Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[JB33]

47 minutes ago, IceFire9yt said:

I would consider Aquaman and Wonder Woman's legs to have a lot to do with idiosynchratic factors (Wonder Woman appealing to women, Aquaman being released over the holidays).  I do think the DC brand has something to do with the legginess of these movies.  What you're seeing is depressed openings for those movies compared to the MCU because the DC brand isn't trusted at the moment.  Audiences took a wait and see approach with Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Justice League- they're waiting to hear if the movie's good before seeing it, which gives better legs if the movie is good, and a complete mess if the movie's mediocre or bad.

I agree with this. It's not discrediting those films either. It's just a different path to success, which will pave the way for the rush factor and mega opening weekends we see with MCU films.

[Zakiyyah6]

1 hour ago, IceFire9yt said:

I would consider Aquaman and Wonder Woman's legs to have a lot to do with idiosynchratic factors (Wonder Woman appealing to women, Aquaman being released over the holidays).  I do think the DC brand has something to do with the legginess of these movies.  What you're seeing is depressed openings for those movies compared to the MCU because the DC brand isn't trusted at the moment.  Audiences took a wait and see approach with Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Justice League- they're waiting to hear if the movie's good before seeing it, which gives better legs if the movie is good, and a complete mess if the movie's mediocre or bad.

A lot of December movies have smaller openings. I actually like your theory but maybe expecting Aquaman to open with 100mil in December was too big of an ask. It might have opened near 100mil and had good legs in another month. 

 

Personally I see Aquaman helping Shazam. I could be wrong of course.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Zakiyyah6

[MrGlass2]

1 hour ago, IceFire9yt said:

What you're seeing is depressed openings for those movies compared to the MCU because the DC brand isn't trusted at the moment.  Audiences took a wait and see approach with Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Justice League

WW and JL were both in top 10 openings for 2017; same for BvS and SS in 2016. And even Aquaman was #10 in 2018, with Christmas (it would obviously have been higher on the list any other time). It just seems that some people will forever use different, unique standards for DC movies because they didn't like BvS. The franchise is successful now at the box office, and has been since the start with one solo exception (JL, but only because the budget exploded).

 

The notion that Wonder Woman had a "depressed opening" is the most dubious one. Since when is $103M disappointing, even for a superhero movie in 2017? And female superhero movies were supposed to flop. WW's domestic opening is higher than the previous ones (Catwoman and Elektra) did in total worldwide. Just because WW had great legs, and finished #3 for the year domestically, doesn't mean that the opening was depressed by a lack of trust.

Edited January 21, 2019 by MrGlass2

[Orestes]

I dunno if Wonder Woman's OW was depressed or not. I do know I waited to see it till Saturday instead of Thursday previews like I usually do with these movies, and that was entirely due to wanting real audience reaction after the dismal duo of MoS and BvS. Given that I'm a super nerd with little patience and less chill, that's gotta be like a normie waiting a couple weeks at least.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Orestes

[Warmaster506]

People will always have opinions about DC but thankfully that is finally starting to go away.  Unlike Star Trek vs Star Wars, DC can hit back against Marvel on a far more even playing field.  Disney/Feige damn well know this too. 

[Zakiyyah6]

I'm just so happy that DC/WB are moving away from the depressing tone when it comes to the big mainstream heroes. BvS really soured me on that tone. The truth is I was already leery of that kind of tone outside of a Watchmen type comic book adaptions to begin with but BvS just completely killed it for me.

[2kt09]

2 hours ago, JB33 said:

I agree with this. It's not discrediting those films either. It's just a different path to success, which will pave the way for the rush factor and mega opening weekends we see with MCU films.

Different in the sense that their "phase one" has been averaging phase 2 and beyond money.

2 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Personally I see Aquaman helping Shazam. I could be wrong of course.

The billion-dollar-6th-film-in-the-series difference is that The Avengers spun off (even if they're really sequels) the characters more people are now aware of. These people being those who haven't been watching a bulk of phase one.

