Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 1:56:38 GMT
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%.
1 clockwise 2 adjusted RT score is still a fucking RT score.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 1, 2017 12:27:37 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. Actually, Homecoming is seen as one of the MCUs best. It's going to eclipse Spider-Man 2. WW will be dethroned ASAP. It just got an artificial boost from being decent.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 1, 2017 12:29:43 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. Nope, TV shows have just as much to deal with as movies. More, actually. WW wasn't risky at all, MCU paved the path for it to be easily made. You want risk, look at Guardians of the Galaxy, or the first Iron Man movie. Nah, Superman was so basic and archetypal that Marvel would've existed with or without him. They don't owe him jack. You want a risk, go watch Iron Man or GOTG. Wonder Woman has no risky elements compared to them. And WW will be throned ASAP, it just got an artificial booster from being decent.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 1, 2017 15:42:55 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. Maybe 1 or 2 of them actually show her entire face. Have you actually been watching the trailers/tv spots? He has a mentor in Stark (they even show him losing that mentor in the trailers), but then he talks about Stark treating him like a kid and he has to prove himself. They even have Stark saying he wants him to be more than that suit before taking it away. It's about him becoming his own man. So she left when they didn't cave in to her whims? It could go either way. How do you know her idea would be better? Like we have established, a person that made an indie movie 14 years ago and made a mash up remake of Captain America: First Avenger and The 5th Element.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 15:55:38 GMT
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. MCU paved the path for it to be easily made. Nope, MCU has been afraid to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years. WB and Wonder Woman paved the way for female-led superhero movies, like Captain Marvel. Superman was so basic and archetypal that Marvel would've existed with or without him. Nope, prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. You want a risk, go watch Iron Man or GOTG. Iron Man is a solo male-led superhero movie. There had been plenty of successful solo male-led superhero movies before Iron Man (e.g. Superman, Superman II, Batman, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2). GOTG is an ensemble superhero movie, like the X-Men. Before Wonder Woman, there had never been a good female-led superhero movie. Before Wonder Woman, there had only been 1 CBM directed by a female Director, and that had a budget of only $35 million and grossed only $10 million at the box office. 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.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 16:06:23 GMT
So Spider-Man: Homecoming is a mash-up of The Karate Kid (experienced, old guy mentors young kid) and Max Steel (high school kid gets superpowers). Got it. 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. Like I said before, why would you want to work for someone who doesn't want you to do the best job possible? Do you think Steve Kerr tells the Warriors players "Hey, let's not try to win by 20+ points tonight. Let's just play a crappy game tonight."? How do you know her idea would be better? Because Thor: The Dark World was so crappy that just about anything else would've been much better. MCU has made plenty of crappy movies. Patty Jenkins has never made a bad movie. So it's safe to say that she would've made a much better Thor: The Dark World than the crap that MCU actually put out.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 1, 2017 16:14:19 GMT
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. MCU paved the path for it to be easily made. Nope, MCU has been afraid to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years. WB and Wonder Woman paved the way for female-led superhero movies, like Captain Marvel. Superman was so basic and archetypal that Marvel would've existed with or without him. Nope, prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. You want a risk, go watch Iron Man or GOTG. Iron Man is a solo male-led superhero movie. There had been plenty of successful solo male-led superhero movies before Iron Man (e.g. Superman, Superman II, Batman, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2). GOTG is an ensemble superhero movie, like the X-Men. Before Wonder Woman, there had never been a good female-led superhero movie. Before Wonder Woman, there had only been 1 CBM directed by a female Director, and that had a budget of only $35 million and grossed only $10 million at the box office. 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. Dude, who cares if its risky. Who cares if it wins or gets nominated for an Oscar. It doesn't change the fact that the DCEU is still off to a bad start with two shitty entries and one mediocre (Man of Steel, which I actually like). I don't know why you think the DCEU is all of sudden changing the era of movies. There's been female-lead comic book films (not successfully, but still been made), but also regular films as well. Female-lead films aren't uncommon, the greatest (even better than Wonder Woman) being Ripley from the Alien series. I'm assuming you're talking about the superhero genre. The Dark Knight series. Any Marvel Films.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 1, 2017 16:41:02 GMT
There's been female-lead comic book films (not successfully, but still been made), but also regular films as well. Female-lead films aren't uncommon, the greatest (even better than Wonder Woman) being Ripley from the Alien series. You sound as totally clueless as Alicia Silverstone:
Alicia Silverstone Is Like Totally Clueless About All The Wonder Woman Hype
Alien isn't a superhero movie, just like Bridesmaids, Mean Girls, and Clueless weren't superhero movies either.
