|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:26:02 GMT
Wouldn’t it be easier to just acknowledge that people like WW, instead of coming up with all these excuses for why it did so well? Because the artificial boosters are too obvious. How exactly do you determine which movie does and which movie doesn’t receive these “artificial boosters”? Did The Avengers get an artificial booster from being a team-up movie? Did Spider-Man:Homecoming receive a booster from being released after the Amazing Spider-Man films? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:30:39 GMT
Maybe in 2007, but not 2017. So what about the audiences? It had better legs than any other CBM of the 21st century. Did the general public have some kind of PC agenda when they decided to watch the movie multiple times? It did NOT have better legs than any other CBM of the 21st century. The fact it was a halfway decent superheroine film is what had legs. If it did good legs on its own, it would have outgrossed the first Avengers. Hell, Wonder Woman couldn't even beat either of its competing movies, Guardians Vol. 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming. In any case, no, it would not have been anywhere near the success it was with a male lead and that exact story. Too derivative. The fact it starred a woman was the key to its success. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:31:52 GMT
Not when that's what they are. Wouldn’t it be easier to just acknowledge that people like WW, instead of coming up with all these excuses for why it did so well? No, because its obvious everyone's got the kid gloves on where it concerns this movie. Had Elektra and Catwoman been decent films and hits a decade ago, Wonder Woman in 2017 would seem downright quaint and old hat. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:35:06 GMT
So what about the audiences? It had better legs than any other CBM of the 21st century. Did the general public have some kind of PC agenda when they decided to watch the movie multiple times? It did NOT have better legs than any other CBM of the 21st century. If it did, it would have outgrossed the first Avengers. Hell, Wonder Woman couldn't even beat either of its competing movies, Guardians Vol. 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming. In any case, no, it would not have been anywhere near the success it was with a male lead and that exact story. Too derivative. The fact it starred a woman was the key to its success. Uhh...when I say “legs”, I’m referring to how strong it’s box office holds were. WW had better holds than any other CBM in recent years, to the point where it ended up beating out the domestic grosses for IM3 and CW, despite opening to significantly less. Look at the weekend multiplier on Box office Mojo, and you compare it to the weekend multipliers for any MCU film. WW did indeed have better legs than movies like The Avengers. Legs doesn’t refer to which movie made more than the other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:36:04 GMT
Because the artificial boosters are too obvious. How exactly do you determine which movie does and which movie doesn’t receive these “artificial boosters”? Did The Avengers get an artificial booster from being a team-up movie? Did Spider-Man:Homecoming receive a booster from being released after the Amazing Spider-Man films? Nope, because The Avengers were all still D-listers at the time. That film EARNED its place at the top of the foodchain. Nope, if anything, Spider-Man: Homecoming had a bunch of things going against it, and it STILL kicked the crap out of Wonder Woman. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:38:19 GMT
Wouldn’t it be easier to just acknowledge that people like WW, instead of coming up with all these excuses for why it did so well? No, because its obvious everyone's got the kid gloves on where it concerns this movie. Had Elektra and Catwoman been decent films and hits a decade ago, Wonder Woman in 2017 would seem downright quaint and old hat. There’s always some kind of an excuse from folks like you when a DC movie is well liked and successful. With TDK, the excuse was that people only felt sorry for Heath Ledger, and now the excuse for WW is that it stars a woman. I suppose when Black Panther and Captain Marvel are released, it would be fair for me to claim that critics will only like them because one of them stars a black man, and the other stars a woman... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:39:01 GMT
It did NOT have better legs than any other CBM of the 21st century. If it did, it would have outgrossed the first Avengers. Hell, Wonder Woman couldn't even beat either of its competing movies, Guardians Vol. 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming. In any case, no, it would not have been anywhere near the success it was with a male lead and that exact story. Too derivative. The fact it starred a woman was the key to its success. Uhh...when I say “kegs”, I’m referring to how strong it’s box office holds were. WW had better holds than any other CBM in recent years, to the point where it ended up beating out the domestic grosses for IM3 and CW, despite opening to significantly less. Look at the weekend multiplier on Box office Mojo, and you compare it to the weekend multipliers for any MCU film. WW did indeed have better legs than movies like The Avengers. Legs doesn’t refer to which movie made more than the other. Irrelevant. Also, the film itself isn't what had the legs. It was the fact it was a halfway decent superheroine film. If the film was actually good enough on its own without the gender politics, it wouldn't have lost to its competing films. Oh, look, a DCEU fanatic who uses ONLY the domestic gross of a film if it means anything. Sorry, but Ironman 3 and Civil War still win. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:39:22 GMT
How exactly do you determine which movie does and which movie doesn’t receive these “artificial boosters”? Did The Avengers get an artificial booster from being a team-up movie? Did Spider-Man:Homecoming receive a booster from being released after the Amazing Spider-Man films? Nope, because The Avengers were all still D-listers at the time. That film EARNED its place at the top of the foodchain. Nope, if anything, Spider-Man: Homecoming had a bunch of things going against it, and it STILL kicked the crap out of Wonder Woman. The Hulk isn’t really a D-lister, and Iron Man had already become a pretty popular character by that point, as indicated by the success of his solo movies. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:41:28 GMT