Shazam is closer to GOTG in this sense, albeit maybe there are people who watched that 70s show...

All this to say, general audiences aren't going to associate Aquaman with Shazam.

Edited January 21, 2019 by 2kt09

[LaughingEvans]

7 hours ago, LouisianaArkansasGeorgia said:

The fact that now DCEU/WB has the two leggiest superhero films of the current post-Iron Man superhero explosion  (Aquaman and Wonder Woman) tells us something about how iconic DC characters are in terms of pop culture penetration. I mean, a well-made, non clusterfuck-y JLA that featured heroic heroes and faithfully portrayed characters would have been an Avengers-style phenomenon, if not bigger. Too bad that Snyder had to fuck it up when he got the ball rolling with the one-two non-punch of MOS and BvS...

Now we are stuck in some sort of limbo with two characters that audiences love (Diana and Arthur) but against a shared universe backdrop that audiences hate. Will it be even feasible to have these characers join forces agains sans Batman and Superman when the suits probably still think that those two characters are the be all end all of the DCU?

 

 

I think you randomly correlated being iconic with box office legs. No taking away the iconic, or the box office success, but it's just a random statement with no basis.

[IceFire9yt]

7 hours ago, 2kt09 said:

Different in the sense that their "phase one" has been averaging phase 2 and beyond money.

 

I think we've already covered this in this thread, but for people in the back.

 

Marvels Phase 1 came out at a time when superhero movies were a lot less successful than DC's 'phase one' (heck the current climate is a lot better for CBM's than it was during Marvel's phase 2).  In addition, the growth of overseas markets and inflation mean that its easier to get better box office grosses.  I think the other key factor is that DC is using very well known characters to get these grosses, while Marvel had to elevate mostly unknown characters to do so.

[2kt09]

5 minutes ago, IceFire9yt said:

I think we've already covered this in this thread, but for people in the back.

 

Marvels Phase 1 came out at a time when superhero movies were a lot less successful than DC's 'phase one' (heck the current climate is a lot better for CBM's than it was during Marvel's phase 2).  In addition, the growth of overseas markets and inflation mean that its easier to get better box office grosses.  I think the other key factor is that DC is using very well known characters to get these grosses, while Marvel had to elevate mostly unknown characters to do so.

For sure.

They were successful enough to have sequels and spinoffs + there were more obscure & even original superhero flicks.

We've seen a Superman & a Green Lantern movie do as well or worse than SOLO.

Will Smith being offered the Superman part made sense in hindsight 

because he then went on to play one that did better than those.

 

If you were going to make those phase one movies in this climate,

only Venom so far comes across as the outlier of what the ceiling could be

and even that seems informed by cbm's that came out post-phase one.

[terrestrial]

I do belief within the CBM/SH fans are groups aiming for what Alan Moore stated, but I also think its too absolute (like so many '1-sentence-statements' are)

 

To me CBM/SH... comics, TV-series movies,.... are also modern Robin Hood versions in the way the 'good' SHs pick up when the average justice people can not or wont do so (e.g. influence of the rich, corrupt system, not enough staff / not good enough equipment,...)

 

Sci-Fi and SH/CBMs are also / can be to varying degrees in a way modern versions of 'fairy tales', the old 'method' to teach ethics.

 

And see Black Panther (Blade is to me / in my POV not 100% a SH film), Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel (depending on quality...) or way earlier see Star Trek original series with its first female and also coloured bridge officer (and other details),.... can do something to push the limits of clichés and/or what is 'proper' to even show/address and so on, reaching parts of the audience usually not into (wont watch 'Sundance-material') the kind of movies pointing out the stupidity of racism or anti-women or....

 

[terrestrial]

Is there a reason the posts are showing the 21 January as the last date beside I have seen before writing my post posts from today?

[TomCruiseTop]

10 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

And see Black Panther (Blade is to me / in my POV not 100% a SH film), Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel (depending on quality...) or way earlier see Star Trek original series with its first female and also coloured bridge officer (and other details),.... can do something to push the limits of clichés and/or what is 'proper' to even show/address and so on, reaching parts of the audience usually not into (wont watch 'Sundance-material') the kind of movies pointing out the stupidity of racism or anti-women or....