There have been female Senators and Governors and even Secretary of State (e.g. Madeline Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton). So a woman being Secretary of State now isn't as big a deal as a woman being elected POTUS.
Superhero movies are the most popular movie genre in the world. And Wonder Woman is the 1st successful female-led movie in the most popular movie genre in the world. That's why Wonder Woman is so historic and that's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan or any other CBM to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.
I'm assuming you're talking about the superhero genre. The Dark Knight series. Any Marvel Films. I'm talking about the specific category of female-led superhero movies. That's a genre that has never produced a successful movie. Marvel had Elektra, but that wasn't successful (worldwide gross of only $56 million on a $43 million budget).
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 1, 2017 16:43:37 GMT
So Spider-Man: Homecoming is a mash-up of The Karate Kid (experienced, old guy mentors young kid) and Max Steel (high school kid gets superpowers). Got it. 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. Like I said before, why would you want to work for someone who doesn't want you to do the best job possible? Do you think Steve Kerr tells the Warriors players "Hey, let's not try to win by 20+ points tonight. Let's just play a crappy game tonight."? How do you know her idea would be better? Because Thor: The Dark World was so crappy that just about anything else would've been much better. MCU ahs made plenty of crappy movies. Patty Jenkins has never made a bad movie. So it's safe to say that she would've made a much better Thor: The Dark World than the crap that MCU actually put out. Or... get this... The Hero's Journey. You know when the kid gets a mentor (wizard) that sends him on his way. Lots of stories have this. X-men has Prof. X (prequels had Logan for Xavier), Man of Steel had AI Jor El, Star Wars had Obi Wan, Lord of the Rings had Gandolf, Wonder Woman had... Wonder Woman didn't have this character. Wonder Woman had the opposite in her mother. The wizard is suppose to have the hero go on the quest, but Hippolyta was the one to refuse The Call (Trevor crashing on the island) instead of the hero.* Again: How do you know which way it would have gone if they kept her on and used her ideas? You don't know because we didn't see it play out. Her idea could have been something that would have changed the direction the character Thor would have taken and not really changed what was in the movie itself. Or even if they wanted something in the movie and she didn't (like the Infinity Stone). We don't know. *You know what? I take it back. Wonder Woman mixed a bunch of characters/events into 1. Steve Trevor was the Rogue (separated into his team), The Call, the Wizard (the Wizard usually dies) and the Princess. Hippolyta was what blocks the Hero from going on his/her quest that the Hero has to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 1, 2017 20:29:19 GMT
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. MCU paved the path for it to be easily made. Nope, MCU has been afraid to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years. WB and Wonder Woman paved the way for female-led superhero movies, like Captain Marvel. Superman was so basic and archetypal that Marvel would've existed with or without him. Nope, prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. You want a risk, go watch Iron Man or GOTG. Iron Man is a solo male-led superhero movie. There had been plenty of successful solo male-led superhero movies before Iron Man (e.g. Superman, Superman II, Batman, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2). GOTG is an ensemble superhero movie, like the X-Men. Before Wonder Woman, there had never been a good female-led superhero movie. Before Wonder Woman, there had only been 1 CBM directed by a female Director, and that had a budget of only $35 million and grossed only $10 million at the box office. 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, WW is merely the first successful female Superhero CBM. Very little risk here, it just got an artificial boost from the past movies stinking so much. The MCU showed how far it would go with films about totally obscure characters like the Guardians. Without that, DC wouldn't have made Wonder Woman. Superman is a very basic character, he was not necessary for any Marvel creations. Iron Man was made starring a film actor not insurable at the time, about a relatively obscure character and a Director not known for doing CBM related stuff. All much riskier than WW. WW was too well known in popular culture to be any sort of risk.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 2:57:46 GMT
