Punisher: Warzone is another flop
- Thread starter Luminus
- Start date
Of course he is. It's been a selling point of the character since the beginning. The Nolan version is much more imperfect then his counter part in the comics, I'll grant you. It was a humane act on his part to do that, because the character had been a fanboy powertrip wetdream for so long. But the comics version - especially the Miller version - is pretty much perfect in every way. He knows everything. He's the best at everything. He's always right. He's never wrong. Even Superman is out of his league when he goes against him. Because call me crazy, but I find the concept of a photogenic alien Jesus with superpowers saving people just for the sake of being good more believable then a normal human being who is so good at everything and anything that he's unbeatable in any way. Even God would lose to Batman with the way he's written.
It one thing to be perfect. It's another to be exceptionally good at what you do, which is what Frank is. Frank is not perfect at what he does, because no one is. He is however, the best at it. He makes mistakes and screws up the recon sometimes because he might have a lapse of judgment and get bored or careless. He sucks at hand to hand fighting, and he admits it. He's too big and slow and lumbering for it. Which is why he always tries to make sure to finish the enemy off before they get on him. "If you're too close to shoot, you're too close period."
Mine as well. An imperfect Batman is an interesting Batman. Although I would point out that these were early in his career and he was still a rookie. Something like that was a big deal, because Batman is known for never, ever making mistakes.
Which is all well and good if detective work and hand to hand combat is what you are going for.
But Frank's Special Forces training was more then just being able to fight. Frank was a Captain in Marine Recon in Vietnam. Had Delta Force been around at the time, there is little doubt he would have been accepted into it. He also did a lot of work for the CIA. The VC and NVA enemies he fought in Nam were far more ruthless and far more cunning then any Gotham City Criminal, save for The Joker. He was their top operative in the war. His Marine Recon squad was responsible for more top NVA assassinations then anyone else. He excelled at Sniper School. Not even ninja's could vanish into their surroundings like he could. Living in the jungle(both urban and forest) isolated, stalking his enemy, living on basic supplies and with a singular purpose is something he just doesn't excel at, it's how he defines his existence.
I'm not saying The Punisher is better then Batman. I'm just saying I think Frank is far more dangerous.
A "fanboy powetrip wetdream"? What the friggin' hell?! The joy of the Batman is that he's not always prepared. Was he prepared when Bane broke him in Knightfall? Or when Gotham City became a No Man's Land? Was he able to magically repair himself after that? Was he prepared when Hush cut his zipline and he fell to his (near) death in Hush? Was he prepared when he became seriously injured after his first night out in Batman: Year One? Was he emotionally prepared when Harvey Dent became Two-Face in The Long Halloween?
The answer is no. Batman is not always prepared. To say that he is, is like saying The Punisher is always prepared. Because whenever he faces off an enemy, he kills them, right? So he must be always prepared, going by your logic. I don't get how Batman has been a "fanboy powetrip wetdream", though, and quite frankly I'm a bit insulted. I'm not going around calling The Punisher a one-dimensional, one-emotion cold-hearted fucktard now am I?
Lay off. That was unnecessary, trite and just outright mean for anyone who enjoys and respects Batman and the mythology.
Batman is not perfect in every way. The fact that he's incredibly flawed and imperfect is what makes him so compelling in the first place. I mean, in The Long Halloween, he thought the Holiday killer was Dent. He was partially right, more wrong. He felt quite guilty over that for quite some time. He even suspected him again in Dark Victory. And Batman does not know everything. Case in point, to reference Dark Victory again, it took the assistance of Dick Grayson for him to uncover the identity of the Hang-Man Killer. He realized he had to seek help (thanks to Alfred) because he was becoming so dependent on himself and his technology and his super-computers that he was ignoring everything and everyone else in his life, including Gordon, Alfred and those who care about him the most. So no, he's not never wrong. You have it completely wrong and you clearly don't even understand an iota of what makes Batman tick.
Well, Superman also has kryptonite. Kind of difficult to be this omnipotent "photogenic alien Jesus with superpowers" when you have ohhhh, one big thing that will always take you down.