Uhh...when I say “kegs”, I’m referring to how strong it’s box office holds were. WW had better holds than any other CBM in recent years, to the point where it ended up beating out the domestic grosses for IM3 and CW, despite opening to significantly less. Look at the weekend multiplier on Box office Mojo, and you compare it to the weekend multipliers for any MCU film. WW did indeed have better legs than movies like The Avengers. Legs doesn’t refer to which movie made more than the other. Irrelevant. Also, the film itself isn't what had the legs. It was the fact it was a halfway decent superheroine film. If the film was actually good enough on its own without the gender politics, it wouldn't have lost to its competing films. Oh, look, a DCEU fanatic who uses ONLY the domestic gross of a film if it means anything. Sorry, but Ironman 3 and Civil War still win. First off, I’m not a fanatic. Second, I didn’t say that the domestic gross was all that matters. I’m simply pointing out that it shouldn’t be disregarded, and that WW had exceptionally strong legs in America, and in many of its overseas markets, like China. That’s usually an indication that the film has a lot of rewatch value to it, which is something BvS did not have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:41:51 GMT
No, because its obvious everyone's got the kid gloves on where it concerns this movie. Had Elektra and Catwoman been decent films and hits a decade ago, Wonder Woman in 2017 would seem downright quaint and old hat. There’s always some kind of an excuse from folks like you when a DC movie is well liked and successful. With TDK, the excuse was that people only felt sorry for Heath Ledger, and now the excuse for WW is that it stars a woman. I suppose when Black Panther and Captain Marvel are released, it would be fair for me to claim that critics will only like them because one of them stars a black man, and the other stars a woman... Those aren't excuses. Those are the reasons. Sorry, but its true. Also, no one said The Dark Knight was only popular because of Ledger's death. We said he won that Oscar because he died. The Academy had been wanting to give him one, anyway, because of Brokeback Mountain. No, because by then the initial luster over a female-led superhero film will have worn off and Captain Marvel will have to survive on the strength of its script. And the Blade trilogy proved that a black-led superhero film works just fine year and years ago, so that's old hat, too. No artificial boosters in sight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:44:01 GMT
Nope, because The Avengers were all still D-listers at the time. That film EARNED its place at the top of the foodchain. Nope, if anything, Spider-Man: Homecoming had a bunch of things going against it, and it STILL kicked the crap out of Wonder Woman. The Hulk isn’t really a D-lister, and Iron Man had already become a pretty popular character by that point, as indicated by the success of his solo movies. 1. The Hulk's most recent outings were met ho-hum reception, at best. So, no, he didn't boost it with just his presence. 2. Ironman was a popular, but not $1.5 billion popular yet. And Ironman 3 was the first post-Avengers film, so it got a huge boost from that. So, again, your arguments are as flimsy as a house of cards under a breeze. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:44:33 GMT
Irrelevant. Also, the film itself isn't what had the legs. It was the fact it was a halfway decent superheroine film. If the film was actually good enough on its own without the gender politics, it wouldn't have lost to its competing films. Oh, look, a DCEU fanatic who uses ONLY the domestic gross of a film if it means anything. Sorry, but Ironman 3 and Civil War still win. First off, I’m not a fanatic. Second, I didn’t say that the domestic gross was all that matters. I’m simply pointing out that it shouldn’t be disregarded, and that WW had exceptionally strong legs in America, and in many of its overseas markets, like China. That’s usually an indication that the film has a lot of rewatch value to it, which is something BvS did not have. Yes, it had strong legs, because it was the first halfway decent superheroine film. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:50:17 GMT
There’s always some kind of an excuse from folks like you when a DC movie is well liked and successful. With TDK, the excuse was that people only felt sorry for Heath Ledger, and now the excuse for WW is that it stars a woman. I suppose when Black Panther and Captain Marvel are released, it would be fair for me to claim that critics will only like them because one of them stars a black man, and the other stars a woman... Those aren't excuses. Those are the reasons. Sorry, but its true. Also, no one said The Dark Knight was only popular because of Ledger's death. We said he won that Oscar because he died. The Academy had been wanting to give him one, anyway, because of Brokeback Mountain. No, because by then the initial luster over a female-led superhero film will have worn off and Captain Marvel will have to survive on the strength of its script. And the Blade trilogy proved that a black-led superhero film works just fine year and years ago, so that's old hat, too. No artificial boosters in sight. The Blade movies really were not that well received. The first two films had a mixed reception, and the third one was absolutely despised. for the record, I won’t actually be one of those people claiming that a movie is only well regarded because of some PC agenda, but if you want to claim that WW only got by for starring a woman, it would pretty much be fair game. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:52:34 GMT
