS rumors that MCU fans were spreading about the movie being "a complete mess" and trying to derail the DCEU's effort to make the 1st good female-led superhero movie ever. So basically you're agreeing it's harder to do TV than to do a movie. Good. And yes, TV shows do have to do extensive rewrites and such on the fly. In fact it's harder than with movies. There was very little risky about WW. Female superhero movies have been made before, so this was nothing new. In fact, it had an easier time because it was a mediocre film following failures so that artificially boosted it. That they chose to use the female hero who is around as old as Superman and Batman instead of someone more obscure is just more proof of how non-risky it was. I'm agreeing that it costs much less to produce a TV show that a big-budget superhero movie. And the lower the cost, the less the risk. Which is why MCU was willing to produce female-led TV shows but not female-led movies. Because they didn't think there was any market for female-led superhero movies so they didn't want to take the risk. WB took a huge risk with Wonder Woman, and Patty Jenkins delivered not only 1 of the best CBMs ever but also better than all of MCU's movies.
TV shows may re-write a script before filming, but once they've finished filming, they don't do extensive re-shoots like movies do because they just don't have the flexibility in their schedule to go back and do extensive re-shoots since they can't move a season back like movies can move a release date back.
Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made:
1. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie.
2. A female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie from 14 years ago.
3. A genre that has never produced a single successful movie.
No superhero movie has ever been riskier than Wonder Woman. And on top of all that, Wonder Woman had to additional obstacle of MCU fans trying to derail the movie by spreading false rumors about the movie being "a complete mess". Despite all those obstacles, Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's movies.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 30, 2017 0:01:58 GMT
They also introduced Peggy Carter before giving her her own mini series. They also introduced, followed by cameos for Coulson before giving him his own tv series. Peggy Carter and Agent Coulson didn't get their own movies, idiot! Can't read can you? I did say they got their own series and mini series. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 30, 2017 0:04:25 GMT
Doesn't matter, they got their own TV shows. It matters because it shows that MCU was too scared to give those characters their own movies and were only willing to give them TV shows. Only after MCU saw DCEU take the lead with introducing Wonder Woman and Aquaman in BvS before giving them their own solo movies, then MCU copied DECU by introducing Black Panther in Civil War before giving him his own solo movie. Because their story was/is too big for movies. Agents of SHIELD is about to get season 5. How did that Wonder Woman series do? Didn't get past the pilot, huh?
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 30, 2017 0:13:55 GMT
So basically you're agreeing it's harder to do TV than to do a movie. Good. And yes, TV shows do have to do extensive rewrites and such on the fly. In fact it's harder than with movies. There was very little risky about WW. Female superhero movies have been made before, so this was nothing new. In fact, it had an easier time because it was a mediocre film following failures so that artificially boosted it. That they chose to use the female hero who is around as old as Superman and Batman instead of someone more obscure is just more proof of how non-risky it was. I'm agreeing that it costs much less to produce a TV show that a big-budget superhero movie. And the lower the cost, the less the risk. Which is why MCU was willing to produce female-led TV shows but not female-led movies. Because they didn't think there was any market for female-led superhero movies so they didn't want to take the risk. WB took a huge risk with Wonder Woman, and Patty Jenkins delivered not only 1 of the best CBMs ever but also better than all of MCU's movies.
TV shows may re-write a script before filming, but once they've finished filming, they don't do extensive re-shoots like movies do because they just don't have the flexibility in their schedule to go back and do extensive re-shoots since they can't move a season back like movies can move a release date back.
Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made:
1. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie.
2. A female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie from 14 years ago.
3. A genre that has never produced a single successful movie.
No superhero movie has ever been riskier than Wonder Woman. And on top of all that, Wonder Woman had to additional obstacle of MCU fans trying to derail the movie by spreading false rumors about the movie being "a complete mess". Despite all those obstacles, Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's movies.
Why do you think Chris Pine was there? Wonder Woman was the same as Superman the movie in that the cast around the titular character had bigger names. It wasn't a risk because they had a bigger star there the whole time.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 30, 2017 0:36:17 GMT
Ant-man was riskier than WW. GoTG was riskier. Even Thor was riskier. After all, everyone knew who Wonder Woman was, plus they tested the waters with introducing her in BvS first.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 30, 2017 0:40:57 GMT
Ant-man was riskier than WW. GoTG was riskier. Even Thor was riskier. Nope. Those all had Caucasian males playing the lead character, just like every one of MCU's other movies so far.
Wonder Woman had:
1. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie.
2. A female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie from 14 years ago.
3. A genre that has never produced a single successful movie.
That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. And on top of all that, Wonder Woman had the additional obstacle of MCU fans trying to derail the movie by spreading false rumors about the movie being "a complete mess". Despite all those obstacles, Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's movies.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 30, 2017 1:03:52 GMT
Ant-man was riskier than WW. GoTG was riskier. Even Thor was riskier. Nope. Those all had Caucasian males playing the lead character, just like every one of MCU's other movies so far.
Wonder Woman had:
1. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie.
2. A female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie from 14 years ago.
3. A genre that has never produced a single successful movie.
That's like the Triple Crown or high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. And on top of all that, Wonder Woman had the additional obstacle of MCU fans trying to derail the movie by spreading false rumors about the movie being "a complete mess". Despite all those obstacles, Patty Jenkins delivered 1 of the best CBMs ever and definitely better than all of MCU's movies.
So you going to ignore that they had Captain Kirk as the "secondary" in the movie? I'd even say that he led the scenes they were in together. The movie pretty switched over to his point of view when he entered the picture. It would have been risky if Captain Steve Rogers was an unknown actor, but they had a big named star for her to play off of. Oh and as for that female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million budget (you have a dollar sign there, didn't have to put dollar) indie movie from 14 years ago. Remember Marvel hired her 1st. She left when they didn't bend to her whims. Something DC did so she stayed. And how odd that she was working on Thor 2 and go to a similar movie in Wonder Woman... That's crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 1:31:24 GMT
How on Earth could Marvel have copied the DCEU when the BvS and Civil War were released mere months apart? In order to do that, they'd have to reshoot HUGE portions of the film and edit it back together in about a month's time to pull it off. No, Everybody knew that Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg and the Flash would be in a movie and that they would be in BvS since October of 2014. Once Marvel knew this they decided to change Captain America 3 to Civil War and added Black Panther to the film to get more bang for their buck. When did DC fans become this stupid? First of all, Aquaman, Cyborg, and the Flash are NOT in the film (no, shoehorned video footage and a nonsensical dream sequence don't count). Secondly, Civil War was the plan from the very beginning. Third, CA 3: CW is an infinitely better film that made more money and no Golden Razzie nominations, let alone wins. But, you know, whatever helps stupid DC fans like you sleep at night. You fucking cretin.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 30, 2017 2:34:31 GMT
So you going to ignore that they had Captain Kirk as the "secondary" in the movie? Because WB didn't market Wonder Woman as a Star Trek movie and hardly mentioned Chris Pine in their marketing. Unlike MCU (which was so afraid that Tom Holland couldn't carry Spider-Man: Homecoming that they put Robert Downey, Jr. AND Michael Keaton AND just about EVERY main character in the movie on all of the movie posters), WB only put Gal Gadot on almost all of the movie posters for Wonder Woman.
WB marketed Wonder Woman as a Gal Gadot movie (not a Chris Pine movie, not an ensemble movie like MCU is trying to market Spider-Man: Homecoming as). Gal Gadot would either make or break the movie.
The Big Detail in Wonder Woman Marketing Nobody’s Talking About
Wonder Woman isn’t only being marketed, it’s being marketed with one of the boldest and most unique strategies in modern Hollywood.
Look up any poster for Wonder Woman and you’ll notice a trend. When the industry seems obsessed with cramming as many marketable names and faces as possible into every single movie poster, Wonder Woman does the opposite, exclusively featuring the Amazon hero front and center.
there’s Wonder Woman, and every single poster – without exception – has featured one, and only one, character: Diana.
this movie has also has Chris Pine, who traditional marketing minds would consider a bigger selling point than Gal Gadot. He has the name and face of a movie star, and has already headlined several films, including a spot as figurehead for Star Trek – a billion dollar franchise. He’s not on any Wonder Woman posters. He is obviously featured in the trailers, yet even there it’s abundantly clear that he’s only a side character and this is Diana’s story.
The fact of the matter is Warner Bros. is going to be the first studio to get a modern female superhero movie to the big screen, and there’s a lot more at play here than with a normal superhero movie. Whether WB is trying to make a statement with its marketing or not isn’t relevant. The very decision to make this movie as a part of the DCEU says female characters can, and should, be featured just as prominently as male characters. If that is true, then it needs to be crystal clear that Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman that sold this movie, not some other famous face they added to carry it at the box office.
as for that female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million budget (you have a dollar sign there, didn't have to put dollar) indie movie from 14 years ago. Remember Marvel hired her 1st. And she left after MCU dictator Kevin Feige refused to give her the creative freedom to make a better movie. WB was the studio that was willing to take the risk ad give her the creative freedom to make the best movie possible. She left when they didn't bend to her whims. She left because MCU dictator Kevin Feige refused to give her the creative freedom to make a better movie. Why would you want to work for someone who doesn't want you to do the best job you can?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 30, 2017 2:45:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 2:50:15 GMT
You know what, I'm not even going to argue with you. The truth is, we both know what you're typing is wrong. So instead of doing that, I have one question: what is the plan, the end goal here?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 30, 2017 2:53:49 GMT
You know what, I'm not even going to argue with you. The truth is, we both know what you're typing is wrong. You're not going to argue because you know I'm 100% right and you have no argument. The truth is, I provided links proving that you're wrong and since the facts are against you, you have no choice but to tap out and concede.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 30, 2017 2:58:20 GMT
Really? Reviews say otherwise. 90% on RottenTomatoes. Number 7 in the Top Superhero films according to RottenTomatoes, as well as 103.095% adjusted score. Meanwhile, BvS, only 27% on RottenTomatoes, and not even in the Top 50.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 3:00:14 GMT
You know what, I'm not even going to argue with you. The truth is, we both know what you're typing is wrong. You're not going to argue because you know I'm 100% right and you have no argument. The truth is, I provided links proving that you're wrong and since the facts are against you, you have no choice but to tap out and concede. I'm going to ask again: what is the goal here?
|
|