|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 3, 2017 21:55:30 GMT
There's nothing sexist about admitting that a mediocre film coming out after objectively bad films makes the mediocre look good. lol, so that's the infamous WW-booster making WW so popular, highly regarded and historic? Hardly!
There are several fallacies in your reasoning : "Objectively bad films" is illogical nonsense you picked up from the fallaciousraptor: "Bad" is a qualification according to your opinion. Opinions are per definition subjective, facts are objective - an opinion based on facts is called an assessment or appraisal. Thus, your argument is invalid at this - objective - logical level already.
Further you engage in an ad absurdum argument and a false cause fallacy by claiming such success is linked and based on the fact that the prior films were "objectively bad". Obvious nonsense empirically and logically speaking. QED
Iron Man was in the movie for less than 10 minutes, that's no booster.
lol again, because you say so without any bias, right? Conveniently disregarding the heavy IM marketing and the fact all popular RDJ as IM is in the movie...
so, suddenly there are good elements to BvS? Hm and your criteria apparently failed with a much more popular character in SMH, WW beat Spidey, not with love but numbers.
And the risk was doing a female led superhero movie - all of which historically flopped hard so far! Thus the film needed to create and persuade its not-built-in audience by quality. HUGE risk if you know how product risks assessments and product launches in business work.... (see above).
Apart from that, 40+ may know the character, 30- has no idea who or what she really is. I know Supergirl (from several shows, films etc), Batwoman/girl and Catwoman of course. But WW? Never had her own movie, and the TV show is basically forgotten amongst the younger generation.
"Objectively bad films" is illogical nonsense = You're getting worked up over semantics. Bottom line is that coming after trash films like BvS and Suicide Squad made WW look better even if it was just mediocre. Conveniently disregarding the heavy IM marketing and the fact all popular RDJ as IM is in the movie... = Doesn't change that he was only in it for 10 minutes, at most. Hm and your criteria apparently failed with a much more popular character in SMH = SMH had more competition and was just more proof the MCU being good, it didn't have the artificial boost of coming after bad films. And the risk was doing a female led superhero movie = Of a popular and well known female superhero, who already had a big part in BvS that was one of the only decently received parts of that film. Not much of a risk. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 3, 2017 21:56:43 GMT
Most MCU characters talk like normal people, something the FoX-Men could learn from if they pulled their heads out of Xavier and Magnetos' asses. And Jennifer Lawrences'. The dialogue in X-Men is written with primarily adult audiences in mind wheras the MCU is aimed at kid crowds. Thats why you see excessive quipping, one liners and very few 1 on 1 dramatic scenes heavy in dialogue in Marvel films. Its not even comparable. Nope, it's written with pretentious audiences in mine. MCU is for all ages, and is much more naturalistic. X-Men is too busy trying to exploit the Holocaust to have other characters challenge Xavier and Magneto despite the fact that their ideologies are half-baked. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 3, 2017 22:01:45 GMT
Critics go easy on Swansongs, that's pretty obvious. Nah, you're just talking out your presumably gigantic ass. Nah, you're discounting the swansong effect. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 3, 2017 22:08:39 GMT
Nope, it's written with pretentious audiences in mine. MCU is for all ages, and is much more naturalistic. X-Men is too busy trying to exploit the Holocaust to have other characters challenge Xavier and Magneto despite the fact that their ideologies are half-baked. You like throwing the word pretentious around as if any serious scene or villain qualifies it. The part in Xmen First Class where Xavier is asking Magneto to turn the satellite around is the kind of scene you wont find in an MCU movie anywhere and theres nothing pretentious about it or any other scene between the 2. Its not naturalistic, its superficial. They are afraid of going deeper into themes that will slow the movie down and detract from their bullet point checklist. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 3, 2017 23:06:28 GMT
Nope, it's written with pretentious audiences in mine. MCU is for all ages, and is much more naturalistic. X-Men is too busy trying to exploit the Holocaust to have other characters challenge Xavier and Magneto despite the fact that their ideologies are half-baked. You like throwing the word pretentious around as if any serious scene or villain qualifies it. The part in Xmen First Class where Xavier is asking Magneto to turn the satellite around is the kind of scene you wont find in an MCU movie anywhere and theres nothing pretentious about it or any other scene between the 2. Its not naturalistic, its superficial. They are afraid of going deeper into themes that will slow the movie down and detract from their bullet point checklist. If you have to use the Holocaust to justify your movies' message, you're pretentious. That scene where Dr Erskine points out not every German was a happy Nazi is something you'd never see in an X-Men movie because they're too busy making mutants out to be all innocent victims whereas the MCU wouldn't be afraid to have Xavier own up and admit "Okay, I can get why Humans are scared. We are capable of truly destructive stuff." They don't hammer the themes down your throat, maybe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 23:31:16 GMT
Anyone else find it funny that to defend a perfectly valid criticism of Justice League immediately the people claiming to be not biased against the MCU start trashing the MCU to defend Justice League?