WW is merely the first successful female Superhero CBM. Very little risk here, it just got an artificial boost from the past movies stinking so much. Did Supergirl's failure make Catwoman a great movie? Did Catwoman's failure make Elektra a great movie? Wonder Woman is a great movie not because of the failures of previous movies but because Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and is better than all of MCU's movies. The MCU showed how far it would go with films about totally obscure characters like the Guardians. Without that, DC wouldn't have made Wonder Woman. MCU has refused to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years and are only making Captain Marvel because DCEU made Wonder Woman. Without Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel would never be made. Superman is a very basic character, he was not necessary for any Marvel creations. Prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. Iron Man was made starring a film actor not insurable at the time, about a relatively obscure character and a Director not known for doing CBM related stuff. All much riskier than WW. Iron Man was just another male-led superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie. Not even close to being as risky as 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.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 2, 2017 4:18:18 GMT
DC-Fan, neither of the three you list are anything new or revolutionary in cinema history. Actors being cast in a leading role despite little to no prior experience headlining a motion picture( major or otherwise) is not a rare occurrence in the industry, and in the case of Wonder Woman the character sells herself than just her portrayer, with 70+ years of source material and a fan base people would've went to the movie anyway even if Gal Gadot wasn't playing the part. Directors who go from relatively small budgeted productions to much larger ones isn't shocking whatsoever, especially considering said indie film earned its leading actress an Academy Award win. Superhero movies have been all the rage going on for more than a decade now, a large sum of major releases today are in the genre. And a Wonder Woman movie has been on demand for a long, long time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 7:47:06 GMT
DC-Fan, neither of the three you list are anything new or revolutionary in cinema history. By themselves, it might not be, but all 3 combined together is pretty unique and very risky. Directors who go from relatively small budgeted productions to much larger ones isn't shocking whatsoever It isn't shocking when the Director is a male because male Directors who have never directed a big-budget movie are routinely given the opportunity to direct a big-budget movie without anyone questioning their lack of experience directing a big-budget movie. But it's very rare when the Director is a female. Patty Jenkins is only the 6th female Director in the entire history of Hollywood who has ever directed a movie with a budget over $100 million. How many movies in the entire history of Hollywood have had a budget over $100 million? Over 300. And only 6 have ever been directed by a female Director. So that's very rare and very risky. Superhero movies have been all the rage going on for more than a decade now, a large sum of major releases today are in the genre. And yet, Wonder Woman is the first solo female-led superhero movie in more than a decade. A large sum of major releases are in the genre, but none of them other than Wonder Woman had a female lead. So again, very rare and very risky.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 2, 2017 11:37:31 GMT
WW is merely the first successful female Superhero CBM. Very little risk here, it just got an artificial boost from the past movies stinking so much. Did Supergirl's failure make Catwoman a great movie? Did Catwoman's failure make Elektra a great movie? Wonder Woman is a great movie not because of the failures of previous movies but because Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and is better than all of MCU's movies. The MCU showed how far it would go with films about totally obscure characters like the Guardians. Without that, DC wouldn't have made Wonder Woman. MCU has refused to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years and are only making Captain Marvel because DCEU made Wonder Woman. Without Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel would never be made. Superman is a very basic character, he was not necessary for any Marvel creations. Prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. Iron Man was made starring a film actor not insurable at the time, about a relatively obscure character and a Director not known for doing CBM related stuff. All much riskier than WW. Iron Man was just another male-led superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie. Not even close to being as risky as 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. Nope, WW is a well known comic figure with a successful TV series behind her. No risk whatsoever in making a movie about her. They