|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 3, 2017 6:45:40 GMT
DC/WB didn't get to see the cards. Yes they did. They had them from the start. It is WONDER WOMAN. Stop ignoring and denying her standing in popular culture and comic book history.
Stop ignoring and denying the fact that I've already debunked your weak excuse because NO, WB didn't get to see the cards because WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie BEFORE they knew how the public would react to an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles being cast for the lead role.
Moreoever, like I explained to you before, Wonder Woman's past history 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.
You try to pretend that isn't the case and try to pretend you don't know who Joe Montana is and pretend you dind't know that Montana cast a huge shadow over Young. But it isn't just limited to sports. It also happens in movies. Sean Connery casted a huge shadow over every Bond actor who came after him. And it even happens in CBMs. The reason MCU movies have been criticized so much for having such lame and forgettable villains is because Heath Ledger's outstanding performance in TDK cast a huge shadow over all of MCU's lame and forgettable villains.
So when WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie, WB didn't get to see the cards and didn't know if Wonder Woman's past history wold be a disadvantage. In fact, the initial public reaction to Gal Gadot being cast as Wonder Woman was negative.
So WB took a HUGE risk not only making the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade when no studio, including MCU, thoguht a female-led superhero movie could be successful but also in casting an uknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles and whom the public reacted negatively to and also in hiring a Director whse only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago.
Bottom line: Superman: The Movie and Wonder Woman are the 2 riskiest superhero movies ever produced and nothing that MCU has produced even comes close to the HUGE risks of Superman:The Movie and Wonder Woman.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Dec 3, 2017 10:29:42 GMT
Yes they did. They had them from the start. It is WONDER WOMAN. Stop ignoring and denying her standing in popular culture and comic book history. Stop ignoring and denying the fact blah blah blah
This is utterly pointless. You respond only to what you chose and ignore all other factors. I have some spare time yet none to waste on you on this subject. It is pointless. Like discussing/arguing with a stubborn little child. A prime example. Superman is not relevant You said it was a DC Risk. You have been shown numerous times it was no risk to DC...yet you persist. Pathetic Love you. Bye !
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 3, 2017 21:04:55 GMT
Nope, everything Marvel does is in reaction to DC.
Other way around. DC's been doing nothing but reacting to Marvel for over 50 years. They copied each other a lot, but the funniest thing these days is how DC fans claim this "dark, realistic, and grounded" thing as if that didn't start with Marvel in the 60s. Marvel changed the game and DC didn't take it serious for a few years until the sales figures woke them up and they then jumped on that bandwagon with their characters. The 60s Batman TV show was based on what Batman was really like prior to that after all.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 3, 2017 21:13:22 GMT
So when WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie, WB didn't get to see the cards and didn't know if Wonder Woman's past history wold be a disadvantage. In fact, the initial public reaction to Gal Gadot being cast as Wonder Woman was negative.
So WB took a HUGE risk not only making the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade when no studio, including MCU, thoguht a female-led superhero movie could be successful but also in casting an uknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles and whom the public reacted negatively to and also in hiring a Director whse only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago.
Bottom line: Superman: The Movie and Wonder Woman are the 2 riskiest superhero movies ever produced and nothing that MCU has produced even comes close to the HUGE risks of Superman:The Movie and Wonder Woman.
Doesn't really compare to Marvel's leap into the unknown with Iron Man in 2008. That fails and we aren't having this conversation because this board wouldn't exist. Marvel didn't have the money to weather a failure. WB wasn't going to fail if Superman failed. They had decades of success behind them. And WB finally making a movie from DC's third most known character doesn't sound like a huge risk to me. If anything they dragged their feet sticking to the Superman/Batman family for decades. It was only the need for a shared universe ...an idea they got from Marvel....that prompted them to finally make a movie from their 3rd most well known character. This is rewriting history to pretend WB was somehow consumed with the desire to be progressive with WW. It was a simple reaction to what Marvel was doing. Of course they had to do a WW movie.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 3, 2017 21:28:12 GMT
So when WB made the decision to make a Wonder Woman movie, WB didn't get to see the cards and didn't know if Wonder Woman's past history wold be a disadvantage. In fact, the initial public reaction to Gal Gadot being cast as Wonder Woman was negative.
So WB took a HUGE risk not only making the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade when no studio, including MCU, thoguht a female-led superhero movie could be successful but also in casting an uknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles and whom the public reacted negatively to and also in hiring a Director whse only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago.
