|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 18:56:03 GMT
Both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent loved Rachel Dawes, she was murdered and it changed their lives. Killing off a woman to motivate a man is hackeyed writing. Has been for years. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridgeYes, because the idea of a soldier dying in a war fits his character. They did it with WW too, she just got more than one poster. Blame Ike Perlmutter. Marvel TV at least gave us Jessica Jones and Agent Carter.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 1, 2017 19:15:53 GMT
Jeeze. Can we not bring sexism into this debate? Both have a few ways more to go when it comes to equally representing males and females but it's not like either of them is specifically being sexist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 22:07:13 GMT
Jeeze. Can we not bring sexism into this debate? Both have a few ways more to go when it comes to equally representing males and females but it's not like either of them is specifically being sexist. No Marvel is sexist because they only focus on womens butts. And shirtless men. But that doesnt suports the modtroll's point so that is not mentioned. Sorry but that guy starts to annoy me.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 23:12:27 GMT
@carrot
Well they haven't killed off any major character, not including any villians. The most significant ones would be Quicksilver, Odin, Yondu, Coulson and Peggy Carter.
Which for 17 movies is nothing really. Quicksilver made one appearance, Peggy Carter was old and wasn't going to do anything for significance etc.
They weren't cheap, Quicksilver's death was cheap because it could have not happened at all and the movie would hardly have changed at all.
Not in their prime? Don't know what that means.
It was also set 6 years after their previous movie so not in the far future.
Other series don't really matter here. As was pointed out, they keep making the same style of movie, most of what happens in them doesn't really matter all that much, they won't kill anyone important because they want as many characters in Infinity War for financial reasons, the movies play out as you expect, they're simple and straightforward.
Tony Stark quit being Iron Man at the end of Iron Man 3, didn't matter, he was right back to being Iron Man in Age of Ultron.
Thor destroyed the Bifrost, didn't matter, he was right back on Earth again in Thor 2.
Netflix has the fantastic gritty crime drama that is Daredevil. Jessica Jones was a psychological thriller.
There's no movie equivalent of this for variety. They're all just big budget PG-13 action adventure comedies.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 23:36:06 GMT
Killing off a woman to motivate a man is hackeyed writing. Has been for years. That's just bizarre criticism. It's a trope for every angle, male characters have died and it's motivated men, female characters have died and it's motivated women, male characters have died and it's motivated women and so on. So Rachel Dawes couldn't be killed by a terrorist because she was a DA? Which one? Those are the posters. In none of them is just half turned around so she's showing her ass. Meanwhile with Marvel you have this That is misogynistic. There's no two ways about it, it's not done with the others. Iron Man doesn't stand like that. Black Widow does though because they're capitalising on her looks. Rachel Dawes blowing up isn't misogynistic. It still counts as Marvel. Yeah there was the shows but they're not big budget summer blockbusters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 23:52:55 GMT
Yeah, sure, they did. No, they killed Rachel to prove they had the balls to do it. Her death only has the impact of making two guys sad.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 2, 2017 1:28:23 GMT
That's just bizarre criticism. It's a trope for every angle, male characters have died and it's motivated men, female characters have died and it's motivated women, male characters have died and it's motivated women and so on. Wasting a perfectly good female character just to motivate men is outdated and sexist. Hell, that writer Gail Simone based her website around it. Not if her death was SOLELY having to do with Joker's plan for Dent. i.pinimg.com/originals/4c/ac/4a/4cac4af419c5404f251bd8651600fb21.jpgConcept art, admittedly. Her death had nothing to do with her own character or actions, it revolved entirely around Dent. Like I said, blame Perlmutter. He kept shutting down female leads because he didn't think they were profitable, it's one of the reasons Feige wanted him out of the movies so bad.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 2:24:54 GMT
Wasting a perfectly good female character just to motivate men is outdated and sexist. Hell, that writer Gail Simone based her website around it. They didn't waste her though, her death added significantly to the plot of the movie. Knowing the Batman character, there wasn't going to be a continuation of this relationship that would have had a happy ending. So they didn't waste anything. Again unlike Quicksilver, that was an actual waste. They introduced him, he had a somewhat unique power and then they killed him off before they'd really done anything of note with him. It's sexist to think it's only ok it'd it's done the other way around. That's preference then towards a certain gender. Why? There's nothing wrong with Joker killing off Rachel Dawes knowing that it would bring Harvey Dent down. That was a major plot point of the movie. That has nothing to with sexism. Plenty of characters, male and female have been killed as a means of getting to Right so it's still a Marvel problem. Just because it was the result of an individual doesn't stop it from affecting the series.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 2, 2017 2:34:51 GMT