make movies about stuff like a talking raccoon and a tree. That's riskier than a movie about a female Superhero. Without MCU doing stuff like that, DC never would've had the guts to make WW, even though there was little risk in making a WW movie. Superman was a very basic, very archetypal character. Comic superheroes would exist with or without him. Marvel would exist without him. Pulp heroes existed without him. Iron Man was a risky move. He was a lesser known character than WW, played by a riskier actor and made by a start-up studio. WW was better known and had a bigger studio behind it. That it was about a man matter very little. No risk to WW, at all. In fact, in the end we just got a decent movie, it just got an artificial booster from the prior movies being awful and critics being afraid of being labeled misogynists if they didn't go easy on the film.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 2, 2017 12:26:34 GMT
Iron Man was just another male-led superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie. Not even close to being as risky as 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. Iron Man kicked off an ongoing, planned out, Universe - a risky feat on it's own, but even more riskier in that Iron Man was not a household name. Even to comic book readers he was probably b-list (Marvel had previously taken a risk with their first film Blade...and it paid off too) Regardless of who starred and directed the film, the biggest risk in making CBM films is who or what it is about. DC with Wonder Woman were taking no such risk - she is DCs third most famous hero (maybe 4th biggest character if you take Joker into consideration) plus she had already stole BvS - people had a taste of what WW would be like and wanted more. One of DCs biggest properties who had already been popular on screen...not a risk, it was a no brainer. And it is a sub-genre that never produced a successful movie - but the wider genre - Action films - there have been no shortage of women led action films and franchises - Aliens, Resident Evil, Hunger Games, Underworld for example. The biggest risk it had was that it was proceeded by three lacklustre films in the shared universe.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 2, 2017 15:18:59 GMT
WW is merely the first successful female Superhero CBM. Very little risk here, it just got an artificial boost from the past movies stinking so much. Did Supergirl's failure make Catwoman a great movie? Did Catwoman's failure make Elektra a great movie? Wonder Woman is a great movie not because of the failures of previous movies but because Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and is better than all of MCU's movies. The MCU showed how far it would go with films about totally obscure characters like the Guardians. Without that, DC wouldn't have made Wonder Woman. MCU has refused to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years and are only making Captain Marvel because DCEU made Wonder Woman. Without Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel would never be made. Superman is a very basic character, he was not necessary for any Marvel creations. Prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. Iron Man was made starring a film actor not insurable at the time, about a relatively obscure character and a Director not known for doing CBM related stuff. All much riskier than WW. Iron Man was just another male-led superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie. Not even close to being as risky as 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. Dude, just because it's risky, doesn't make it better. Again, being a DC jerkoff, obviously you think it's better than all Marvel films, but it's not better than all the MCU films. You can't really use RottenTomatos either, because any film above 85% are pretty equal and really it just comes down to personal preference. And who cares about the adjusted score. You can't pick and choose with RottenTomatos, because as of now with 75 reviews, Spider-Man is at 94%, higher than Wonder Woman. If you try to discredit that in any way tho, it just proves you're a big fucking hypocrite upset that Marvel is successful right now
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 2, 2017 15:25:27 GMT
