|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 4, 2017 20:26:22 GMT
Who said anything about “turning over a new leaf”? Making a Wonder Woman movie does not require some sort of groundbreaking epiphany. "Turning over a new leaf" is referring to the sudden bout of honesty among Hollywood execs that your story requires. Plenty of actors have been cast in a movie that never saw the light of day. Means nothing. Non-essential scenes that could easily have been dropped. Probably should have been dropped, since she managed to upstage the two leads. Don't hold your breath for half of them. I never suggested that WB executives would be honest out of the goodness in their hearts. I was merely suggesting that lying to investors would’ve been an incredibly short sighted decision that would eventually bite WB in the ass. That’s partly why your belief that they were never actually going to make a Wonder Woman movie back when they announced it is ridiculous. A studio doesn’t just announce a release date at a shareholder’s meeting for a movie they have no intention of actually making. That would be bad business.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 4, 2017 20:35:48 GMT
Development began in 1996 and languished in development hell for nearly 20 years. Clearly, the studio had very little confidence in a big budget female led superhero movie. Why did they finally pull the trigger in 2015? Marvel officially announced their plans for a Captain Marvel movie in 2014. Coincidence? It’s about as “coincidental” as all the plot similarities to Captain American: The First Avenger. For the most part, DC has been afraid to make any superhero movie post 2000 that wasn't related to Batman in some way. Or at least not "dark, gritty and semi-realistic". They couldn't even get another Superman movie off the ground, no way they would do a WW movie. It wasn't until MCU proved that non-dark superhero movies could actually be profitable that DC got off its ass and started experimenting.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 4, 2017 20:47:54 GMT
Development began in 1996 and languished in development hell for nearly 20 years. Clearly, the studio had very little confidence in a big budget female led superhero movie. Why did they finally pull the trigger in 2015? Marvel officially announced their plans for a Captain Marvel movie in 2014. Coincidence? It’s about as “coincidental” as all the plot similarities to Captain American: The First Avenger. For the most part, DC has been afraid to make any superhero movie that wasn't related to Batman in some way. Or at least not "dark, gritty and semi-realistic". They couldn't even get another Superman movie off the ground, no way they would do a WW movie. It wasn't until MCU proved that non-dark superhero movies could actually be profitable that DC got off its ass and started experimenting. To be fair, they did try with Green Lantern in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 4, 2017 21:21:31 GMT
For the most part, DC has been afraid to make any superhero movie that wasn't related to Batman in some way. Or at least not "dark, gritty and semi-realistic". They couldn't even get another Superman movie off the ground, no way they would do a WW movie. It wasn't until MCU proved that non-dark superhero movies could actually be profitable that DC got off its ass and started experimenting. To be fair, they did try with Green Lantern in 2011. Yeah but that was done only after Ironman in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 4, 2017 21:37:50 GMT
I never suggested that WB executives would be honest out of the goodness in their hearts. I was merely suggesting that lying to investors would’ve been an incredibly short sighted decision that would eventually bite WB in the ass. That’s partly why your belief that they were never actually going to make a Wonder Woman movie back when they announced it is ridiculous. A studio doesn’t just announce a release date at a shareholder’s meeting for a movie they have no intention of actually making. That would be bad business. If lying in Hollywood had serious repercussions, then no one would do it. But it doesn't. So they do. In this case all they needed to do was claim some "creative differences" (again), fire the director (again), and they're off the hook (again). In fact, they had their patsy all lined up, Michelle MacLaren. Once they truly decided to make WW, they jettisoned MacLaren and brought in Patty Jenkins. All this last minute maneuvering took place well after the Marvel announcement. Seems pretty clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 4, 2017 21:39:32 GMT
I never suggested that WB executives would be honest out of the goodness in their hearts. I was merely suggesting that lying to investors would’ve been an incredibly short sighted decision that would eventually bite WB in the ass. That’s partly why your belief that they were never actually going to make a Wonder Woman movie back when they announced it is ridiculous. A studio doesn’t just announce a release date at a shareholder’s meeting for a movie they have no intention of actually making. That would be bad business. If lying in Hollywood had serious repercussions, then no one would do it. But it doesn't. So they do. In this case all they needed to do was claim some "creative differences" (again), fire the director (again), and they're off the hook (again). In fact, they had their patsy all lined up, Michelle MacLaren. Once they truly decided to make WW, they jettisoned MacLaren and brought in Patty Jenkins. All this last minute maneuvering took place well after the Marvel announcement. Seems pretty clear to me. That seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble to go through just for the sake of a lie. I’m really not following your logic here.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 4, 2017 22:09:27 GMT
That seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble to go through just for the sake of a lie. I’m really not following your logic here. It does, but that's Hollywood for you. If you ain't lyin', you ain't tryin'. In this case, I imagine the WB execs needed to assure the shareholders that they weren't letting one of DCs top properties go to waste because they were too chickenshit to move forward with it and risk a financial disaster ... which the shareholders would not forgive. A little industry standard lie ... a industry standard scapegoat situation ... and job security for another year. It's ironic that it was Marvel that provided the push they needed to make their only real win in the superhero movie arena.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 4, 2017 23:00:07 GMT
That seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble to go through just for the sake of a lie. I’m really not following your logic here. It does, but that's Hollywood for you. If you ain't lyin', you ain't tryin'. In this case, I imagine the WB execs needed to assure the shareholders that they weren't letting one of DCs top properties go to waste because they were too chickenshit to move forward with it and risk a financial disaster ... which the shareholders would not forgive. A little industry standard lie ... a industry standard scapegoat situation ... and job security for another year. It's ironic that it was Marvel that provided the push they needed to make their only real win in the superhero movie arena. Wonder Woman has never been one of DC's top properties. Her comics sell less than Green Lantern and Harley Quinn. WB lying to shareholders about making a movie they have no intention of actually making would be a bad idea. Why would they go through the trouble of giving a movie a release date and a director if they have intention of actually making it? That's a waste of time and money.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 5, 2017 1:55:19 GMT
It does, but that's Hollywood for you. If you ain't lyin', you ain't tryin'. In this case, I imagine the WB execs needed to assure the shareholders that they weren't letting one of DCs top properties go to waste because they were too chickenshit to move forward with it and risk a financial disaster ... which the shareholders would not forgive. A little industry standard lie ... a industry standard scapegoat situation ... and job security for another year. It's ironic that it was Marvel that provided the push they needed to make their only real win in the superhero movie arena. Wonder Woman has never been one of DC's top properties. Her comics sell less than Green Lantern and Harley Quinn. WB lying to shareholders about making a movie they have no intention of actually making would be a bad idea. Why would they go through the trouble of giving a movie a release date and a director if they have intention of actually making it? That's a waste of time and money. Your claim that Hollywood studio execs don’t lie and Wonder Woman wasn’t an A-list superhero defies any semblance of reality ... so you can stop repeating yourself. It doesn’t help.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 5, 2017 1:59:28 GMT
Wonder Woman has never been one of DC's top properties. Her comics sell less than Green Lantern and Harley Quinn. WB lying to shareholders about making a movie they have no intention of actually making would be a bad idea. Why would they go through the trouble of giving a movie a release date and a director if they have intention of actually making it? That's a waste of time and money. Your claim that Hollywood studio execs don’t lie and Wonder Woman wasn’t an A-list superhero defies any semblance of reality ... so you can stop repeating yourself. It doesn’t help. I never said that Hollywood executives were honest people, I’m just asking a simple question: why would WB announce to shareholders their plans to make a Wonder Woman movie, and hire a director, a writer, and establish a release date, and then not go through with it? Again, that sounds like a waste of time and money. You’re telling me that they went through the trouble of hiring Jason Fuchs and Michelle MacLaren for nothing? That sounds like an extremely pointless and self-defeating thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:17:36 GMT
Are you telling me that WB deliberately lied to their investors just for shits and giggles? When you’ve dicked around with a movie for 20 years, you need to show the shareholders some indication that you intend do something with it. Since shareholders read the newspaper, announcing to the press or at a shareholders meeting makes little difference. WRONG! Legally, there's a HUGE difference between lying to the press and lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. Lying to the prss isn't illegal. Lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting is illegal.
