Page 35 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 819
  1. #511
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    DCEU: Wonder Woman beats Superman and Batman. Gets far better review.
    X-Men: DotFP was female lead while some criticized Mystique for being too centered, they want Kitty Pryde to be in the center of the movie.

    There are also a lot of female action standalone movies that makes good money or being well received at the same time. The old Charlie's Angel was a success overall.

    BIG names like Arnold, Stallone or Nicolas Cage get pinned more harshly than most of the female action stars when their movies were awful.
    Last edited by Slowpokeking; 02-21-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  2. #512
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slowpokeking View Post
    Not really, a lot of female action movies got praise and success in box office. Wonder Woman is the biggest hit of DCEU for a while and received good review as well. A lot of the men's action flick also get pinned or even flop at box office. Even in the big names of Superman and Batman, or even plus together.

    As long as you pick the right cast and focus on making a good movie, it's gonna succeed most of the time.
    I would argue that most film makers intend to make a good film, first and foremost. And we're not necessarily talking about box office succes but the comments made by fans.

    And again, nobody is saying it happens literally all the time so citing examples doesn't really refute the idea. And those films by rnold, Stallone, etc don't get people complaining about them being Gary Stus for being hypercompetent. They get criticized for the actual action and or plot/story elements. That's the difference.

  3. #513
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    I would argue that most film makers intend to make a good film, first and foremost. And we're not necessarily talking about box office succes but the comments made by fans.

    And again, nobody is saying it happens literally all the time so citing examples doesn't really refute the idea. And those films by rnold, Stallone, etc don't get people complaining about them being Gary Stus for being hypercompetent. They get criticized for the actual action and or plot/story elements. That's the difference.
    Some of them think the first priority is to teach ppl lecture or put too much their politic stuff in it.


    I'm sorry but doesn't plot/story and actual action make a large chunk of the character? A big part of Mary Sue/Gary Stus is that they receive too much love from the plot armor and don't face much trouble. Other than that, they also get much more vicious comments for their bad movies, I'm not sure any of the female stars would like it at all.

  4. #514
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slowpokeking View Post
    Some of them think the first priority is to teach ppl lecture or put too much their politic stuff in it.


    I'm sorry but doesn't plot/story and actual action make a large chunk of the character? A big part of Mary Sue/Gary Stus is that they receive too much love from the plot armor and don't face much trouble. Other than that, they also get much more vicious comments for their bad movies, I'm not sure any of the female stars would like it at all.
    You have no way of knowing what their thought process is when making these films, though.

    And ALL action heroes have plot armor. That's part of what makes them action heroes to begin with o that's not a very valid complaint, imo. Second, the point that I think you're intentionally missing is that all the criticism aren't equal. Again, Stallone and the others aren't criticized for having plot armor or being invincible, whereas female characters do.

  5. #515
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    You have no way of knowing what their thought process is when making these films, though.

    And ALL action heroes have plot armor. That's part of what makes them action heroes to begin with o that's not a very valid complaint, imo. Second, the point that I think you're intentionally missing is that all the criticism aren't equal. Again, Stallone and the others aren't criticized for having plot armor or being invincible, whereas female characters do.
    We can see from their final project.

    Yes but there is a degree which you cannot exceed too much. All of their good movies show they are humans and have weak side. In T-2 T-800 was no match for T-1000.

    Of course it's not equal, but mainly not on gender. Because different individuals get different treatment, it applies on both men and women. I am no different.

    Like SW PT, Hayden's acting was not that bad, it was mostly Lucas' plot and dialog but he was attacked badly and won 2 golden raspberry. Portman's performance was not much better but because she is a bigger name and ppl don't care about Padme that much, she didn't receive much bad comments. And most of the criticism of the character was against the script. Is it fair? No.
    Last edited by Slowpokeking; 02-21-2020 at 01:40 PM.

  6. #516
    The King Fears NO ONE! Triniking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    The point isn't that males don't get criticized, ever. The point is that males don't get criticized like female action stars for doing the same thing.
    Most of the time a movie is bad the blame is dumped on the director. Both 'Batman and Robin' and 'Catwoman' were bad but the blame went on the directors rather than Clooney and Berry.
    "Cable was right!"

  7. #517
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triniking1234 View Post
    Most of the time a movie is bad the blame is dumped on the director. Both 'Batman and Robin' and 'Catwoman' were bad but the blame went on the directors rather than Clooney and Berry.
    Unless if the actor is the director/producer or he/she was miscast, I did not blame Robbie a bit as the actor.

  8. #518
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,203

    Arrow

    It was a fun little mindlessly movie but also a directionless mess, IMHO.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  9. #519
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triniking1234 View Post
    Most of the time a movie is bad the blame is dumped on the director. Both 'Batman and Robin' and 'Catwoman' were bad but the blame went on the directors rather than Clooney and Berry.
    Mainly because we know they can act. Berry was just coming off an Oscar.

    Christensen got blamed mainly because we didn't know he could act. It looked like they cast a pretty boy model and sent him off to do a movie. I don't know if it was necessarily gender related.

    If Catwoman was Halle Berry's first ever movie performance, it's doubtful she would ever seen a big role again.

  10. #520
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by titanfan View Post
    Mainly because we know they can act. Berry was just coming off an Oscar.

    Christensen got blamed mainly because we didn't know he could act. It looked like they cast a pretty boy model and sent him off to do a movie. I don't know if it was necessarily gender related.

