Welcome to Thunderdome

So...Captain America with tits.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Thing+tits > Thing. It's practically axiomatic.

I didn't say it was bad.

I was the first one to like tits!

Early reviews are coming in and they're positive!

But keep in mind this was a surprise screening and only invited people attended. So yeah... If your studio has made critic bomb after critical bomb, you're probably not going to invite people you think will burn you.

By the way, same shit they did prior to BvS and SS.

Personally, I think it'll do well for them. A female lead in a superhero film is fresh. I think they'll grab a larger female audience and guys will gladly go watch it with them.

Leisher wrote: A female lead in a superhero film is fresh.

Yeah, Catwoman and Elektra did really well. If the film sucks, it sucks, female superhero or no.

Pre-teen girls want girl superheroes. 13+ girls want "The Longest Ride" with horses and dumb romance shit like that.

I hope they aren't banking on the pre-teen girl demographic seeing the movie several times.

Malcolm wrote: Yeah, Catwoman and Elektra did really well. If the film sucks, it sucks, female superhero or no.

Those movies were a thousand years ago, and really show how half-assed studios were about these films at the time. Compare Nolan's Batman to that era's Batman. Compare Marvel's Daredevil to Affleck's Daredevil.

GORDON wrote: Pre-teen girls want girl superheroes.

Truth.

GORDON wrote: 13+ girls want "The Longest Ride" with horses and dumb romance shit like that.

That's not really true anymore, and honestly, it's a dated stereotype. If you really think about it, society used to tell girls that's what they wanted. Now with all the empowerment, girls want what they want. We've had more than one babysitter that has shit on the idea of boyfriends because "they're not a true goal until after college".

Granted, there have always been women that prioritized their life before starting a family, but now girls are being told to do just that by more and more sources. Plus, superheroes are cool now. They're not just nerd stuff anymore. Comic stores have more female customers. Video games have a consumer base of 50% females.

And taking it even farther, those boy crazy girls adapt their interests to what the boys they're chasing like, and that's superheroes.

Yes, there will always be teenaged girls whose bodies scream at them to find romance and love because nature programmed them that way. I'm just pointing out that the tide is turning. Turning around the world too as women are gaining more equality everywhere.

They say women's bachelorette parties are now crazier than bachelor parties and the number of women who cheat has been climbing, while the number of men who cheating has been falling. Soon, we'll be here:


For fun, here's what Gordon would look like in this future...20 years ago:


With halfway decent reviews I really do think WW will do well. Not Suicide Squad well, but Ant-Man well? ($180 million) I mean if one of DC's "big three" can't beat a D-list Marvel character...

Besides that comparison, another thing to watch is how WW's box office compares to Captain Marvin's (Brie Larson who I can never unsee making out with Rafi). That's where we'll really see brand power, especially if WW tanks despite being good (if it is).

The tide may be turning, but it aint turned, an it wont be turned in time for teen girls to save Wonder Woman, if that's what it comes down to.

We shall see. WW's box office alone won't tell the whole story though. We need to see Captain Marvel's too.

Are you just poo pooing super-heroines or women in action movie leads?

I mean, you could say "Ghostbusters" proves nobody wants to see women in the lead in an action film, but Angelina Jolie was the lead on Wanted and that's a comic book movie that made $314 million. (The book is a MILLION times better. Skip the movie, read the book.)

The Underworld and Resident Evil franchises are both action and have female leads. Ditto for The Hunger Games. (Franchises in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars.)

Twilight (I hate listing this horseshit, but it counts for us both) has the romance crap, but also has horror/action elements. (Whatever this movie made in total was that same number too much.)

Snow White and The Huntsman made just under $400 million.

Lucy made $458 million and she was a superhero.

Brave made $539 million.

Frozen made 1.27 billion and was basically about a female version of Iceman and her sister.

All of these are movies with women in the lead role and portrayed as superheroes or warriors. Some have romantic subplots, some don't, but they're NOT the driving force of the movie.

The tide has turned more than you think.

Leisher wrote: With halfway decent reviews I really do think WW will do well. Not Suicide Squad well, but Ant-Man well? ($180 million)

Ant-Man did a little over half a billion around the world, which isn't bad on the reported $130M. IF (and it's a big goddamned "if") the dumb-asses at the WB keep within their goal of a $100M-120M budget, they've got a chance at not bombing. The second weekend numbers will be interesting to see.

Leisher wrote: We shall see. WW's box office alone won't tell the whole story though. We need to see Captain Marvel's too.

Are you just poo pooing super-heroines or women in action movie leads?

I mean, you could say "Ghostbusters" proves nobody wants to see women in the lead in an action film, but Angelina Jolie was the lead on Wanted and that's a comic book movie that made $314 million. (The book is a MILLION times better. Skip the movie, read the book.)

The Underworld and Resident Evil franchises are both action and have female leads. Ditto for The Hunger Games. (Franchises in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars.)

Twilight (I hate listing this horseshit, but it counts for us both) has the romance crap, but also has horror/action elements. (Whatever this movie made in total was that same number too much.)

Snow White and The Huntsman made just under $400 million.

Lucy made $458 million and she was a superhero.

Brave made $539 million.

Frozen made 1.27 billion and was basically about a female version of Iceman and her sister.

All of these are movies with women in the lead role and portrayed as superheroes or warriors. Some have romantic subplots, some don't, but they're NOT the driving force of the movie.

The tide has turned more than you think.

Regarding your first couple sentences... No, I am saying girls still have generally shitty taste in movies.

GORDON wrote: No, I am saying girls still have generally shitty taste in movies.

OH!

Well yes, we're in total agreement there.

I didn't mean to suggest that tearjerker/romance/horse/cute cowboy movies are shitty....

I meant to absolutely state that as fact. Girls that appeal to a woman's ovaries.... are terrible. Empirically.

I've been seeing that too.... and I also keep seeing articles about how "Important" this movie is.

I hope it is awesome, but when someone says it is "important," it smells like agenda. Hopefully I am reading too much into that. I'm sure I am.

Can't be worse than the other DC debacles.

VERY good movie. Every little girl in America should see this.

Also Gal Gadot just went to my #1 position.

DC finally made one that didn't suck.

I've heard the first half of the movie is a mess, but the second half really makes up for it.

I've been reading that peeps think the 1st and 2nd acts are very strong, and the 3rd is a little weak.

I've heard she should get naked more.