|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 28, 2017 15:21:47 GMT
This more of a Hollywood issue than an MCU issue....many, many comic book movies were made before the MCU started and none had a female director (though the other female directed CBM film you mention was a Marvel Studios film). In general studios seem reluctant to let women helm big budget movies (though I'd think I'd be right in saying there are a lot less female directors out there) That's why Wonder Woman was the riskiest CBM ever made. 1. A female lead who was basically an unknown who had only a few movie roles and never had a lead role in a movie. 2. A female Director who's only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie 14 years ago. 3. A genre which has never produced a successful solo female-led movie. MCU has had 9 years and 15 movies but they were never willing to take such big risks. WB took these huge risks and it paid off. From what I've read I would have been reluctant to make the Thor film Jenkins wanted to make Would've been much better than the crappy Thor: The Dark World movie that MCU put out. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 28, 2017 15:46:13 GMT
Jenkins would've given Portman a more substantial role in the Thor sequel, but MCU was opposed to giving female characters too big of a role in their movies. That's why MCU has refused to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years. MCU will have had 17 movies by the end of this year and the lead character in all 17 movies will have been a Caucasian male. MCU fans will try to argue that MCU has Peggy Carter and Jessica Jones as leads in TV series. But TV series aren't the same as movies. Having a lead role in a movie (especially a big-budget movie that's part of a franchise) gives a greater opportunity to become a big star than just having a lead role in a TV series. Chris Evans, Chris Hemsorth, and Chris Pratt were largely unknown to the general public before they had lead roles in MCU movies; now they're all pretty big stars and well-known to the general public. Hayley Atwell and Krysten Ritter have lead roles in MCU TV series, but Gal Gadot (who was practically unknown to the general public just a couple years ago) is now a bigger star and more well-known to the general public than both Atwell and Ritter, because Gadot had a lead role in a big-budget franchise movie. MCU was willing to give female characters only supporting roles in their movies (like Black Widow and Scarlet Witch) or lead roles on TV series (like Peggy Carter and Jessica Jones) but weren't willing to give them lead roles in their movies. Yes, that's why I think there's a good chance that the Academy (which has been criticized in recent years for the lack of diversity in their Oscar nominations) will nominate Wonder Woman for an Oscar for Best Picture. Wonder Woman potentially has a larger and more lasting impact on the industry than Logan because Wonder Woman could open the door not only for more female-led superhero movies but also for female Directors to get some of the same opportunities that are often handed to male Directors without questioning their lack of experience. Wonder Woman is a historic achievement within the industry, and the Academy likes honor historic achievements. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 28, 2017 16:01:13 GMT
But on to this Male director/Female superhero curse...I don't really see that historically. I mean Mathew Vaughn directed Kick Ass which is realistically both a Kick Ass and Hit Girl movie. I'd even argue Hit Girl goes through more of an arc throughout. And she was incredibly well received. Not really.
1st, the movie was called "Kick-Ass", not "Hit Girl". It can be argued that the lead character of "Kick-Ass" was Kick-Ass himself (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Hit Girl certainly stood out in the movie, but that's the same as Harley Quinn standing out in Suicide Squad but Suicide Squad was an ensemble movie and not a Harley Quinn movie. Wonder Woman is a true solo female-led superhero movie.
2nd, with a worldwide box office of only $96 million, Kick-Ass was nowhere near the commercial success that Wonder Woman is.
See my reply to Tristan above. Im also not saying Kick Ass was a bigger success than WW. But it was a success. It made 3 times it's budget and was nowhere near as well a known character as Wonder Woman. And is favorably rated at about 76%. Again, not that it's better...but it was a success. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 28, 2017 18:47:02 GMT
Meh, sounds like this article is just trying hard to make excuses. When DCEU made 3 bad movies and 1 good movie, the author is saying "See? DCEU was on the right track because it was their plan all along to build up to a really good 4th movie". He's making it seem like the failures of the first 3 DCEU movies were all planned and acted like WW is proof that their plan had worked wonderfully (pun intended).
In reality what really happened is that DCEU made 3 bad movies, realized their mistakes, then completely changed their approach to get finally get them a good movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Jun 28, 2017 23:34:08 GMT
At best its a step in the right direction and can open their eyes telling them what needs to be done. The movie is not that great. MOS is better
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 29, 2017 11:50:12 GMT
Meh, sounds like this article is just trying hard to make excuses. When DCEU made 3 bad movies and 1 good movie, the author is saying "See? DCEU was on the right track because it was their plan all along to build up to a really good 4th movie". He's making it seem like the failures of the first 3 DCEU movies were all planned and acted like WW is proof that their plan had worked wonderfully (pun intended). In reality what really happened is that DCEU made 3 bad movies, realized their mistakes, then completely changed their approach to get finally get them a good movie. They changed their approach by emulating Marvel, heh. Of course, they've been trying to emulate Marvel for over 30 years now. |
|