Of course it was the likes of DC Fan and Charzino that brought it up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 0:02:51 GMT
Anyone else find it funny that to defend a perfectly valid criticism of Justice League immediately the people claiming to be not biased against the MCU start trashing the MCU to defend Justice League? Of course it was the likes of DC Fan and Charzino that brought it up. I do. It just goes to show how insufficiently evolved DC fans are. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Aug 4, 2017 3:39:07 GMT
Nah, you're just talking out your presumably gigantic ass. Nah, you're discounting the swansong effect. Nope. And yet again you've no source and are talking out your ass. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 4, 2017 4:30:36 GMT
Iron Man was in the movie for less than 10 minutes, that's no booster. The boost came not from how long Iron Man was in SMH but from how much Iron Man was used in ads to promote SMH, which was a lot. Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made: 1. A female-led movie in a genre in which less than 5% of movies had a female lead and none in more than a decade. 2. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie 3. A director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie 14 years ago. It doesn't get any riskier than that. All 3 of those together make Wonder Woman the riskiest superhero movie ever made. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Aug 4, 2017 8:16:14 GMT
Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made: 1. A female-led movie in a genre in which less than 5% of movies had a female lead and none in more than a decade. 2. A lead actress who had very few movie roles and had never had a leading role in a movie 3. A director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie. It doesn't get any riskier than that. All 3 of those together make Wonder Woman the riskiest superhero movie ever made. When it comes to CBMs the biggest risk is who the character is. I know you don't and won't accept it, but Wonder Woman was not the riskiest ever made. She is one of the 5 most famous comic book characters EVER, before she made it to screen. Regardless of the sex of the character she was way more famous than Iron Man, Thor, Guardian's Of The Galaxy, Suicide Squad...in fact more famous than every CBM character in recent times with the exception of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Joker. It would have been a shock if it had not been a success. She had already appeared in BvS and was generally regarded as the best thing in that film....people wanted a Wonder Woman film. It was one of the most anticipated films of the year. Female led action movies/franchises were not rare (you can reduce it to sub-genre to suit your argument). Minor stars in major leading roles are not rare. Inexperienced directors given big movies to direct isn't rare. It wasn't risk free, but it had more going for it than going against it. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 4, 2017 9:16:43 GMT
You like throwing the word pretentious around as if any serious scene or villain qualifies it. The part in Xmen First Class where Xavier is asking Magneto to turn the satellite around is the kind of scene you wont find in an MCU movie anywhere and theres nothing pretentious about it or any other scene between the 2. Its not naturalistic, its superficial. They are afraid of going deeper into themes that will slow the movie down and detract from their bullet point checklist. If you have to use the Holocaust to justify your movies' message, you're pretentious. That scene where Dr Erskine points out not every German was a happy Nazi is something you'd never see in an X-Men movie because they're too busy making mutants out to be all innocent victims whereas the MCU wouldn't be afraid to have Xavier own up and admit "Okay, I can get why Humans are scared. We are capable of truly destructive stuff." They don't hammer the themes down your throat, maybe. The only people who ive seen complain about holocaust exploitation is you and a handful of SJW critics. The rest of them and regular viewers think Magneto in both iterations is one of the best developed characters in all of comic book films. And Xavier does realise that mutants are a threat and why humans fear them, how more blatantly do you want it. And if your implying that the Avengers do admit they can cause destruction, when Stark says we need to be put in check because he learned of a kid who died in Sokovia, he betrays that by bringing Spiderkid to a fight with super powered beings. So much for learning from your mistakes. Xavier would never be that irresponsible in the X-films, he protects both mutants and humans alike. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:09:07 GMT
Nah, you're discounting the swansong effect. Nope. And yet again you've no source and are talking out your ass. Swan songs get kid's glove treatment. Especially when it's as exploitative as Logan was. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:10:50 GMT
Iron Man was in the movie for less than 10 minutes, that's no booster. The boost came not from how long Iron Man was in SMH but from how much Iron Man was used in ads to promote SMH, which was a lot. Wonder Woman is the riskiest superhero movie ever made: The boost WAS from how long he was in SMH, which was less than 10 minutes. Meaning it wasn't a booster at all. There was no risk in WW, Guardians of the Galaxy was a risky movie that paid off. A lesser known director, an ensemble of characters no one believed in or knew much about, etc. WW took the easy way out the whole way through. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:16:00 GMT