Bottom line: Superman: The Movie and Wonder Woman are the 2 riskiest superhero movies ever produced and nothing that MCU has produced even comes close to the HUGE risks of Superman:The Movie and Wonder Woman.
Doesn't really compare to Marvel's leap into the unknown with Iron Man in 2008. That fails and we aren't having this conversation because this board wouldn't exist. Marvel didn't have the money to weather a failure. WB wasn't going to fail if Superman failed. This board and the entire MCU wouldn't exist if not for Superman: The Movie. After the failures of Supergirl, Catwoman, and Elektra, studios didn't make another female-led superhero movie for more than a decade, until WB took a HUGE risk and made a Wonder Woman movie. Superman: The Movie in 1978 was 1st big-budget superhero movie (and the most expensive movie ever produced at that time). If Superman: The Movie had failed in 1978, then a similar thing would've happened - studios wouldn't have made any more big-budget superhero movies and there would be no CBM genre and no MCU. And WB finally making a movie from DC's third most known character doesn't sound like a huge risk to me. It's a HUGE risk when that character is a female superhero and there had never been a successful female-led superhero movie and studios didn't even think there could ever be one, which is why studios (including MCU) didn't make any female-led superhero movies for more than a decade. WB took a HUGE risk to not only make the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade, but also to cast an unknown actress with few movie roles and no lead roles for the lead role (a casting choice that most of the public reacted negatively to) and hired a Director whose only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago. That's like the Triple Crown of risky movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 3, 2017 21:58:45 GMT
This board and the entire MCU wouldn't exist if not for Superman: The Movie. Yes, it would. Just like Comics would exist without him. Only because the MCU inspired them to make more CBMs. Not when WW is that heroine. And even then, the film went out of its way to keep Gadot from acting too much and from WW being in any real danger.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 4, 2017 0:13:27 GMT
This board and the entire MCU wouldn't exist if not for Superman: The Movie. Yes, it would. Just like Comics would exist without him. Comics would exist without Superman, but superheroes wouldn't exist without Superman. Prior to Superman's 1st appearance in Action Comics #1, Timely Comics (the predecessor of Marvel Comics) was only publishing horror, romance, sci-fi, and westerns stories. There were no superhero comics until Superman started appearing in Action Comics. Only because the MCU inspired them to make more CBMs. No, MCU didn't inspire anything. Not when WW is that heroine. It's a HUGE risk anytime they cast an unknown with few movie roles and no lead roles before for the lead role AND that unknown they casted for the lead role is hated by the public for being casted in that role even BEFORE filming begins. That's already a HUGE obstacle added to the fact that there had never been a successful female-led superhero movie. Wonder Woman was 1 of the riskiest superhero movies ever made and definitely more risky than all of MCU's movies because Wonder Woman didn't just have 1 obstacle to overcome. Wonder Woman had multiple obstacles to overcome and none of MCU's movies ever had anything close to the multiple obstacles that Wonder Woman had to overcome: 1. The 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade in a genre that had never had a successful movie. 2. A lead actress who was unknown with few movie roles and no lead roles. 3. A lead actress who was hated by the public for being casted in that role even BEFORE filming began. 4. A Director whose only other movie was a low-budget indie movie more than a decade ago. That was HUGE risk, and nothing MCU has ever made comes even close to that much risk.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 4, 2017 1:43:20 GMT
Doesn't really compare to Marvel's leap into the unknown with Iron Man in 2008. That fails and we aren't having this conversation because this board wouldn't exist. Marvel didn't have the money to weather a failure. WB wasn't going to fail if Superman failed. This board and the entire MCU wouldn't exist if not for Superman: The Movie. After the failures of Supergirl, Catwoman, and Elektra, studios didn't make another female-led superhero movie for more than a decade, until WB took a HUGE risk and made a Wonder Woman movie. Superman: The Movie in 1978 was 1st big-budget superhero movie (and the most expensive movie ever produced at that time). If Superman: The Movie had failed in 1978, then a similar thing would've happened - studios wouldn't have made any more big-budget superhero movies and there would be no CBM genre and no MCU. I agree with part of that. Without Superman 1 we aren't here talking. That's assuming no one else ever tried a CBM. I don't find it