So we know that WB wasn't lying when they announced at Wonder Woman movie at their shareholders' meeting in Octobe 2014, 2 weeks BEFORE MCU added Captain Marvel to their announced movies in reaction to WB announcing the Wonder Woman movie. And sure enough, the Wonder Woman movie was not only produced but also the release date was moved up from the original announced date.
So YOU LOSE. Better to just admit your defeat and shut up than to dig yourself a deeper hole. Like Abraham Lincoln said "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:22:24 GMT
We're not talking "generally". We're talking specifically about how Warner Bros has handled Wonder Woman over the years. Previous announcements had projected release dates and nothing came of them. WB had a chronic case of cold feet when it came to an expensive female superhero movie. Couple that with their tendency to only jump in the water after someone else had tested it and the logical conclusion to all this is obvious. The alternative is to think that they suddenly had an epiphany one day ... that they should deviate from their standard mode of operation and go out on a limb on a project that had festered for 20 years ... and the Marvel announcement had nothing to do with it. It takes a great deal of gullibility to buy that story. it was part of an expansive slate of movies that again, WB announced at a shareholder’s meeting. You don’t just announce something to investors if you have no intention of actually making it. That would be a hillariously pointless and stupid thing to do. That would also be illegal. Shareholders are owners of the company so it's illegal for the board to knowingly lie to shareholders. So since it was announced at a shareholders' meeting, we know it wasn't a lie. And sure enough, WB not only produced the Wonder Woman movie but also the release date was moved up from the original announced release date.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:24:59 GMT
"Turning over a new leaf" is referring to the sudden bout of honesty among Hollywood execs that your story requires. Plenty of actors have been cast in a movie that never saw the light of day. Means nothing. Non-essential scenes that could easily have been dropped. Probably should have been dropped, since she managed to upstage the two leads. Don't hold your breath for half of them. I never suggested that WB executives would be honest out of the goodness in their hearts. I was merely suggesting that lying to investors would’ve been an incredibly short sighted decision that would eventually bite WB in the ass. That’s partly why your belief that they were never actually going to make a Wonder Woman movie back when they announced it is ridiculous. A studio doesn’t just announce a release date at a shareholder’s meeting for a movie they have no intention of actually making. That would be bad business. That would also be illegal. Shareholders are owners of the company so it's illegal for the board to lie to shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:34:52 GMT
If lying in Hollywood had serious repercussions, then no one would do it. But it doesn't. So they do. It does, but that's Hollywood for you. If you ain't lyin', you ain't tryin'. In this case, I imagine the WB execs needed to assure the shareholders that they weren't letting one of DCs top properties go to waste because they were too chickenshit to move forward with it and risk a financial disaster ... which the shareholders would not forgive. A little industry standard lie ... a industry standard scapegoat situation ... and job security for another year. Lying in Hollywood happens, but they don't do it at a shareholders' meeting. They lie to the press. They don't lie at a shareholders' meeting. Because lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting does have serious repercussions, not just in Hollywood but in any industry. It's illegal for the board to knowingly lie to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. That's why NO COMPANY LIES AT SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS.