If you have to use the Holocaust to justify your movies' message, you're pretentious. That scene where Dr Erskine points out not every German was a happy Nazi is something you'd never see in an X-Men movie because they're too busy making mutants out to be all innocent victims whereas the MCU wouldn't be afraid to have Xavier own up and admit "Okay, I can get why Humans are scared. We are capable of truly destructive stuff." They don't hammer the themes down your throat, maybe. The only people who ive seen complain about holocaust exploitation is you and a handful of SJW critics. The rest of them and regular viewers think Magneto in both iterations is one of the best developed characters in all of comic book films. And Xavier does realise that mutants are a threat and why humans fear them, how more blatantly do you want it. And if your implying that the Avengers do admit they can cause destruction, when Stark says we need to be put in check because he learned of a kid who died in Sokovia, he betrays that by bringing Spiderkid to a fight with super powered beings. So much for learning from your mistakes. Xavier would never be that irresponsible in the X-films, he protects both mutants and humans alike. Duh, he was lucky enough to be played by Ian McKellen and Fassbender to the point that his fans are willing to ignore how exploitative his origin is as long as they get the actor on the screen. And because no one in the movies is written to point out the holes in his BS Philosophies, except Xavier and he's an utter incompetent. Xavier does not do that, he never takes responsibility and owns up to why Humans aren't wrong to feel the way they do. What Tony did is called being a fallible character who clearly isn't written as being a perfect person. Xavier WOULD be that irresponsible, in fact part of the reason things don't get better is because he's so utterly inept and no one calls him on this except Magneto and he's in no position to criticize. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Aug 4, 2017 13:41:14 GMT
Nope. And yet again you've no source and are talking out your ass. Swan songs get kid's glove treatment. Especially when it's as exploitative as Logan was. Again, I know you're just trolling and being a contrary dickhead for the sake of it, but -- this is all hot air, and you haven't even added new layers to your troll character, let alone cited or sourced anything; we're done here, little clown. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 21:40:26 GMT
Swan songs get kid's glove treatment. Especially when it's as exploitative as Logan was. Again, I know you're just trolling and being a contrary dickhead for the sake of it No, it's because there are FoX-Men fans who think Logan is some kind of gamechanger. It's not. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 5, 2017 1:23:25 GMT
When it comes to CBMs the biggest risk is who the character is. I know you don't and won't accept it, but Wonder Woman was not the riskiest ever made. She is one of the 5 most famous comic book characters EVER, before she made it to screen. Regardless of the sex of the character she was way more famous than Iron Man, Thor, Guardian's Of The Galaxy, Suicide Squad...in fact more famous than every CBM character in recent times with the exception of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Joker. It would have been a shock if it had not been a success. No, when it comes to big-budget studio movies (including big-budget CBMs),the biggest risk is "Will there be a large enough audience for the movie? Will there be a large enough market segment for the movie?" Even if you ignore the fact that less than 5% of superhero movies have had a female lead and none in more than a decade before Wonder Woman, the fact is that superhero movies have always had about 60% male audience. So WB making the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade (with an actress who had very few movie roles and never had a starring role in a movie and a director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie 14 years ago) was the riskiest superhero movie ever made. The reason that Wonder Woman is such huge success is because it bucked the trend of 60% male audience for superhero movies and was able to draw in 52% female audience. Wonder Woman succeeded because it drew in female and older viewers who normally don't go to see superhero movies. It was very risky to make a superhero movie where success depended on drawing in large numbers 2 new groups of viewers that normally don't go to see superhero movies. Female led action movies/franchises were not rare Minor stars in major leading roles are not rare. Inexperienced directors given big movies to direct isn't rare.
Female-led superhero movies are rare. Less than 5% of all superhero movies have a female lead. You're saying that less than 5% isn't rare?
Female directors given an opportunity to direct a big-budget movie is rare. Over 300 movies had had a $100 million budget. Patty Jenkins is only the 6th female director to direct a movie with a $100+ million budget 6 out of over 300 is less than 2%! You're saying that less than 2% isn't rare?