Uhh, Batman is not unbeatable. He loses all the time. Even when he "wins", like by putting The Joker behind bars, he becomes free again. The whole point of Batman is that he will never be satisfied, he will never "win". He will keep on doing this -- risking his life to save the people of Gotham -- every night because his quest is ongoing, it doesn't stop, it never will. And I'm failing to see this whole ideology of "God would lose to Batman". Give me specific examples, please.
... examples? ...
Of course The Punisher is more dangerous. He kills people. Batman does not. Batman has a moral code. The Punisher does not.
You missed my point. The fanbase wasn't it. The quality of the story was the point.
I've never read a thought like this and found if very insightful. I just have to know if this is an original thought with you or if its a commentary you've read before. If so, kudos from me Thrall, if not I still give you kudos for sharing. I think the commentary is very apropos.
As for the movie its tracking poorly at the moment. Which frankly(no pun) isn't surprising since its marketing has been minimal. The current tracking is for this to have a $7-10m opening and may not even open in the top 5. Bolt(which really is good) or 4XMAS is expected to be #1&2 this weekend.
Punisher War Zone is the only wide release, 2400+ screens and still may do poorly.
Two quick points:
1) Official press reviews are under embargo until Friday, opening day. That's why you can't find any reviews.
2) No promotion? Seemed to be promoted rather well during football on Sunday and at LEAST on ESPN this morning. Trailer was attached to Saw V and Max Payne, IIRC.
Looking forward to it on Saturday. Good mindless action, though I would have preferred Thomas Jane again...
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
Will be seeing Punisher - Warzone
I'll be seeing it also. I have Friday off and our theater is offering a midnight show. I may just do that...of course it may just be me in there if B.O. tracking is any indicator.
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
Who knows, the box office may surprise with this film
No, he did not:
I bolded the important few words that makes the distinction.
I got your point quite clearly, but you added Twilight in there so I addressed it.
Both Hulk stories sucked. It's like trying to compare two rotten apples. Which one is better? The answer is none, because it doesn't matter in that context.
1) That further justifies my claim that this film is going to suck.
2) When I go to work on the weekends, there is always a poster for the next upcoming movie. Guess who wasn't there this time? Incredible Hulk and Iron Man promotion was all over the place and let's not even talk about TDK promotion.
$11.25 is too much to pay for mindless action.
#1: I review professionally and get all sorts of press invites for early screenings. When a studio is worried about the performance of a movie (most horror, SAW), they do NOT have press screenings. Every other movie I've seen as a critic (Sweeney Todd, Twilight, Ghost Town, Milk, Transporter 3, W...) are all under embargo under the day of release. For everyone...web, TV, paper, radio. Even Roger Ebert.
Moreover, studios routinely do not allow reviews of high profile DVD's before a certain date, either. Example: many critics had copies of The Dark Knight well before they could post reviews last week. Does that mean the movie sucks? No. You're making a tenuous connection at the very least. I've just gone and proved you wrong.
#2: Iron Man budget-$140 million. Incredibly Hulk budget-$150 million. The Dark Knight budget-$185 million. All released by major studios (Paramount, Universal and Warner). Punisher Warzone budget-$35 million. Made by Lionsgate. They're doing all the promotion they can based on the money available.
Additionally, all those movies are PG-13, designed for a mass audience. Punisher MPAA rating? R. Lionsgate is targeting the audience they think will go see the movie: male, football/sports aficionado, action film fan. Makes perfect sense to me. Why spend the money on posters and promotion to people like you who then say spending X amount of money on a mindless action film is stupid? (BTW, weekday and weekend matinee prices are considerably lower, at least here in Detroit. $5 before noon on Saturday and Sunday...)
Sweeney Todd was unwatchable and the Transporter films are beyond silly and vomit-inducing. Twilight features vampires who don't function like vampires; therefore, it's a garbage movie to me, but great for chicks since it's really just a romance story based on a novel and we know how ridiculously silly romance novels are. Those other two movies you mentioned are not even on the radar. So, no, you have not proven me wrong.