 

Star Trek can't be conflated with Comics, Moore is right, and even more so Star Trek was 60s, surely within his time frame of a non-stagnant culture. 

[TomCruiseTop]

10 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Is there a reason the posts are showing the 21 January as the last date beside I have seen before writing my post posts from today?

Highly likely an alt-righter took issue with what Moore said and removed it. 

[The Futurist]

The writing of superhero movies and blockbusters is more nuanced and layered than 90% of the moralizing & basic tales that are filed under the serious drama category.

Edited January 28, 2019 by The Futurist

[TomCruiseTop]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

The writing of superhero movies and blockbusters is more nuanced and layered than 90% of the moralizing & basic tales that are filed under the serious drama category.

That wasn't Moore's point though, he was talking about its repugnant impact on our broader culture and the cause/effect nature of what a specific culture produces. 

 

I agree with him that it really is no surprise that we saw SH movies break records under Trump. Although pointing that out seems to be going against the narrative that SH movies are some kind of progressive vehicle, which comes across as distinctly Orwellian, given their history, character, and leads. 

[terrestrial]

1 minute ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Star Trek can't be conflated with Comics, Moore is right, and even more so Star Trek was 60s, surely within his time frame of a non-stagnant culture. 

It can be as in the POV of audience at its time it was also not considered respectable genre, and it also does and did similar additional 'anti-cliche' work packed into 'action' reaching people not interested in watching....

And it counts as the comics did at the same ~ time the same in the comics, see the creation of the X-Men and others.

Both pointed additional problems, including too much belief in science / strange goals of some of the money ppl behind the science (and governments) and so on. Both included leading females, POC and mixed relationships (even if not balanced in numbers, and definitive still filled with gender roles too).

 

I think as old as you are you will remember that too, also .... blabla not sure why especially you try to simplify this.

Stagnant culture...? We did have a time of interesting film making.... (since) then, but did it really change the general audience POVs?

Did it even reach them then? Change really things (see over reactions as HIV got detect, or the over the top reactions of so many nowadays?)

Why do ppl belief since decades e.g. in US states that the US government will 'invade' its own states only bcs they want to do a maneuver within the US?

That 'stagnant' is not a new problem (I am aware that you mean something else with that)

 

I think the problems of non-CBM filmmaking are not to see in CBMs, those at least help to secure the existence of cinemas. A symptom is never the reason

One other reason:

Too many movies getting made (dom and ww) in times less people even go to the cinemas, too much additional excitements (see e.g. games).

Take a look at the numbers of films per year

dom

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

ww

https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/#tab=year

 

Too difficult to get awareness for a seriously made indie or.... if too many fight for a release.

 

And/or too specialised in the chosen theme or....

Too many lost the feel / contact to the 'normal' people's POVs

 

Also how many ppl are aware about the growing film markets in other countries?

(Hollywood is not #1 in amount for some years, in 2015 it was #3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_industries_by_number_of_film_productions

 

money wise it is still #1, but take a look at the % of local movies and how that is changing in other countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_markets_by_box_office_revenue

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_markets_by_number_of_box_office_admissions

 

Or why it is important to deliver material contrasting to the TV movies?

Including having to fight / to establish some base.... against so many local movies

(Wandering Earth see China sub-forum is what will probably take away some money from my circle of friends out of the US made films to watch in a cinema 'budget' as an example)

 

 

General:

No one is 100% right, that includes Moore.

No situation is the same as another one

too extreme generalism, making something else to a 100% bad or good means closing its own awareness / abilities / chances to see (part of) the big picture and is to me a sign of either fanaticism or 'blindness', a standstill of development chances

[TomCruiseTop]

25 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

It can be as in the POV of audience at its time it was also not considered respectable genre, and it also does and did similar additional 'anti-cliche' work packed into 'action' reaching people not interested in watching....