Female directors given an opportunity to direct a superhero movie is rare. Patty Jenkins is only the 2nd female director to direct a superhero movie. That's 2 out of more than 75 movies. That's less than 3%! You're saying that less than 3% isn't rare?
And a $100+ million budget female-led superhero movie starring an actress who had very few movie roles and never had a starring role and directed by a female director whose only previous movie was a small-budget movie over a decade ago is unprecedented. Wonder Woman is definitely the riskiest superhero movie ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 5, 2017 2:27:39 GMT
When it comes to CBMs the biggest risk is who the character is. I know you don't and won't accept it, but Wonder Woman was not the riskiest ever made. She is one of the 5 most famous comic book characters EVER, before she made it to screen. Regardless of the sex of the character she was way more famous than Iron Man, Thor, Guardian's Of The Galaxy, Suicide Squad...in fact more famous than every CBM character in recent times with the exception of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Joker. It would have been a shock if it had not been a success. No, when it comes to big-budget studio movies (including big-budget CBMs),the biggest risk is "Will there be a large enough audience for the movie? Will there be a large enough market segment for the movie?" Even if you ignore the fact that less than 5% of superhero movies have had a female lead and none in more than a decade before Wonder Woman, the fact is that superhero movies have always had about 60% male audience. So WB making the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade (with an actress who had very few movie roles and never had a starring role in a movie and a director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie 14 years ago) was the riskiest superhero movie ever made. The reason that Wonder Woman is such huge success is because it bucked the trend of 60% male audience for superhero movies and was able to draw in 52% female audience. Wonder Woman succeeded because it drew in female and older viewers who normally don't go to see superhero movies. It was very risky to make a superhero movie where success depended on drawing in large numbers 2 new groups of viewers that normally don't go to see superhero movies. Female led action movies/franchises were not rare Minor stars in major leading roles are not rare. Inexperienced directors given big movies to direct isn't rare.
Female-led superhero movies are rare. Less than 5% of all superhero movies have a female lead. You're saying that less than 5% isn't rare?
Female directors given an opportunity to direct a big-budget movie is rare. Over 300 movies had had a $100 million budget. Patty Jenkins is only the 6th female director to direct a movie with a $100+ million budget 6 out of over 300 is less than 2%! You're saying that less than 2% isn't rare?
Female directors given an opportunity to direct a superhero movie is rare. Patty Jenkins is only the 2nd female director to direct a superhero movie. That's 2 out of more than 75 movies. That's less than 3%! You're saying that less than 3% isn't rare?
And a $100+ million budget female-led superhero movie starring an actress who had very few movie roles and never had a starring role and directed by a female director whose only previous movie was a small-budget movie over a decade ago is unprecedented. Wonder Woman is definitely the riskiest superhero movie ever made.
Look Ken, I know you're trying to make us all believe that being about a woman was a risk....but in Wonder Woman's case it really isn't. Especially not when her appearance in BvS was appreciated so much. If the movie had been about some DC C-Lister, you'd have a point. But they chose one of their oldest characters, who already had a lauded appearance in a prior movie. It wasn't a risk at all, nowhere near the kind of risk Guardians of the Galaxy was. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Aug 5, 2017 15:37:51 GMT
Female led action movies/franchises were not rare Minor stars in major leading roles are not rare. Inexperienced directors given big movies to direct isn't rare.
Read what I wrote veeeery carefully. Actually you don't have to read it carefully, you just have to read it. No. I'm saying "Female led action movies/franchises were not rare"...it's there..above...where you quoted it. Hunger Games, Resident Evil, Underworld, Alien etc. Like Wonder Woman they are female led action movies, regardless of source or outfit., No. I'm saying "Inexperienced directors given big movies to direct isn't rare"...it's there..above...where you quoted it. I never once mentioned the sex of the director.... ...but as we are on the subject. This isn't the first time you have stated the fact that a woman with a big budget, or helming a superhero move is a risk. If you think giving a big budget film to a female director is a "risk" then you have a low opinion of women and female directors. Her lack of feature film experience maybe, that is a risk perhaps, but not the fact of her being a woman. Compared to white males, female (and non-white) directors are in the minority, but if you think their consideration for a job is a risk you are revealing some pretty out-dated opinions there. A capable director is a capable director - regardless of age, sex or colour. By all means laud over the fact that a female director has broken certain Box Office records, that is quantifiable and perhaps shows that lack of opportunity given to women. But you state that giving her the job was a risk or a gamble, because she was a woman...shame on you. |
|