More evidence the movie sucks. Low-budget films tend to suck. Are you going to deny this, too?
You're asking the wrong question and clearly they did as well. What you should have asked is: Why make a mindless-action movie? I've said it before and I'll say it again, change needs to come to Hollywood.
When the film flops to the tune of the Transporter – another male-targeted movie (and I dare you to deny that movie sucked) – then maybe you will learn. Experience at least tells me that the studios won't.
Huh? If the transporter was a flop, why have they just made a 3rd one?
The same reason they want to make a sequel to Ghost Rider. Let me get a feel for your mind: do you think the Fantastic Four movie was a flop?
EDIT: Let me rephrase the phrase "a flop" and use the word "crap" instead. Better?
Let's not get a feel for my mind and get straight to the point - you aren't use the word "flop" like the rest of us - which is budget/box office ratio, you are using it as to describe your subjective view of the quality of the film?
I liked Ray Stevenson a lot in Rome and I think he's a pretty good piece of casting in the title role. I love The Wire and I was pleased to see Dominic West land a high-profile role. But the trailer for this movie looked awful, even worse than the last two. In particular, the make-up job on West was hideous - like something from a Shumacher Batman movie crossed with the cheapo Red Skull make up from the bargain bin Captain America movies.
Punny was always just a comic version of Death Wish and all those silly revenge/ vigilante movies from the 1970s. They just gave him a sort of costume so he fitted into the Marvel universe. But on the big screen, there's nothing to distinguish him from those movies and their modern day direct-to-DVD successors, particularly when written and directed by the journeymen (or women) who have made the 3 Punisher movies to date.
Time to bury Mr Castle's cinematic career with a big skull on the grave, methinks.
Punny was always just a comic version of Death Wish and all those silly revenge/ vigilante movies from the 1970s. They just gave him a sort of costume so he fitted into the Marvel universe. But on the big screen, there's nothing to distinguish him from those movies and their modern day direct-to-DVD successors, particularly when written and directed by the journeymen (or women) who have made the 3 Punisher movies to date.
Time to bury Mr Castle's cinematic career with a big skull on the grave, methinks.
Joe nails it here.
FF:2 and Ghost Rider at the least underperformed(which is the word the rest of us would use) to studio expectations. Both made money in totality before DVD, cable/network rights etc.
I'd wager Transporter did as well.
So then you think Ghost Rider was a success. Thanks for clarifying your mindset.
Ghost Rider:
Budget: $75 million
Box Office: US – $115.80; international – $108.15
So, let me get this straight, according you and the "rest of you" as long as the film makes some money back, it isn't a flop? Is that how we're going to play it?
If that's the case, why bother criticizing a movie at all?
^^^^
Now you're switching gears. When you say "flop" the mindset is instantly going to be based on its budget to profit ratio regardless of how good the movie is creatively.
If you want to criticize a movie based on its creative merit, despite what success it has at the box office, then feel free.
Now you're switching gears. When you say "flop" the mindset is instantly going to be based on its budget to profit ratio regardless of how good the movie is creatively.
If you want to criticize a movie based on its creative merit, despite what success it has at the box office, then feel free.
Batman & Robin was released on June 20, 1997 in North America, earning $42,872,605 in its opening weekend,[19] making it the third-highest opening weekend of 1997.[20] However, the film rapidly declined with a 63% second week plunge.[21] Many observers based the second week drop on negative word of mouth. In addition, Batman & Robin faced early competition with Face/Off and Hercules.[1] Schumacher blamed it on yellow journalismHarry Knowles of started by Ain't It Cool News and other movie websites such as Dark Horizons.[22] The film went on to gross $107.3 million in North America and $130.9 million internationally, coming to a worldwide total of $238.2 million.[19] Warner Bros. declared Batman & Robin a financial success, but not on the scale they were hoping for.[1]
Source: Wikipedia
Damn, that Batman & Robin was such a GREAT film.
