Wonder Woman official movie thread (6/23/17)
8 8

1,527 posts in this topic

1,938 posts
1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Solid two-day buildup.

buQSiTy.png

fKkfdfS.png

Going to be a solid 700 to 750 mil. film unless there is an uprecidented hold in the second weekend.  Put it right there with the best grossing solo movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,518 posts
1 minute ago, drotto said:

I am honest enough to admit I was wrong, and I am glad.  I still have fears about JL, but am starting to think my dislike for the DCEU so far has stemmed from Snyder and his heavy influence on the movies so far.  From what I have read the WW director was given a lot of freedom to make her movie, the way she envisioned it. The studio was less hands on, and the formula worked.

 

It sounds like it was made more like the better Marvel movies (like GOTG). Give the directors a roadmap, but let them make the film. Lets not forget, this movie is clearly its own film, and would be a fine stand alone movie, but it has a somewhat more Marvel vibe to it.

 

It is also easy to forget that there were other female led superhero movies. Yes, they have all been really bad. So we need to separate gender from success. Audiences are open to seeing good movies, regardless of the sex of the lead.  WW hands down proves this.

I wonder after all the details came out about the Suicide Squad being edited by the trailer company if that was really one of the key breaking points? Although since David Ayer admitted later he got too focused on the Enchantress, and missed out on The Joker as the core villain.

But I agree. If Wonder Woman just demonstrated the new model under the Geoff Johns reign, hopefully this means much of the angst over the DCEU goes away with these changes. I'm excited to see what Wan does with Aquaman. What director takes his entire cast to see Wonder Woman? That was a really cool move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,350 posts
4 minutes ago, drotto said:

Going to be a solid 700 to 750 mil. film unless there is an uprecidented hold in the second weekend.  Put it right there with the best grossing solo movies

if there is any justice, it will pass that clusterfest SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

I wonder after all the details came out about the Suicide Squad being edited by the trailer company if that was really one of the key breaking points? Although since David Ayer admitted later he got too focused on the Enchantress, and missed out on The Joker as the core villain.

But I agree. If Wonder Woman just demonstrated the new model under the Geoff Johns reign, hopefully this means much of the angst over the DCEU goes away with these changes. I'm excited to see what Wan does with Aquaman. What director takes his entire cast to see Wonder Woman? That was a really cool move.

In all the Marvel vs. DC bashing from both sides, I hope people can see a couple of things emerging.....

 

1. The Marvel formula does work. WW and the DCEU directors seem to be realizing this, and that is not a bad thing.  DC can be DC but borrow what has led to success.

 

2. Marvel fans have to admit DC can make a good film, and in the long run it is beneficial to both.

 

3. Female films can work, you just need to get it right, it has nothing to do with the lead being a girl.

 

4. The decision by DC to rush into big group films may have been wrong. This solo film focusing on one main and their supporting cast is the foundation of your universe.  Avengers could not have existed without that foundation. DC is now establishing that foundation.  It is not too late to hit a soft restart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
25 minutes ago, paperheart said:

if there is any justice, it will pass that clusterfest SS

Unfortunately, it is just math.  Guardians did 146 mil. domestic the 1st weekend and is going g to end around 850 mil.  SS did 133 mil. domestic the first weekend and ended at 750 mil. If WW  tracks anywhere similar to those movies figuring in a better then average hold it is looking around 700 mil.

Edited by drotto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,536 posts
1 minute ago, drotto said:

Unfortunately, it is just math.  Guardians did 146 mil. domestic the 1st weekend and is going g to end around 850 mil.  SS did 133 mil. domestic the first weekend and ended at 750 mil. If WW  tracks anywhere similar to those movies figuring in a better then average hold it is looking around 700 mil.

Here's where I disagree - it won't catch Guardians but it can _certainly_ hold better (and stay in theaters longer) than SS.

Because that movie sucked donkey balls.

Also, there is zero chance that WW won't repeat at # 1 this weekend, smoking Tom Cruise's The Mummy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
1 minute ago, Gatsby77 said:

Here's where I disagree - it won't catch Guardians but it can _certainly_ hold better (and stay in theaters longer) than SS.

