Wonder Woman movie {Merged Threads} (film, screen, best, stars)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another thing to consider: 50 years ago, no movies were selling 3 million tickets in China or India. The fact that movies from 30+ years ago are still even contenders against today's movies is pretty impressive.
Movies 30-50 years ago weren't competing with 300+ cable channels, the Internet, and movie piracy. If you wanted to go see Gone with the Wind of JAWS or Rocky you actually had to go to the movie and buy a ticket. Those days are gone forever.
So in the end, comparing ticket sales or profits to determine a successful movie is fun but rather meaningless in the end. Was it a good movie? Were you moved by it? Are you eager to see it again? Will people still be watching this movie thirty years from now and enjoying it? If so, then it is a successful movie. Outside of the studio shareholders meeting, who cares how much money it made?
That's why I think movies like The Matrix, The Fast and the Furious flicks, Batman vs. Superman, Suicide Squad, the Transformers flicks, Gladiator, Road House, and Tim Burton's last ten movies may be popular for a while and turn an impressive profit. But thirty years from now they will be largely forgotten.
But fifty years from now, I'm pretty sure people are still going to be watching The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, STAR WARS, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, Halloween, Goodfellas, Rocky, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and JAWS (not matter how fake the shark looks).
Movies 30-50 years ago weren't competing with 300+ cable channels, the Internet, and movie piracy. If you wanted to go see Gone with the Wind of JAWS or Rocky you actually had to go to the movie and buy a ticket. Those days are gone forever.
So in the end, comparing ticket sales or profits to determine a successful movie is fun but rather meaningless in the end. Was it a good movie? Were you moved by it? Are you eager to see it again? Will people still be watching this movie thirty years from now and enjoying it? If so, then it is a successful movie. Outside of the studio shareholders meeting, who cares how much money it made?
That's why I think movies like The Matrix, The Fast and the Furious flicks, Batman vs. Superman, Suicide Squad, the Transformers flicks, Gladiator, Road House, and Tim Burton's last ten movies may be popular for a while and turn an impressive profit. But thirty years from now they will be largely forgotten.
But fifty years from now, I'm pretty sure people are still going to be watching The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, STAR WARS, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, Halloween, Goodfellas, Rocky, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and JAWS (not matter how fake the shark looks).
I think I'd include the original Matrix in that list.
Also Wonder Woman.
There are some smaller films that ought to be there but, alas, may not be, such as "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Searching for Bobby Fisher," and "The Princess Bride."
I think I'd include the original Matrix in that list.
All style, no substance. And even the style was ripped off from better movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Also Wonder Woman.
Maybe. Time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
There are some smaller films that ought to be there but, alas, may not be, such as "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Searching for Bobby Fisher," and "The Princess Bride."
Agreed. All great movies.
And The Princess Bride is a great example for this discussion. Did you know it was a box office flop? It totally tanked in its theatrical run. So by the measure that most people judge a movie "successful" these days, The Princess Bride was a failure. But we know otherwise. Same thing with Blade Runner. They are now rightly considered classics.
James Cameron, who gave us some of the best onscreen female heroes of all time in Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor, says Wonder Woman is a "step backward" for women on film:
“All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided. She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing! I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”
Cameron was just being an ass. WW trod into areas played until now by male super-heroes, and did so well. That messes with the standard shortcut iconography used in film, just as much as if she had worn a black hat and rode a black horse. If there is a "misguided" aspect, it is the continuing glorification of warrior culture that pervades action film, as opposed to "smart" heroes, like in "Jumping Jack Flash" (which did have problems, but showed that violence wasn't always needed to entertain the testosterone driven teens).
Cameron was just being an ass. WW trod into areas played until now by male super-heroes, and did so well. That messes with the standard shortcut iconography used in film, just as much as if she had worn a black hat and rode a black horse.
I dunno. I think both Cameron and Jenkins are making fair points.
If anyone thinks that a big part of the reason WW was such a huge hit is because Gal Gadot is stunningly gorgeous, I have a bridge to sell you. Just scroll back through this discussion and have a look at some of the photos others have posted of Gadot. Sex appeal was part of this movie's success, no doubt. So is that a victory for sisterhood? I don't think so. Cameron's got a point.
But Jenkins's response is also correct. Can beautiful women not also be strong and decisive and heroic? Must feminism exterminate all appreciation of beauty to remain pure? Must all feminist heroes be dark and gritty and damaged? Nope.
So I think they're both making valid points. Just please don't insist on making either The Point.
I dunno. I think both Cameron and Jenkins are making fair points.
If anyone thinks that a big part of the reason WW was such a huge hit is because Gal Gadot is stunningly gorgeous, I have a bridge to sell you. Just scroll back through this discussion and have a look at some of the photos others have posted of Gadot. Sex appeal was part of this movie's success, no doubt. So is that a victory for sisterhood? I don't think so. Cameron's got a point.
But Jenkins's response is also correct. Can beautiful women not also be strong and decisive and heroic? Must feminism exterminate all appreciation of beauty to remain pure? Must all feminist heroes be dark and gritty and damaged? Nope.
So I think they're both making valid points. Just please don't insist on making either The Point.
No, Cameron does not have a point, because he also directed Avatar and he knows Jenkins also directed "Monster."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