And it counts as the comics did at the same ~ time the same in the comics, see the creation of the X-Men and others.

Both pointed additional problems, including too much belief in science / strange goals of some of the money ppl behind the science (and governments) and so on. Both included leading females, POC and mixed relationships (even if not balanced in numbers, and definitive still filled with gender roles too).

 

I think as old as you are you will remember that too, also .... blabla not sure why especially you try to simplify this.

Stagnant culture...? We did have a time of interesting film making.... (since) then, but did it really change the general audience POVs?

Did it even reach them then? Change really things (see over reactions as HIV got detect, or the over the top reactions of so many nowadays?)

Why do ppl belief since decades e.g. in US states that the US government will 'invade' its own states only bcs they want to do a maneuver within the US?

That 'stagnant' is not a new problem (I am aware that you mean something else with that)

 

I think the problems of non-CBM filmmaking are not to see in CBMs, those at least help to secure the existence of cinemas. A symptom is never the reason

One other reason:

Too many movies getting made (dom and ww) in times less people even go to the cinemas, too much additional excitements (see e.g. games).

Take a look at the numbers of films per year

dom

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

ww

https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/#tab=year

 

Too difficult to get awareness for a seriously made indie or.... if too many fight for a release.

 

And/or too specialised in the chosen theme or....

Too many lost the feel / contact to the 'normal' people's POVs

 

Also how many ppl are aware about the growing film markets in other countries?

(Hollywood is not #1 in amount for some years, in 2015 it was #3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_industries_by_number_of_film_productions

 

money wise it is still #1, but take a look at the % of local movies and how that is changing in other countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_markets_by_box_office_revenue

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Largest_markets_by_number_of_box_office_admissions

 

Or why it is important to deliver material contrasting to the TV movies?

Including having to fight / to establish some base.... against so many local movies

(Wandering Earth see China sub-forum is what will probably take away some money from my circle of friends out of the US made films to watch in a cinema 'budget' as an example)

 

 

General:

No one is 100% right, that includes Moore.

No situation is the same as another one

too extreme generalism, making something else to a 100% bad or good means closing its own awareness / abilities / chances to see (part of) the big picture and is to me a sign of either fanaticism or 'blindness', a standstill of development chances

I broadly agree with most of your points, I think the thing that you are dodging is what Moore's key argument is around the political undertones of these movies - of course X-Men is a stand out, but they are a small eddy, against a river of what Moore is pointing out. 

 

I mean come on, it's a group of vigilantes lead by a man whose name is Captain America, how one can't see his point around the political implications of these movies is blatant, no? 

[terrestrial]

4 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I broadly agree with most of your points, I think the thing that you are dodging is what Moore's key argument is around the political undertones of these movies - of course X-Men is a stand out, but they are a small eddy, against a river of what Moore is pointing out. 

 

I mean come on, it's a group of vigilantes lead by a man whose name is Captain America, how one can't see his point around the political implications of these movies is blatant, no? 

 

That is was CA and not e.g. IM? In my POV the basis for that as laid out in the earlier movies (phase 1) I do not focus on the name of a character for that, and on the way older materials. Based on the rights for which characters they could use at that time, the established characteristics.... Who else to lead that reaction with Winter Soldier also involved?

 

Political implications.... I think how to interpret the movies (all movie, not only MCU) is varying a lot on the background of the one watching it. Including country of origin, age, gender,.... and the times/date when to review it again.

I also think the MCU 'thinks' way more in international terms than Moore might assume

I am dodging it as I see his opinion as too.... 'too'

 

If Moore would have written comics that show equalism.... I might take some of it more seriously

He did the 1 woman per team thing wayyyy tooo much as an example (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Watchmen, even V for Vendetta)

Halo Jones.... not happy  with the starting age and some other details like... shopping trip, working as a stewardess in the first and second book = where is the 'ground-breaking' there? Lost Girls? More to list?

I read and watched enough I think to question if he really has 100% insight for why this or that means 'That'

 

[Napoleon]