• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Wonder Woman (2017)

grendelsbayne said:
Again, I'm not advocating the idea, just talking about my impression of what the movie studios at the time seemed to be thinking.
Click to expand...

I never said you were advocating it -- just expressing my general disapproval of studios and businesses that have that mentality, and of the inferior works of entertainment that result from the attitude.
 
Nyotarules said:
Hope to see it next Thursday, so Pine is going to be busy doing this instead of Star Trek?
Click to expand...

Nope. He's already done more than a dozen different movies in between his three Trek installments, most notably Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit and Into the Woods. So it's not like they monopolize his time. I won't mention any spoilers about Steve Trevor's potential future in the series, but there's no reason an actor can't be a regular in a couple of different franchises at a time -- like when Harrison Ford was playing Han Solo and Indiana Jones at the same time, say.
 
Watching Diana engage in her illusions about the war and Ares' role in it made me realize how illusional human beings can be.
 
Christopher said:
Nope. He's already done more than a dozen different movies in between his three Trek installments, most notably Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit and Into the Woods. So it's not like they monopolize his time. I won't mention any spoilers about Steve Trevor's potential future in the series, but there's no reason an actor can't be a regular in a couple of different franchises at a time -- like when Harrison Ford was playing Han Solo and Indiana Jones at the same time, say.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all the actors who have been doing both full time lead roles on TV and movies at the same time, like Michael J. Fox in the Back to the Future movie and Family Ties, and a bunch of others I'm blanking on now. If they can handle that, I think other actors can probably handle two movie series at the same time.
 
JD said:
Not to mention all the actors who have been doing both full time lead roles on TV and movies at the same time, like Michael J. Fox in the Back to the Future movie and Family Ties, and a bunch of others I'm blanking on now. If they can handle that, I think other actors can probably handle two movie series at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It may take 2-3 years overall to make a movie, but the actual filming portion of that is only a few months. So there's plenty of time between movies in a series for actors to do other movies or TV projects. Indeed, they need to if they want to stay continuously employed.
 
Turtletrekker said:
Well, let's be honest, Marvel doesn't have any female solo heroes nearly as iconic or as marketable as Wonder Woman.
Click to expand...

Marvel doesn't have (m)any male heroes as iconic as Wonder Woman either, it didn't stop them from making Ant-Man... besides, the whole issue of "iconic" went out the window in 2008 when Iron Man trounced the much more iconic and recognizable Hulk at the box office.
 
But what about "marketable"? Even Guardians and Ant-man wouldn't have been that marketable if Marvel hadn't already had a string of successes under their belt.

And Spider-Man is easily as iconic as Wonder Woman. Or any other superhero.
 
dodge said:
Marvel doesn't have (m)any male heroes as iconic as Wonder Woman either, it didn't stop them from making Ant-Man... besides, the whole issue of "iconic" went out the window in 2008 when Iron Man trounced the much more iconic and recognizable Hulk at the box office.
Click to expand...
Yep. At this point there is not correlation between how iconic a character is and his success at the box office.
 
Skipper said:
I don't know if this question need a poll, but in this forum users' opinion, what is the best female super-hero movie excluding Wonder Woman..? I kinda liked Supergirl (1984)... :shrug:
Click to expand...
Joe Wright's Hanna is about a kind of super-soldier, and The Fifth Element's Leeloo is certainly super-powered, as is Lucy. And Bella in the Twilight series has the super-power of making people fall madly in love with her for no reason. And if the Tomb Raider movies had had a Marvel or DC logo, surely they would have counted. Is the Ripley clone in Alien: Resurrection a superhero? What about the Resident Evil movies, or Aeon Flux, or Ultraviolet? If Thor is a superhero, despite not wearing an unusual costume (for his race and station), is Rey? Etc.

Eh, I'll just go with Hanna. Far from a perfect movie, but a decent one.
 
Turtletrekker said:
And Spider-Man is easily as iconic as Wonder Woman. Or any other superhero.
Click to expand...

True, but he's Sony's.

And that's another instance where MCU erred on the side of penis.
They could have done a "teenage superhero looks up to an Avenger mentor" type story with Kamala Khan and Carol Danvers, instead they rather cut a deal with Sony where they make no money of the solo Spider-Man movies rather than give a girl a chance... :shrug:
 
^ Sure, but what's a "superhero movie"? Someone who patrols and protects a city in a costume? That excludes both of the Hulk movies. Someone super-powered? Adios, Punisher. Heck, apart from Spider-Man, none of the MCU movie heroes are superheroes in the classic Superman/Batman superpowered urban cops sense. If Doctor Strange is a superhero, is Harry Potter? Are the Guardians of the Galaxy superheroes? Etc.
 
grendelsbayne said:
Except that Marvel's characters were at the mercy of other movie studios choosing to do them. The relevant fact is not that DC has had 40 years - both Marvel and DC have had longer than that, theoretically. The relevant fact is that WB has had 40 years and Marvel Studios has had less than 10.

But it is also true that WB 40 years ago is hardly the same as WB today. One could argue that we should just compare the MCU to the DCEU, but that of course ignores some very recent and arguably relevant data points about the modern WB for no other reason than because Marvel started later. A fairer comparison would perhaps be Marvel Studios vs. WB since ~2000 when the superhero craze started. By that standard, you could argue a female character was their very first movie, except that they completely threw out the character and just stole the name for a totally unrelated movie. After that it still took them 10+ movies and almost fifteen years to get Wonder Woman made. Marvel, for comparison, will have made Captain Marvel (a far less well known character) at a little more than twice as many movies but still a few years less. Which basically boils down to both studios have a poor record and need to step it up. Which they both seem to be trying to do, theoretically, and DC is probably in a stronger position to do thanks to characters like Batgirl, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Supergirl, etc; but I'll hand out accolades when they (either studio) start making good female led movies on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, that using the more modern movies; i.e. new universes is more apples to apple comparison. It is true, both companies have a poor record when it comes to creating solo Superheroine films.
 
grendelsbayne said:
And it's still been 12 years since DC started taking superheros 'seriously' with Batman Begins, yet they chose to take chances on Jonah Hex and Constantine while pushing the third member of the DC trinity back again and again.
Click to expand...
And DC (unlike Marvel) simply didn't have control of their movie franchises in that period. It's still debatable now if they have the type of control Marvel had before Feige started reporting to Disney after AoU. To give you some sense of this, the top position of President of DC was at the time being filled by its former publisher and seen largely as a caretaker role focusing on the comics and non-movie aspects before Diane Nelson or the promotion of Johns as CCO.
 
Why did Fox News try to spin "wonder woman is not American enough" in one of their headlines? She's created by Americans wasn't she?
 
DigificWriter said:
Because Faux News' anchors are alt-right idiots whose collective brain mass wouldn't fill a thimble.
Click to expand...

ikr..

Just I caught that headline in another forum and mentioned it in another thread. The movie is fine, it's a great movie and fun.

If you were going to worry about that kind of stuff then Superman is an immigrant too.
 
Tetragrammaton Invictus said:
Why did Fox News try to spin "wonder woman is not American enough" in one of their headlines? She's created by Americans wasn't she?
Click to expand...
They think there's a war on Christmas because people say Happy Holidays. I'm of the opinion that its viewers are obsessed with and driven by the status quo of society and the world changing and feeling they're being left behind and the network preys on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top