They didn't waste her though, her death added significantly to the plot of the movie. No, her death was solely to motivate Dent and Bruce. Because it was unexpected. Seeing how women characters have been wasted far more often to this plot device than men, it's acceptable. Because it reduces her to nothing but a trophy for Dent. Not anymore. But DCEU was just lucky that by the time they got rid of Perlmutter it was too late to make a Captain Marvel movie that would come out before WW.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 3:23:33 GMT
No, her death was solely to motivate Dent and Bruce. Which affected how the story played out and in turn the sequel. Had she not died the movies would be entirely different. So yes it was a plot device. But then that goes back to it being cheap shock value. His death had little impact otherwise. He could have survived and the plot wouldn't have had to change in any significant way. That's such a weird criticism, I've never heard that one...I think for any movie ever. She wasn't a trophy...she was a love interest who was killed and what led to a drastic change in another character. The Punishers wife was killed, he turned into a mass murdering criminal hunter. It's a plot point, one of the most common ones in cinema. Well we don't know that yet. Until Phase 4 is revealed and we see how many female led movies there in comparison to male led movies then we have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 2, 2017 3:29:26 GMT
Which affected how the story played out and in turn the sequel. Had she not died the movies would be entirely different. So yes it was a plot device. Admittedly, this is common with Nolan. Women in his movies tend to just be plot devices or poorly written. Aren't you complaining the MCU doesn't put its characters in enough danger? The "Stuffed in the Fridge" cliche, an outdated and sexist cliche. What keeps Punisher and Batman's origins from being this is that it wasn't them just losing their women. Frank lost his kids too, and Bruce lost Thomas Wayne as well. It was an equal opportunity thing.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 3:39:36 GMT
formersamhmdNo I'm complaining because they won't put any major characters in danger because they were all just being saved for Infinity War so that movie could make more money. Quicksilver wasn't a major character. Like I said before they don't have to kill Iron Man or Captain America but they could kill Hawkeye, Falcon or War Machine. The Punisher is no different just because he also lost his kids, they would also just count as an object going by what you said. No in both cases they lost a loved one which sent them over the edge to become someone they weren't before. It was done to create a story out of it. Rachel Dawes had a purpose in Batman Begins and then a different purpose in The Dark Knight.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 2, 2017 4:27:10 GMT
No I'm complaining because they won't put any major characters in danger because they were all just being saved for Infinity War so that movie could make more money. You mean like how Wonder Woman was in no real danger in her movie or how once Superman came back in JL all tension and risk was gone? How are they any different from Quicksilver? It wasn't a female character whose own development and potential was shafted solely so they could be a motivator for a male character And her purpose was not to be a character, but a plot device. This is common for Nolan.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 4:56:06 GMT
You mean like how Wonder Woman was in no real danger in her movie or how once Superman came back in JL all tension and risk was gone? You keep making these kind of comments. Just because another series shares the flaw doesn't stop the relevant series from having that flaw. That's like criticising Fantast Four (2015) for not being faithful to the comic and then someone saying "Like how Dragon Ball Evolution wasn't faithful to the comic either? No they were both shit. Rhodes has been around since the beginning now, 9 years, 5 movies. Falcon has been in 4 movies themselves, they're major characters. Avengers members and share close ties to the series main characters Iron Man and Captain America. Completely different as we've grown to like those characters. What potential? She wasn't about to become Batgirl or Poison Ivy. She was a love interest, one that was going to be the love interest of the main character. She was a character in the first movie. She became a plot device in the second movie.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 2, 2017 5:49:57 GMT
Which is a riskier proposition for a film studio?....a $300m movie about Han Solo, or a $150m about brand new created character in a newly created franchise? Extreme theoretical examples but still shows the point I am trying to make. Your invalid example shows that you still don't understand risk. But at least we now know why you don't understand risk. You're confusing risk with odds. Like I said, risk is determined by how much you have to lose. That's why your example is invalid. Since you're confusing risk with odds, I'll explain it to you with a simple example. Lets say I go to Vegas and place a $10 bet on the Sacramento Kings (who currently have a 7-15 record) to win the NBA Finals this year. And let's say my neighbor goes to Vegas and places a $10,000 bet on the Golden State Warriors (who currently have a 17-6 record) to win the NBA Finals this year. Now every intelligent person will agree that the Warriors (who have gone to the NBA Finals 3 straight years and won the championship in 2 of those 3 years) has a much better chance of winning the NBA Finals this year than the Atlanta Hawks have. But that's odds, not risk. Every intelligent person will agree that my neighbor (even though he's betting on the Warriors to win the championship this year) is taking a much bigger risk than me (even though I'm betting on the Hawks to win the championship this year) because he has a lot more to lose than me. You seem to be confusing risk and odds. Risk is determined by how much you're willing to put on the line. And obviously, the more you put on the line, the more you're risking. Blade, Elektra, and PUnisher: Warzone were low-budget movies and thus low risk compared to a big-budget movie like Wonder Woman. In the specific game you are talking about the gambler doesn't see the card. So what. The fact is DC have seen the cards...and those cards ARE FUCKING WONDER WOMAN. DC/WB didn't get to see the cards. They didn't get to see how the public would react to Gal Gadot's performance in BvS since they made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie BEFORE BvS was released and filming had already been completed BEFORE BvS was released. It was unknown how the public would react to an unknown actress who had few movie roles and never had a lead role in a movie. WONDER WOMAN - $150m - a comic book movie about one of the most famous comic book, and popular culture, characters off all time. Popular for over 70 years. Feminist icon. Sex symbol. Subject of a very popular TV series. The most famous female super hero ever. Member of the ever popular Justice League and star of her own comic. Released at a time when comic book movie popularity is at it's peak, as part of a profitable franchise. 1st, none of that changes the fact that the genre (female-led superhero movies) had never had a successful movie, which is why no studio, including MCU, was willing to make a female-led superhero movie for more than a decade. 2nd, like I said, WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie BEFORE BvS was released so they took a HUGE risk because it was unknown how the public would react to an unknown actress who had few movie roles and never had a lead role in a movie. You try to argue that Wonder Woman's past history was an advantage for the movie and made it a sure thing. But it could've just as easily been a disadvantage and made it an impossible thing. For people who grew up watching Wonder Woman on TV in the 1970s, Lynda Carter was basically the only actress they knew as Wonder Woman. So the public could've reacted negatively to an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles trying to fill the shoes of Lynda Carter. I live in San Francisco and I know firsthand how 49ers fans reacted to Steve Young trying to fill the shoes of Joe Montana. Young had a great career (a Super Bowl MVP, 2-time NFL MVP, and Pro Football Hall of Famer). Most teams would've appreciated a QB like Young. But for 49ers fans, Young was trying to fill the shoes of Joe Montana, a legend who happens to be the greatest QB in NFL history. And for many 49ers fans, Young didn't measure up to Montana. The same thing could've happened to Gal Gadot. The public could've reacted negatively to Gal Gadot, an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles, trying to fill the shoes of Lynda Carter. When WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie, it was unknown how the public would react to Gal Gadot's performance in BvS. In fact, most of the initial public reaction when Gal Gadot was announced for the role of Wonder Woman was negative against her. So WB took a HUGE risk to make the 1st female-led superhero movie when no movie studio, including MCU, thought a female-led superhero movie could be successful (Which is why no movie studio, including MCU, had been willing to make a female-led superhero movie in more than a decade) and on top of that casted an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles and hired a Director whose only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago. It doesn't get any riskier than that.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 2, 2017 6:11:10 GMT
Marvel TV at least gave us Jessica Jones and Agent Carter. You've just proven that MCU is misogynist. MCU hates female superheroes. That's why MCU hasn't had a female lead in any of their 17 movies so far.
Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt became big stars because they got lead roles in superhero movies. But MCU hasn't given any actresses a lead role in any of their 17 movies because they hate female superheroes and don't want them to become big stars. That's why MCU only allows them to have lead roles on TV shows, where they have much less chance of becoming big stars.
Just look at Gal Gadot. She was an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles. Then WB gave her the lead role in a superhero movie and now Gal Gadot is a much bigger star than both Hayley Atwell and Krysten Ritter.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 2, 2017 6:12:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 2, 2017 6:17:42 GMT
DCEU was just lucky that by the time they got rid of Perlmutter it was too late to make a Captain Marvel movie that would come out before WW. No, the Wonder Woman movie was always going to be released first. Because MCU would've never made a Captain Marvel movie or any other female-led movie if WB hadn't announced a Wonder Woman movie first.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Dec 2, 2017 6:21:09 GMT
No, the Wonder Woman movie was always going to be released first. Because MCU would've never made a Captain Marvel movie or any other female-led movie if WB hadn't announced a Wonder Woman movie first. And the DCEU would've never been announced had it been for the MCU. So if there's no MCU, no DCEU, therefore, no Wonder Woman movie.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Dec 2, 2017 6:22:04 GMT
Sorry guys, I accidentally locked this thread. I'm using a phone here.
|
|