It's ironic that it was Marvel that provided the push they needed to make their only real win in the superhero movie arena. WRONG!!! WB led the way by making the decision to produce a female-led superhero movie BEFORE MCU did and MCU would've NEVER made any female-led superhero movie if WB hadn't led the way by announcing a Wonder Woman movie first. We get that you're a biased MCU fan who can't accept the facts, but these facts are irrefutable so YOU'VE ALREADY LOST.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:39:19 GMT
Your claim that Hollywood studio execs don’t lie and Wonder Woman wasn’t an A-list superhero defies any semblance of reality ... so you can stop repeating yourself. It doesn’t help. I never said that Hollywood executives were honest people Hollywood execs do lie sometimes, but they don't do it at a shareholders' meeting. They lie to the press. They don't lie at a shareholders' meeting. Because lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting does have serious repercussions, not just in Hollywood but in any industry. It's illegal for the board to knowingly lie to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. The SEC even has a word to describe lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. The SEC calls it "FRAUD". That's why NO COMPANY LIES AT SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS. If WB announced a Wonder Woman movie at a shareholders' meeting, than (despite King Kong Shady's desperate claims) it definitely wasn't a lie.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 5, 2017 5:55:45 GMT
I’m just asking a simple question: why would WB announce to shareholders their plans to make a Wonder Woman movie, and hire a director, a writer, and establish a release date, and then not go through with it? Again, that sounds like a waste of time and money. You’re telling me that they went through the trouble of hiring Jason Fuchs and Michelle MacLaren for nothing? That sounds like an extremely pointless and self-defeating thing to do. Here are the facts: 1. WB announced a Wonder Woman movie at a shareholders' meeting on Oct 14, 2014. 2. MCU reacted to WB's announcement by adding Captain Marvel to their slate of movies announced on Oct 28, 2014. 3. WB not only produces the Wonder Woman movie as told their stockholders (i.e. their "owners") they would but also they move up the release date from the original announced date. Based on those facts, which are irrefutable, there's no evidence at all that WB lied at their shareholder's meeting, which is illegal and is considered by the SEC to be Fraud, which means any board members found guilty of lying at their shareholders' meeting would be doing some hard time in a federal prison. So unless King Kong Shady has any actual evidence to support his bullshit, then the only conclusion that can be made is that it's King Kong Shady, not the WB board, who is lying.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 5, 2017 13:58:26 GMT
When you’ve dicked around with a movie for 20 years, you need to show the shareholders some indication that you intend do something with it. Since shareholders read the newspaper, announcing to the press or at a shareholders meeting makes little difference. WRONG! Legally, there's a HUGE difference between lying to the press and lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. Lying to the prss isn't illegal. Lying to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting is illegal. They're both illegal you fool, and WB did both anyways. And bottom line is that it took WB longer to do stuff than MCU, and WW the movie wouldn't have happened if not for the MCU inspiring the entire DCEU.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 5, 2017 14:26:26 GMT
It's illegal for the board to knowingly lie to shareholders at a shareholders' meeting. That's why NO COMPANY LIES AT SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS. Oh dear ... You're confusing financial statements with announcements of future plans. Lying about one is illegal. The other, not so much. If a company was legally bound to carry forth their plans, as announced at a shareholders meeting, then changing the release date would be illegal. Obviously, it's not. Nor is it illegal to cancel a project after you've announced your intent to pursue it. You just killed your own argument, champ. Well done. Try not to embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. That's a nice fairy-tale for distraught DC fans looking for something (anything!) positive to hang their hat on, but due to the precedent of reneging on their Wonder Woman announcements, we can't say with any certainty that WB was truly committed to a Wonder Woman movie simply because they announced it (again). Like I mentioned before, it's doubtful that they suddenly grew a backbone after years of following Marvel's lead in other things. The first true indication that they were really going ahead with WW this time was when they started filming, which occurred after the Marvel announcement. Like in many of your arguments, its the facts you omit that are the most telling.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 5, 2017 14:51:52 GMT
And even with their WW movie, they couldn't be bothered to put her in real danger and relied on the supporting cast because the lead wasn't good enough to carry the film on her own.
Case in point: Most scenes with the Wonder Woman in them are "Gadot speaks a very simple line, followed by actor X going on and on, Gadot gets another rote line in, followed by more exposition from another actor." You've got Trevor hamming it up, Etta hamming it up, those poor Amazons forced to use Gadot's accent, Ares' monologuing, Hippolyta narrating the opening and giving all the early exposition, even the Multiethnic Sidekick Squad is very chatty in trying to fill up time so Gadot doesn't have to talk. Gadot is reduced to walking about, occasionally flatly delivering a single line of response while everyone else carefully explains what's happening. Then when action scenes happen she's either a video game character or a stuntwoman.
Gal Gadot is actually doing very, very little acting in the Wonder Woman movie, it's a great illusion of a performance.
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
|
Post by dnno1 on Dec 5, 2017 23:49:09 GMT
Development began in 1996 and languished in development hell for nearly 20 years. Clearly, the studio had very little confidence in a big budget female led superhero movie. Why did they finally pull the trigger in 2015? Marvel officially announced their plans for a Captain Marvel movie in 2014. Coincidence? It’s about as “coincidental” as all the plot similarities to Captain American: The First Avenger. At that time and up to 2012, no female led comic book hero had ever been successful at the box office. Heck, they couldn't make a TV show back then let alone a feature film about Wonder Woman.
|
|