    If Catwoman was Halle Berry's first ever movie performance, it's doubtful she would ever seen a big role again.
    Yeah it's not, and some fans are too crazy about Anakin's character. That's my point.

    Actually Hayden had some good acting movies, just not mainstream.

    I think it depends on the failure, if it's not about acting/cast, I don't think the actor should be the one to blame.

    And nobody can be fair to everyone. Like if this movie has Ralph Fiennes instead of Ewan or Melanie Laurent/Saoirse Ronan/Diane Kruger, I would not be that pissed at it, being honest here.
    Last edited by Slowpokeking; 02-21-2020 at 02:00 PM.

  11. #521
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    I agree with both you and Mids on CM's power levels. Some speculated she was absorbing the stones in Endgame (she wasn't), which would have worked much better.
    I'm hoping we get a Rogue appearance in CM2 to absorb some of that power off. I'm 100% fine with her being the most powerful hero, but they made her so far passed everyone else. If she woulda came across Thanos and his army before he got the stones. She coulda single handled wiped the floor with them... easily. I dont like that. Also now the villains in her movies are gonna need to be more powerful then Thanos or they are gonna have to create a "Kryptonite" for her.

    But I dont think shes was a mary sue. She was basicaly a living Infinty stone. Her being that powerful made sense but like Superman or Quicksilver in the Xmen movies.. it gonna create problems. Superman effortlessly beat a bad guy the entire Justice league was struggling with. Quicksilver was so OP in DOFP, but they had an out that hes not very durable . So Apoc was able to trip him and make him break his ankle. But except for that one instance we never saw Apoc show he had that kinda reflexes. Iono with good writing you can get around it but it would be alot easier to just make Carol a bit stronger then Thor. Not all stronger then Thanos a guy who can mop the floor with most the heroes in the MCU at once.

  12. #522
    Incredible Member Slowpokeking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    I'm hoping we get a Rogue appearance in CM2 to absorb some of that power off. I'm 100% fine with her being the most powerful hero, but they made her so far passed everyone else. If she woulda came across Thanos and his army before he got the stones. She coulda single handled wiped the floor with them... easily. I dont like that. Also now the villains in her movies are gonna need to be more powerful then Thanos or they are gonna have to create a "Kryptonite" for her.

    But I dont think shes was a mary sue. She was basicaly a living Infinty stone. Her being that powerful made sense but like Superman or Quicksilver in the Xmen movies.. it gonna create problems. Superman effortlessly beat a bad guy the entire Justice league was struggling with. Quicksilver was so OP in DOFP, but they had an out that hes not very durable . So Apoc was able to trip him and make him break his ankle. But except for that one instance we never saw Apoc show he had that kinda reflexes. Iono with good writing you can get around it but it would be alot easier to just make Carol a bit stronger then Thor. Not all stronger then Thanos a guy who can mop the floor with most the heroes in the MCU at once.
    Superman did have trouble in MOS/BVS. As for JL, I have no problem of him beating Steppen Wolf easily, but he should be given some hard task to do and Steppen Wolf shouldn't be the main villain.

    I don't have much problem with CM in Endgame, it's mostly about her solo movie, where the Kree Empire was too weak as the villains, both power and characterization.

  13. #523
    Astonishing Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    It was a fun little mindlessly movie but also a directionless mess, IMHO.
    Only because you couldn't see the direction it was going doesn't mean it wasn't going anywhere.

    It included no less than three character arcs. It said something about toxic masculinity—not anything particularly deep or new—but still something. And it showed a group of people joining together to help a child, and in so doing manages to take charge of their own lives.
    «Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])

  14. #524
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    Only because you couldn't see the direction it was going doesn't mean it wasn't going anywhere.

    It included no less than three character arcs. It said something about toxic masculinity—not anything particularly deep or new—but still something. And it showed a group of people joining together to help a child, and in so doing manages to take charge of their own lives.
    It seemed to be all over the place to me. And many of the characters weren't true to the source material.

    *Yawn* "toxic masculinity" narratives are so boring and predictable. This trope reminds me of anti-consumerism movies in the 1980s' & the 1990s' (very few of which were objectively good or had anything new to say).
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  15. #525
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    It seemed to be all over the place to me. And many of the characters weren't true to the source material.

    *Yawn* "toxic masculinity" narratives are so boring and predictable. This trope reminds me of anti-consumerism movies in the 1980s' & the 1990s' (very few of which were objectively good or had anything new to say).
    The movie aligns with Harley's chaotic and disorganized personality which is what I think the director was going for. If you view the movie from the lens of it matching the lead character's personality, then you might have a different perspective on the quality, but it's also a matter of personal preference.

    I don't see why anyone uses the excuse of a movie not being like the source material these days. No movie has been like the source material over the last decade! The best way to view cbm movies is as an else world story, some parts of the story and/or character are similar to the comics and some aspects are completely different. It's fine if you don't like some changes and it's fine if you do however it's an unfair standard to put on some movies and not on others.

    Most people like the MCU films and none of the films are exactly like the comics otherwise it would be too predictable and boring additionally the characters personalities were even changed to make them more marketable and cohesive to the bigger storyline.

    Example, I like Tobey's Peter Parker more than Holland's. I don't think Holland's iteration is close to the comic portrayal at all but I don't dislike the films because of it, in fact because of how the MCU is tonally built I understand that Tobey's iteration wouldn't fit into it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •