|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 30, 2017 3:07:58 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. Rotten Tomatoes also has Wonder Woman at Number 2 on their Best Superhero Movies of All Time list with an adjusted score of 104.496%, higher than any MCU movie. Yet MCU fans still refuse to acknowledge that Wonder Woman is better than all of MCU's movies.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 30, 2017 3:20:00 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. Rotten Tomatoes also has Wonder Woman at Number 2 on their Best Superhero Movies of All Time list with an adjusted score of 104.496%, higher than any MCU movie. Yet MCU fans still refuse to acknowledge that Wonder Woman is better than all of MCU's movies.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/
You are kidding, right? Why should they acknowledge that? Dude, they're both in the 90% range for a regular score, both in the 100% range for adjusted score. One isn't better than the other. It just comes down to personal preference between the two and any others in the 90% range.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jun 30, 2017 4:14:27 GMT
ha dcfan being super pathetic as per ush.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 30, 2017 12:00:23 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.
No, it's harder to make a TV show than a movie. Especially since Agent Carter, Jessica Jones and Agents of SHIELD were using less known characters than Wonder Woman, who had a relatively easy time being made due to her exposure in popular culture. Plus the one against female stuff was Ike Perlmutter and once he was out of the way Feige started work on Captain Marvel. It wasn't risky at all for WB to make Wonder Woman, who people have waited years for in the first place and already had a successful show back in the 1970s. In fact, if it wasn't for the MCU trailblazing with all their properties odds are Wonder Woman NEVER would have been made. There's very very little risk involve with Wonder Woman. If they'd made a movie about Black Canary or something you'd have a point. But Wonder Woman was a pretty easy film to make. Especially since the prior DCEU disaster made its mediocrity easy to stomach. Once Spider-Man Homecoming comes out it'll show how mediocre WW actually was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 12:25:25 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. Rotten Tomatoes also has Wonder Woman at Number 2 on their Best Superhero Movies of All Time list with an adjusted score of 104.496%, higher than any MCU movie. Yet MCU fans still refuse to acknowledge that Wonder Woman is better than all of MCU's movies.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/
You are Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 30, 2017 12:37:10 GMT
It'll be dethroned soon by Homecoming. Besides, the last few years the MCU's been fighting with itself over which CBM is the highest rated one.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 30, 2017 14:27:36 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? A lot of the scenes used in the trailers were of her and Chris #4. You mean all those posters where they are marketing the character and not Gadot? Look at them. Most of them her face is covered, half off the picture, silhouetted, or has a lens flare over it. Then you have the far away shots that has her at a relative distance. But the thing you aren't understanding about the Spider-man thing is that it is way more a Spider-man movie than a Tony Stark movie. Stark is in way less of the movie than you would think. Pine was in the entire movie from the moment he showed up. How many scenes after his initial appearance was he not in? The very ending? Oh wait they had him in 2 photos. And the whole movie was about her remembering him and becoming a hero again... Spider-man: Homecoming isn't about Peter gaining a father figure in Stark. It's about him not needing him and becoming his own man. Actually, Jenkins had to fight again at WB to get what she wanted. WB caved because they were in a deep crap hole and needed directors to stay. How's the Flash and Cyborg movies coming along by the way? So she left when they didn't cave in to her whims... You're right. I'd cave in to the whims of a person that made an indie movie 14 years ago, too...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 15:39:48 GMT
Homecoming is at 93% now, so there is still a chance that WW could be dethroned.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 30, 2017 15:40:37 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.
You do know that a movie being risky has a lot more factors in it than just simply skin color and gender of leading character right? Or are you really this sexist/racist?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 0:41:22 GMT
No, it's harder to make a TV show than a movie. No, making a big-budget blockbuster movie is harder than making a TV show. Jerry Bruckheimer produced as many as 9 scripted TV series in one season. And in the 2017-2018 season, Greg Berlanti will produce 10 scripted TV series. Neither Geoff Johns nor MCU dictator Kevin Feige will produce 10 movies or even 5 movies simultaneously. It wasn't risky at all for WB to make Wonder Woman Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. if it wasn't for the MCU trailblazing with all their properties odds are Wonder Woman NEVER would have been made. If it weren't for DC trailblazing the way with Superman in Action Comics in 1938 and then WB trailblazing the way with Superman: The Movie in 1978, MCU would never even exist. There's very very little risk involve with Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. Once Spider-Man Homecoming comes out it'll show how mediocre WW actually was. Nope. Wonder Woman is still #2 on the Best Superhero Movies of All Time list.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 0:43:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 0:47:42 GMT
It'll be dethroned soon by Homecoming. Homecoming has been dropping fast. Besides, the last few years the MCU's been fighting with itself over which CBM is the highest rated one. And Wonder Woman has beaten all of those MCU movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 0:53:51 GMT
that's the RT score... Hardly an indication of the quality of the movie, just that a lot of critics thought a movie to be worth more than say a 5/10. In a system where a movie average can be a 6 and still get an 100% it's stupid to call it the best. It's just the one everybody agrees is average but not awful. Wonder Woman only has what? A 7 average at most? And it's at 92%. Lean how the system works idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 0:55:21 GMT
No, it's harder to make a TV show than a movie. No, making a big-budget blockbuster movie is harder than making a TV show. Jerry Bruckheimer produced as many as 9 scripted TV series in one season. And in the 2017-2018 season, Greg Berlanti will produce 10 scripted TV series. Neither Geoff Johns nor MCU dictator Kevin Feige will produce 10 movies or even 5 movies simultaneously. It wasn't risky at all for WB to make Wonder Woman Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. if it wasn't for the MCU trailblazing with all their properties odds are Wonder Woman NEVER would have been made. If it weren't for DC trailblazing the way with Superman in Action Comics in 1938 and then WB trailblazing the way with Superman: The Movie in 1978, MCU would never even exist. There's very very little risk involve with Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. Once Spider-Man Homecoming comes out it'll show how mediocre WW actually was. Nope. Wonder Woman is still #2 on the Best Superhero Movies of All Time list. no it's not. It's on RT in a deeply flawed system. A 7 is an above average movie but nothing special.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 0:56:15 GMT
the thing you aren't understanding about the Spider-man thing is that it is way more a Spider-man movie than a Tony Stark movie. Stark is in way less of the movie than you would think. The movie posters suggests otherwise. Spider-man: Homecoming isn't about Peter gaining a father figure in Stark. It's about him not needing him and becoming his own man. Spider-Man: Homecoming has been marketed as Tony Stark mentoring Peter Parker to become a superhero. Could be that MCU is trying to use false advertising to lure people into thinking they're seeing Iron Man 4. But that's how MCU has been marketing Spider-Man: Homecoming, not as a Spider-Man solo movie but as an Iron Man movie with a cameo by Spider-Man. So she left when they didn't cave in to her whims She left MCU because MCU dictator Kevin Feige refused to give her the creative freedom to make a better Thor: The Dark World. I'd cave in to the whims of a person that made an indie movie 14 years ago, too. So you would rather make a crappy Thor: The Dark World movie than allowed Jenkins to make a better Thor: The Dark World movie? Got it.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 0:58:01 GMT
Homecoming is at 93% now, so there is still a chance that WW could be dethroned. Still less than 75 reviews. And it's been dropping fast so it'll probably be under 90% soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 1:02:02 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. Rotten Tomatoes also has Wonder Woman at Number 2 on their Best Superhero Movies of All Time list with an adjusted score of 104.496%, higher than any MCU movie. Yet MCU fans still refuse to acknowledge that Wonder Woman is better than all of MCU's movies.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/
Little baaaaaby is wupset at the mean MCU badies? Cry me a river why don't you? I loved wonder woman but thanks to you I'm starting to reconsider. I'm going to start bashing the shit out of yet mediocre movie from the DCEU. Wonder woman: first avenger, carbon copy of the better Captain America. Satisfied? It's people like you that makes me hate DCEU with all my heart.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 1:04:39 GMT
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.
You do know that a movie being risky has a lot more factors in it than just simply skin color and gender of leading character right? Or are you really this sexist/racist? How risky a movie is is based on the chances that the movie will be successful compared to the budget. And all 3 of the items listed above made it a very slim chance that Wonder Woman would be successful compared to the $149 million budget. No other CBM has ever had such a slim chance of success compared to its budget as Wonder Woman had.
It's not sexist nor racist. It's statistical probabilities. The 3 items listed above made Wonder Woman have the lowest statistical probability of success of any CBM with a $100+ million budget.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 1:11:18 GMT
that's the RT score... Hardly an indication of the quality of the movie, just that a lot of critics thought a movie to be worth more than say a 5/10. In a system where a movie average can be a 6 and still get an 100% it's stupid to call it the best. It's just the one everybody agrees is average but not awful. Wonder Woman only has what? A 7 average at most? And it's at 92%. Lean how the system works idiot. 1st, MCU fans used to treat RT scores as gospel whenever MCU movies got high RT scores and DCEU movies got low RT scores. Now that Wonder Woman has gotten 1 of the highest RT scores in CBM history, all of a sudden MCU fans discount the RT score. Such hypocrisy!
2nd, Wonder Woman is #2 on the list of 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time not because of the RT score but because of the Adjusted Score. Wonder Woman's Adjusted Score is 106.702%.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 1:12:52 GMT
No, making a big-budget blockbuster movie is harder than making a TV show. Jerry Bruckheimer produced as many as 9 scripted TV series in one season. And in the 2017-2018 season, Greg Berlanti will produce 10 scripted TV series. Neither Geoff Johns nor MCU dictator Kevin Feige will produce 10 movies or even 5 movies simultaneously. Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. If it weren't for DC trailblazing the way with Superman in Action Comics in 1938 and then WB trailblazing the way with Superman: The Movie in 1978, MCU would never even exist. Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who 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 successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. Nope. Wonder Woman is still #2 on the Best Superhero Movies of All Time list. no it's not. It's on RT in a deeply flawed system. A 7 is an above average movie but nothing special. 1st, MCU fans used to treat RT scores as gospel whenever MCU movies got high RT scores and DCEU movies got low RT scores. Now that Wonder Woman has gotten 1 of the highest RT scores in CBM history, all of a sudden MCU fans discount the RT score. Such hypocrisy!
2nd, Wonder Woman is #2 on the list of 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time not because of the RT score but because of the Adjusted Score. Wonder Woman's Adjusted Score is 106.702%.
|
|