The Hulk isn’t really a D-lister, and Iron Man had already become a pretty popular character by that point, as indicated by the success of his solo movies. 1. The Hulk's most recent outings were met ho-hum reception, at best. So, no, he didn't boost it with just his presence. 2. Ironman was a popular, but not $1.5 billion popular yet. And Ironman 3 was the first post-Avengers film, so it got a huge boost from that. So, again, your arguments are as flimsy as a house of cards under a breeze. 1. The Hulk is still a recognizable character, and many people actually regarded him as one of their favorite parts of the movie. That puts a whole in your argument about how the film starred a bunch of D-listers. 2. I never said he was a $1.5 billion character yet, but he wasn’t an obscure D-lister by that point either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:53:23 GMT
Those aren't excuses. Those are the reasons. Sorry, but its true. Also, no one said The Dark Knight was only popular because of Ledger's death. We said he won that Oscar because he died. The Academy had been wanting to give him one, anyway, because of Brokeback Mountain. No, because by then the initial luster over a female-led superhero film will have worn off and Captain Marvel will have to survive on the strength of its script. And the Blade trilogy proved that a black-led superhero film works just fine year and years ago, so that's old hat, too. No artificial boosters in sight. The Blade movies really were not that well received. The first two films had a mixed reception, and the third one was absolutely despised. for the record, I won’t actually be one of those people claiming that a movie is only well regarded because of some PC agenda, but if you want to claim that WW only got by for starring a woman, it would pretty much be fair game. Now looks who's making excuses. Oh, please, if the first two Blade films weren't well-received by audiences, they wouldn't have survived long enough to form a full trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 6, 2017 23:55:12 GMT
First off, I’m not a fanatic. Second, I didn’t say that the domestic gross was all that matters. I’m simply pointing out that it shouldn’t be disregarded, and that WW had exceptionally strong legs in America, and in many of its overseas markets, like China. That’s usually an indication that the film has a lot of rewatch value to it, which is something BvS did not have. Yes, it had strong legs, because it was the first halfway decent superheroine film. Deal with it. It had strong legs because it was considered a good film in general. The fact that it starred a woman did help a bit in the fact that the movie had a stronger percentage of female viewers than most other superhero movies, but the movie also had a lot of rewatchability for many people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:57:38 GMT
1. The Hulk's most recent outings were met ho-hum reception, at best. So, no, he didn't boost it with just his presence. 2. Ironman was a popular, but not $1.5 billion popular yet. And Ironman 3 was the first post-Avengers film, so it got a huge boost from that. So, again, your arguments are as flimsy as a house of cards under a breeze. 1. The Hulk is still a recognizable character, and many people actually regarded him as one of their favorite parts of the movie. That puts a whole in your argument about how the film starred a bunch of D-listers. 2. I never said he was a $1.5 billion character yet, but he wasn’t an obscure D-lister by that point either. 1.  For someone who keeps blabbing about boxoffice mojo, you show a stunning lack of knowledge about the poor performances of both the prior Hulk films. Everything you just said is irrelevant considering that Hulk (2003) and The Incredible Hulk (2008) quite clearly show that the character wasn't a booster. 2. Irrelevant. He wasn't anywhere near Batman's level, and yet Avengers kicked the shit out of The Dark Knight Rises. You keep trying to assert that The Avengers didn't earn their billion and a half like a typical DC fanatic, but it won't work. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 6, 2017 23:58:24 GMT
Yes, it had strong legs, because it was the first halfway decent superheroine film. Deal with it. It had strong legs because it was considered a good film in general. The fact that it starred a woman did help a bit in the fact that the movie had a stronger percentage of female viewers than most other superhero movies, but the movie also had a lot of rewatchability for many people. I have to say, I honestly can't see where the rewatchability is. Not all that much happens, the ending is really generic, the beginning is long. The only series I would call memorable is the battle sequence in the middle. It's a good film, not great, but decent enough, but in all seriousness it's pretty thin. So I'm asking where is the rewatch value? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 23:58:46 GMT
Yes, it had strong legs, because it was the first halfway decent superheroine film. Deal with it. It had strong legs because it was considered a good film in general. The fact that it starred a woman did help a bit in the fact that the movie had a stronger percentage of female viewers than most other superhero movies, but the movie also had a lot of rewatchability for many people. Oh, please. The fact it starred a woman doubled the money it would have made otherwise. Switch the gender of the leads and you get an average film that would make Ant-man numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 7, 2017 0:00:20 GMT
The Blade movies really were not that well received. The first two films had a mixed reception, and the third one was absolutely despised. for the record, I won’t actually be one of those people claiming that a movie is only well regarded because of some PC agenda, but if you want to claim that WW only got by for starring a woman, it would pretty much be fair game. Now looks who's making excuses. Oh, please, if the first two Blade films weren't well-received by audiences, they wouldn't have survived long enough to form a full trilogy. I’m not making excuses. Like I said, I will not be be one of those people who will claim that BP and CM will be well received just because they star a black guy and a woman respectively. The MCU has long proven itself to have a strong track record. It’s two lowest rated movies are still “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes, and everything else is certified fresh, including IM2 and AoU, which I personally thought were lackluster. My only point is that if you want to apply the “female movie” argument to WW’s success, don’t be surprised if certain DC trolls use similar arguments to argue de-legitimize the inevitable success of BP and CM. |
|
