Because those are usually dependent on the box-office performance of the film, and Wonder Woman will outgross Man of Steel(domestically, it already did).
Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Because those are usually dependent on the box-office performance of the film, and Wonder Woman will outgross Man of Steel(domestically, it already did).
Have you already forgotten "Batman v. Superman"? Cavill probably benefitted from that particular film by now.
Judging from some of her comments to Bruce Wayne, I got the feeling that Diana's attittude toward humanity was a bit heavy on the jaded side. Bruce came off as more hopeful than her.
Wow, I'm really shocked to see something that bad coming from Joss Whedon.
Alien Resurrection was also done by Whedon. People forget. Haha
Also, the articles that asserted Gadot was paid less than Cavil was fake news. The article (first reported by Elle) has been debunked. Business Insider has amended their article and Cosmopolitan has deleted their article. Huffingtonpost has yet to update or retract their article on the subject.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary-2017-6
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a10159521/superman-makes-more-money-than-wonder-woman/
Henry Cavil, Gal Gadot and Chris Evans were all paid $300,000 for their debut solo films.
Last edited:
What people get paid really shouldn't even be our business. We're not there when contracts are signed, that should be between employer and employee.
As someone who considers Buffy Season 6 and Angel Season 5 are their favorite seasons of those respective shows, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Plus, he was still doing great work after those shows, like when he made Firefly and Serenity.
Neo-Confederate Apologia just isn't my cup of tea.
Which he wrote extremely little of.
It doesn't sound like anyone's, good thing whatever that is doesn't appear in Buffy or Angel. If you're talking about some kind of Pro-Confederacy (like the US Civil War Confederacy), I'm calling BS. Besides that, I don't know what you could mean and I don't really care to be quite honest. The only really bad thing about the late Buffy seasons is those terrible "nerd" villains. I mean, there is also a bad episode or two, but Buffy Season 6 and Seven are both much, much better then Season 2 or 5, and Angel Season 5 is a big improvement over 4, which I consider the worst season of Angel.
He's talking about Firefly, but calling it "Neo-Confederate Apologia" misses the entire point of the series and is far too simplistic a "generalization".
I believe you misunderstood the film. Steve's motives are not about trying to be like Bucky; in fact, he's willing to go to war as a skinny man, because of what's truly driving him. Aside from what Steve says repeatedly, during Erskine's "drink" scene, he lays out why Steve is the best candidate for the project, which has nothing to do with hero worship of his best friend, or any other ego-driven behavior at all. Such behavior would disqualify him, as it would be seen as selfish and living for self, instead of others. Significant character building.
There was a period where Diana did not know what her purpose was, and once she was made aware of it, she--like Steve Rogers (both young, and inexperienced) seeks to enter the war as a way of stopping it with others doubting her potential to be effective. How did you miss that?
Last edited:
Oh, wow, that is ridiculous. I didn't even know that was what was being talked about. Yeah, you could make some comparisons like that, but the browncoats weren't fighting for things like slavery, and the Alliance were not good guys. They were more like the Rebel Alliance, just with southern-ish accents for some of them.
The conflict in Firefly was basically nothing like the US Civil War, except that a group of people wanted to stop being ruled by another group. But, that's what the colonists wanted in the American Revolutionary war, and I'm sure hundreds of other real wars have been fought to achieve similar things.
Are you Jenkins' PR department? No one should be unaware that films are not made in isolation. Why some have this pathological resentment of Snyder--the man who effectively carried and shaped DC's first film universe--is something for others to analyze...or...
Perhaps your knee-jerk fantasy that there's some sexism at work for accurately recognizing and giving Snyder his due credit (considering his position in the DC films) is more about what you're looking for, than reality.
There's always Super Friends reruns.
You're "into photography" but for some reason, you do not understand why London, and every location to follow were purposely "little too blue". (as you described it). The darker tone and general lack of color served the story. Its darker for a reason--one used in endless films. Unless one expected...
I thought this was a Wonder Woman thread! And I loved that movie!
It is, and it is inseparable from the rest of the DC film universe.
This is essentially Post-Civil War Confederate apologia in a nutshell: that the decent and honest agriculturally dependent landowning/independent minded South was victimized by the technological/urban/more ruthless/barbaric North (aka Federal Government). That it wasn't about slavery, but about states' rights or rather the big government interfering in the rights of the little guy.
And no one is. Everybody is aware of Snyder's involvement in the film among other people. I just don't see why you had to bring that up when people were praising Jenkins. Why does it bother you that people give her most of the credit considering she fucking directed it?
Do you also post in other movie threads making sure people don't just praise the director yelling: "WILL YOU PLEASE CREDIT PRODUCER #4 AND STORY DUDE #3, TOO!!!!"? (which Snyder was on this movie)
We all know it's not just one single person who makes a movie. You'll excuse if people still mostly credit a few people and when we're praising the director, that is perfectly fine. I've honestly never seen this when it came to discussing other movies. I'm sure the director's gender is totally unrelated to that fact, right?
Pathological.
Aren't we being a being a bit dramatic with that wording? 
I'm sure there are some things he does well. If he gave valuable input into making Wonder Woman, that's cool. Maybe that is something he's good at.
At the same time I've seen enough of his movies to see the ever-present flaws in his filmmaking so I know what he isn't good at. But again, this thread isn't about him.
Darker isn't the same as desaturated. And there was no general lack of color in Wonder Woman. Both Wonder Woman and Snyder's film made heavy use of color grading but the choices were a little different, as I have already explained when I mentioned how skin tones (and thus orange tones) were treated and the rich browns were used.
Plenty of people seem to disagree with you there, I guess you'll just have to live with it. There are some similarities, sure. But there also plenty of differences in look, mood, themes, storytelling quality, characterization and more.
There's nothing wrong with giving Jenkins the credit she deserves for directing the film; the problem is that people are trying to do so while simultaneously trying to downplay just how much, by her own admission, her direction was directly influenced, shaped, and guided by Snyder.
Having just rewatched BvS, I can see how they had to work hand-in-hand to integrate scenes, character traits, music and so on. It was well done. Snyder did his bit and, and this is crucial, Jenkins did her bit, she's a good director. And I believe TREK_GOD_1 is underrating what she's done here.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