likely that studios would have ignored CBM material forever though since they are always on the lookout for stories. ...They've made movies about Transformers after all. They do movies based on cartoons like Popeye, Flintstones, and Scooby Doo so it's likely it would have happened again. But you left out the part about WB still existing and still making movies if Superman 1 had failed. Marvel's existence depended on their movies succeeding. Risk is about money. (that's why there is less risk when the budget is smaller) WB had a more comfortable position money wise when they put out Superman 1 than Marvel did when they put out IM so obviously it was a bigger risk for Marvel. So was it a " HUGE risk" to make WW? Not really. It was a risk just like every other movie. They spent under 150 million on it so it wasn't going to take much to turn a profit. Even a Green Lantern box office run would break even or even turn a small profit in the after market. The reason they could feel comfortable is because they are WB. Their fortunes did not rest on WW at all. You keep acting like WW is some B lister. "a female superhero"? No....it's WONDER WOMAN. Literally the safest bet of all the female super heroes in history. And even with that advantage, WB didn't do it for decades. It's not a coincidence that they suddenly got interested only AFTER Marvel started the shared universe craze. So we can just drop the pretense that WB was passionate about a female super hero. That was their next logical movie to make. It's freaking Wonder Woman....about time they got around to it. They actually already did a movie about Green Lantern first. (as much as I love GL...he's not as big as WW) It's all about the budget. WB didn't pony up 200 million to make WW. They spent 149m. That's comparable to what Marvel spent to make Capt America (140m) and Thor in 2011 (150m). (probably less than both if you account for inflation) Marvel spent 150m to make The Incredible Hulk and 140m to make Iron Man in 2008. That's a much bigger risk than what WB took. Marvel was just starting out with little resources to save them if the movies failed AND they were doing it with lesser known characters than Wonder Woman.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 4, 2017 1:45:22 GMT
Yes, it would. Just like Comics would exist without him. Comics would exist without Superman, but superheroes wouldn't exist without Superman. Prior to Superman's 1st appearance in Action Comics #1, Timely Comics (the predecessor of Marvel Comics) was only publishing horror, romance, sci-fi, and westerns stories. There were no superhero comics until Superman started appearing in Action Comics. Everyone knows that. Everyone copied Superman...including DC. Batman would not exist if not for Superman. They didn't even bother to change the costume that much. Just changed the color and gave Batman a cowl.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 4, 2017 1:48:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 4, 2017 2:54:19 GMT
Marvel spent 150m to make The Incredible Hulk and 140m to make Iron Man in 2008. That's a much bigger risk than what WB took. No, Wonder Woman was a much bigger risk than Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and Guardians of the Galaxy. When Gal Gadot was announced for the lead role in Wonder Woman, 90% of the reaction from the public was negative. When RDJ was announced for the lead role in Iron Man and Edward Norton was announced for the lead role in The Incredible Hulk and Chris Pratt was announced for the lead role in GotG, there wasn't close to a 90% negative reaction from the public. Wonder Woman already had a 90% negative reaction from the public BEFORE filming even began so Wonder Woman already had a huge obstacle to overcome in addition to being the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade in a genre that had never produced a successful movie. The risk of a Wonder Woman movie being successful was astronomical compared to Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and GotG. That's why the box office projections for Wonder Woman were all under $400 million. Because there had never been a successful female-led superhero movie and none of the experts thought there would be any audience for a female-led superhero movie. But Wonder Woman reached the $400 million mark in North America alone and more than doubled the box office projections.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 4, 2017 3:05:40 GMT
Aquaman has a higher budget than Wonder Woman because Aquaman is directed by a male Director and Hollywood has always paid male Directors more than female Directors. This is why Patty Jenkins is in the running for TIME Magazine's Person of the Year and Wonder Woman is in the running for a Best Picture Oscar nomination. Because Jenkins and Wonder Woman opened the door for more female Directors to be given opportunities to direct big-budget movies (over 300 movies have had a budget over $100 million, but Jenkins is only the 6th female Director to direct a movie with a budget over $100 million).