DC-Fan, neither of the three you list are anything new or revolutionary in cinema history. By themselves, it might not be, but all 3 combined together is pretty unique and very risky. Directors who go from relatively small budgeted productions to much larger ones isn't shocking whatsoever It isn't shocking when the Director is a male because male Directors who have never directed a big-budget movie are routinely given the opportunity to direct a big-budget movie without anyone questioning their lack of experience directing a big-budget movie. But it's very rare when the Director is a female. Patty Jenkins is only the 6th female Director in the entire history of Hollywood who has ever directed a movie with a budget over $100 million. How many movies in the entire history of Hollywood have had a budget over $100 million? Over 300. And only 6 have ever been directed by a female Director. So that's very rare and very risky. Superhero movies have been all the rage going on for more than a decade now, a large sum of major releases today are in the genre. And yet, Wonder Woman is the first solo female-led superhero movie in more than a decade. A large sum of major releases are in the genre, but none of them other than Wonder Woman had a female lead. So again, very rare and very risky. All three combined might've qualified as risky ten years ago or so, but not now given that 1) the age of the movie star is mostly gone now, brands sell better than the use of a movie star or starlet. 2) Independent to director-for-hire tackling big budget spectacles is not rare at all, male or female, it happens so frequently it seems you don't need a background in helming them to make so and so as long as you've got one or two critical darlings under your belt, or crowd pleasers for that matter. What did Jordan Vogt-Roberts do before tackling Kong: Skull Island? Fairly small-in-scale, low-in-budget, quirky comedies and stand-up/sketches for TV. Nothing about his prior work suggests he could deliver something on the scale of Kong, yet he did and he's been attached to make Metal Gear Solid for years now. Jenkins did Monster but after that it was mostly TV, and she had been circling other big projects for years before Wonder Woman. 3) Superheroes are everywhere now, especially in film and TV. A female led superhero film is not surprising, what is surprising about Wonder Woman however is that it took this long to make it happen when we've had multiple Superman and Batman physical related media in the past few decades.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 18:31:37 GMT
They make movies about stuff like a talking raccoon and a tree. That's nothing. There have been movies with talking chipmunks and talking teenage mutant ninja turtles. Scooby Doo had a talking dog and The Chronicles of Narnia series had all kinds of talking animals. And oh yeah, there are those movies with those talking apes that have been hugely successful. And 1 of the most popular movies in Hollywood history had a talking scarecrow and a talking lion. That's riskier than a movie about a female Superhero. Nope, given the fact that not only has there never been a successful female-led superhero movie but also no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero for more than a decade, 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. Superman was a very basic, very archetypal character. Comic superheroes would exist with or without him. Marvel would exist without him. Nope, prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. Iron Man was a risky move. Not really. Iron Man was just another solo male superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie). Pretty safe, not much risk. That it was about a man matter very little. It mattered a lot. It mattered so much that MCU was afraid to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years and are only making Captain Marvel because DCEU made Wonder Woman. it just got an artificial booster from the prior movies being awful Did Supergirl being awful make Catwoman a great movie? Did Catwoman being awful make Elektra a great movie? Wonder Woman is a great movie not because of any previous movies being awful but because Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and is better than all of MCU's movies.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 18:42:46 GMT
the biggest risk in making CBM films is who or what it is about. And given the fact that Iron Man was just another solo male superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie), Iron Man was a pretty safe and low-risk movie and given the fact that not only had there never been a successful female-led superhero movie but also no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero movie (certainly not MCU) for over a decade, Wonder Woman is definitely the riskiest CBM ever made.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 18:52:38 GMT
You can't pick and choose with RottenTomatos, because as of now with 75 reviews, Spider-Man is at 94%, higher than Wonder Woman. 1st, Spider-Man: Homecoming is down to 92% now so it continues to drop and has now dropped into a tie with Wonder Woman even though it has only about 1/4 as many reviews as Wonder Woman. 2nd, it's not me who's saying that 78 reviews is too little to be relevant. It's RT that's saying it. Notice the tomato icon next to Wonder Woman says "Certified Fresh" but the tomato icon next to Spider-Man: Homecoming doesn't say that. That's because Wonder Woman has more than enough reviews for RT to certify it as being fresh but Spider-Man: Homecoming still doesn't have enough reviews yet for RT to certify it as being fresh.
|
|