Because that movie sucked donkey balls.

Also, there is zero chance that WW won't repeat at # 1 this weekend, smoking Tom Cruise's The Mummy.

But there is already an adjustment for a better hold.  SS  did better then WW opening weekend by 33 mil, so it has ground to make up. If it tracked like other 100 mil movies. Logan opened 88 and did 615. 

 

I think Captian America 2 or Deadpool may be the best comparison.  Captian opened 95 and finished 714.  DEADPOOL did 133 and ended 783. Both movies had good hold the second weekend. Giving these numbers I stick to my 700 to 750 estimate, unless it has an outstanding hold, then you could see 800.

 

This puts it as one of the top solo hero movies.  That is a big accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,848 posts

I've never understood why the box office take is used by Hollyweird's press as an indicator if a film is good, bad, or indifferent.  The Bay City Rollers sold a ton of albums but nobody would ever throw out those figures in an attempt to say they produced great music...LMAO.

Edited by Lucky Baru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
1 minute ago, Lucky Baru said:

I've never understood why the box office take is used by Hollyweird's press as an indicator of if a film is good, bad, or indifferent.  The Bay City Rollers sold a ton of albums but nobody would ever throw out those figures in an attempt to say they produced great music.

Has nothing to do with money meaning a movie is good.  Studios are about making money, what is good to them is financial, what is good for us is entertainment. Many times that lines up, other times not so much.  For them they are looking at return on investment, it keeps the doors open. A money making bad movie is still a good investment. 

 

A bad movie that makes good money is good for them, and bad for us as they force sequels onto the poor masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,848 posts
5 minutes ago, drotto said:

Has nothing to do with money meaning a movie is good. 

That isn't the way the Hollyweird press attempts to frame the story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,634 posts
3 hours ago, drotto said:

3. Female films can work, you just need to get it right, it has nothing to do with the lead being a girl.

 

I understand what you mean, that good formula + story supersedes the genderness, but I don't think that's wholly true.  It's the necessary foundation, but saying that if a female centric film is to be successful, it's because it isn't female centric is missing the point.  It's an and situation moreso than a one over the other situation

3 hours ago, drotto said:

4. The decision by DC to rush into big group films may have been wrong. This solo film focusing on one main and their supporting cast is the foundation of your universe.  Avengers could not have existed without that foundation. DC is now establishing that foundation.  It is not too late to hit a soft restart. 

 

I don't think a restart is necessary, just turn the corner into a light, more adventurous turn instead of moody too cool for school.

 

 

And I guess I'll put this here, NPR the other day had an interview with a woman who wrote a book called The Secret History of Wonder Woman that was pretty interesting.  I didn't know that WW was an allegorical Margaret Sanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,335 posts
7 hours ago, drotto said:

.

.

.

I think there was a missed opportunity to make the end special, and they did hit on the premise a few times.  I would have enjoyed it if instead of WW actually confronting Ares, that she is forced to really deal with the fact they he resides in everyone. That he was no longer a physical entity. There was no God to beat down, but rather it would be an ongoing battles against people's basic nature. Like i said the movie established that idea, but it would have been more powerful without the actual confrontation. 

Yeah but all that CGI!! :idea:

 

But really, you're completely right - and it would segue so well into WWII as a fade out as WW watches the rise of the Third Reich.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
1 hour ago, jcjames said:

Yeah but all that CGI!! :idea:

 

But really, you're completely right - and it would segue so well into WWII as a fade out as WW watches the rise of the Third Reich.

 

There would have been plenty of CGI worthy moments if they had a third act reworking.  They could have shown an army of super soldiers and have WW basically single handed defeat that army. In the process the sword would have been broken and she would have herself realized she was the weapon.  That could have been made an even more terrifying moment of self realization, rather than being told by Ares. Then cut to her seeing Hitler rise and see that her WW I victory was a Pyrrhic victory, and while she was wrong in thinking Ares still existed, realizing his corrupting influence remains alive in all men. Then make her final scene, not her flying into the sky, but charging the battlefield at Normandy. 

I also did not care for some of the final CGI, especially the WW flying stuff.  Granted, I have never really liked it when DC basically makes her a female version of Superman. In general I think the overpowering of characters leads to difficulties in storytelling.  It puts writers in a position of needing to up the super villain anti so high to make the heroes victory even the slightest bit in doubt, and dull stories. So that taints my personal opinion of some of those final scenes. 

With all that said, I really liked the movie.  I put it near the level of the Dark Knight, and for me it is higher the Batman begins, and the Dark Knight Rises. I just think that if they had been a little braver in the final act, and had not gone back to a typical superhero movie formula, they could have taken the movie from extremely good to an instant classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,518 posts

'Wonder Woman' Director Patty Jenkins Not Signed for Sequel

Quote

While star Gal Gadot has an option in place for Wonder Woman 2 as part of her overall deal to appear in several DC movies, Warner Bros. executives enlisted Jenkins for just one film, a decision that could end up costing the studio millions of dollars if Jenkins' reps drive a hard bargain for her to return.

 

At the time she was hired, Jenkins had directed just one movie, her 2003 feature debut Monster, and she was taking over the long-gestating project from Michelle MacLaren, who left over creative differences. A one-picture-only deal is said to be standard practice at Warner Bros. for directors taking on a big-budget studio film for the first time.

 

Sources say the studio intends to begin negotiations with Jenkins shortly (although the exact timing is unclear), and the filmmaker and her reps at CAA, Anonymous Content and Jackoway Tyerman will enjoy enormous leverage. Jenkins could not only return to the director's chair on Wonder Woman 2 but also could ink a more expansive deal that would allow her to work with DC Entertainment president and chief creative officer Geoff Johns on a -script treatment for that movie and possibly others as well.

CAA is the one that negotiated for Matt Reeves on 'The Batman', leading to the Producer/Director status. Sounds like Warner Bros. just opened itself up to another 'creative control' situation with Patty Jenkins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,536 posts
20 hours ago, drotto said:

But there is already an adjustment for a better hold.  SS  did better then WW opening weekend by 33 mil, so it has ground to make up. If it tracked like other 100 mil movies. Logan opened 88 and did 615. 

Sure. WW clearly has ground to make up. My argument is that it will. In fact, it's already started. Compare their respective domestic Day 5s (both a Tuesday):

Suicide Squad: $14.26 million

Wonder Woman: $14.34 million

That's a minuscule difference, but remarkable that WW's already pulled ahead on day 5, given that SS's day 1-3 cume was >30% larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,258 posts

I see the "Titanic effect" possibly occurring with Wonder Woman.  The staying-power that Titanic had in theaters was due to one thing... 7th, 8th, and 9th time viewers.  Many were too young to drive, but old enough to think Leonardo DiCaprio was dreamy.

Get everyone in North America to watch a movie once and you'd really have something, but get a big chunk to see it 9 times... well, that's something extra.

Wonder Woman has the potential to draw the same crowds that saw Titanic 9 times in theaters... because it's a new generation who hasn't really had their own "Titanic" yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,518 posts

XimhmYM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938 posts
4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

XimhmYM.png

My 700 to 750 is looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,518 posts
1 minute ago, drotto said:

My 700 to 750 is looking good.

I have to agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123 posts
1 hour ago, valiantman said:

I see the "Titanic effect" possibly occurring with Wonder Woman.  The staying-power that Titanic had in theaters was due to one thing... 7th, 8th, and 9th time viewers.  Many were too young to drive, but old enough to think Leonardo DiCaprio was dreamy.

Get everyone in North America to watch a movie once and you'd really have something, but get a big chunk to see it 9 times... well, that's something extra.

Wonder Woman has the potential to draw the same crowds that saw Titanic 9 times in theaters... because it's a new generation who hasn't really had their own "Titanic" yet.

Don't see the Titanic effect to any current movies or future unless it is a new technology or some new innovation. There are just too many options to choose outside of  going to theater, streaming option, 4k, 3D, HD, home theater setup, and the pleasure to enjoy at home any time. 1997 has no competition with today technologies. Same goes with Avatar, 1st 3D movie in theater made billions; all big budget movies now have 3D and they can't break a billion.

Edited by phobalicious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
8 8