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 4, 2017 4:21:18 GMT
Comics would exist without Superman, but superheroes wouldn't exist without Superman. Yeah, they would. He's expendable. It did. It's redefine CBMs in a way neither Singer nor Nolan ever could. Everyone wants in on their success. Not with WW it isn't. Nothing was risky about her film.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Dec 4, 2017 10:04:39 GMT
Marvel spent 150m to make The Incredible Hulk and 140m to make Iron Man in 2008. That's a much bigger risk than what WB took. When Gal Gadot was announced for the lead role in Wonder Woman, 90% of the reaction from the public was negative. Source? Source? Wonder Woman had a bigger disadvantage than a talking raccoon and a monosyllabic tree? Your constant denial of Wonder Woman's status as comic book and pop culture icon is distressing....bordering on misogynistic (but then you have form in that area don't you). Apparently WW's status is considered lesser than an unknown talking raccoon! Is that because she is a woman? Because you seem to think any male character, regardless of their status, is less of a risk than Wonder Woman. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 4, 2017 18:31:36 GMT
Marvel spent 150m to make The Incredible Hulk and 140m to make Iron Man in 2008. That's a much bigger risk than what WB took. No, Wonder Woman was a much bigger risk than Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and Guardians of the Galaxy. When Gal Gadot was announced for the lead role in Wonder Woman, 90% of the reaction from the public was negative. When RDJ was announced for the lead role in Iron Man and Edward Norton was announced for the lead role in The Incredible Hulk and Chris Pratt was announced for the lead role in GotG, there wasn't close to a 90% negative reaction from the public. Wonder Woman already had a 90% negative reaction from the public BEFORE filming even began so Wonder Woman already had a huge obstacle to overcome in addition to being the 1st female-led superhero movie in more than a decade in a genre that had never produced a successful movie. The risk of a Wonder Woman movie being successful was astronomical compared to Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and GotG. That's why the box office projections for Wonder Woman were all under $400 million. Because there had never been a successful female-led superhero movie and none of the experts thought there would be any audience for a female-led superhero movie. But Wonder Woman reached the $400 million mark in North America alone and more than doubled the box office projections. First of all, you just made up that "90% negative" stat. So we can throw that out right now. You are also talking about the online fanboy community...which is quite small. (check out the box office for Blade Runner) The GA had no idea who the heck she was so they wouldn't have any opinion on her at all. You left out that RDJ was a risky hire at the time as well. He's a big deal now...because of Iron Man. You also left out that a smaller studio spent more (adjusted) to make Iron Man than WB spent to make WW. Risk is about money. WB had more resources than Marvel did at the time and that's not close. You also left out that WW was a more well known character when IM was made. Or are you saying that Iron Man is a bigger character than WW and we should be surprised that WW would make more? You'll need to stop bragging about a "holy trinity" if WW is going to be painted as "risky". If you are claiming making 400 million is "more than double" what WW was assumed to make....that makes WW a B list character because that's what Cap and Thor made with their first movies. So you are painting yourself into a corner her. But we know that's not true so OF COURSE WB would make a WW movie since they were copying Marvel's shared universe idea. WW was the next logical movie to make. I would love to hear which character you think is the most important DC character after Supes and Bats if it isn't WW. You also left out that no one was projecting IM to make 300m.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Dec 4, 2017 18:32:51 GMT
Aquaman has a higher budget than Wonder Woman because Aquaman is directed by a male Director and Hollywood has always paid male Directors more than female Directors. This is why Patty Jenkins is in the running for TIME Magazine's Person of the Year and Wonder Woman is in the running for a Best Picture Oscar nomination. Because Jenkins and Wonder Woman opened the door for more female Directors to be given opportunities to direct big-budget movies (over 300 movies have had a budget over $100 million, but Jenkins is only the 6th female Director to direct a movie with a budget over $100 million).
So WB is not that "progressive" at all, are they? Again you paint yourself into a corner with these wild claims.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 7, 2017 5:35:34 GMT
When Gal Gadot was announced for the lead role in Wonder Woman, 90% of the reaction from the public was negative. Source? Reactions To Gal Gadot Being Cast As Wonder Woman
"the internet had a near-Batfleck-level freakout when the largely unknown actress was tapped to play the biggest female superhero of them all.
Questions of Gadot’s physicality and limited acting experience quickly sprang up, albeit with extra dashes of irrationality and a heaping helping of sexism."
Like I said, there was a huge negative reaction by the public when it was announced that Gal Gadot was cast as Wonder Woman. That was a HUGE risk that no MCU movie ever had to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 7, 2017 7:33:57 GMT
I still remember when everyone lost their shit over Heath Ledger being cast as The Joker.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Dec 7, 2017 8:19:38 GMT
Reactions To Gal Gadot Being Cast As Wonder Woman
"the internet had a near-Batfleck-level freakout when the largely unknown actress was tapped to play the biggest female superhero of them all.
Questions of Gadot’s physicality and limited acting experience quickly sprang up, albeit with extra dashes of irrationality and a heaping helping of sexism."
Like I said, there was a huge negative reaction by the public when it was announced that Gal Gadot was cast as Wonder Woman. That was a HUGE risk that no MCU movie ever had to deal with.
No,you said 90% of the reaction was negative. Source? (and a source for the other claim requested as well)
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Feb 9, 2018 6:37:33 GMT
Did Black Panther break the mold?
|
|