Monker wrote:I didn't know she was pregnant. It's just if her face looks fat, she's fat in other places. She'll need to start wearing those dresses tuck her tummy in.
Okay, Mr. Olympia.
Monker wrote:V's reaction GotG2 was just as exaggerated as this reaction to WW. In fact, i'ts the antithesis of it. Best movie ever, worst movie ever. Both are bullshit and over the top.
Bologna. I said up-front
WW is not perfect. There are some things I'd change, but that applies to every film out there. They'll never make a film that 100% caters to individual perceptions and expectations. It would be arrogant to expect such.
OTOH, you defended every single aspect of
GOTGV2, from its crap humor to its clichéd premise to its predictable tragedy and all the bad jokes they used a turkey baster to inject it with. It's a caloric surplus of faux-nutrition.
Monker wrote:It is NOT the best CBM ever made.
That doesn't mean it can't be somebody's favorite.
Monker wrote:It seems people were so starved for a good movie after BvS and SS that when you get a good one that it shocks your system so much that you over-react and the pendulum swings too far in the other direction and a 4/5 star movie becomes a 10/5 star movie and is the best thing ever made.
Maybe you're cramped up over the fact nobody's talking about
GOTGV2 now.
Monker wrote:WW is about as good as MoS.
Oh, good. I love that movie.
Monker wrote:To compare with Marvel, it's somewhere between CA:TFA and CA:TWS.
It's definitely better than
TFA. That movie didn't even show Rogers on the frontline. He rescued some of his buddies, became Cap, embarked on a nice promotional tour in the classic dark blue suit, and then went back to take on the Red Skull and Hydra with the Commandos.
Wonder Woman is better than both
Thor movies (easily), both
Iron Man sequels (easily),
Ant-Man (not even a contender), and
Strange. Yep, I went there!
Monker wrote:It won't be a billion dollar film. it will land a bit more than 700million.
Nobody expected WW to hit 1B. Nobody. 700M+ is fantastic, I concur.
Monker wrote:That is not "massive". I wouldn't even call GotG2's 800million "massive".
It's pretty weird when people start saying movies that make north of 800M aren't massive successes. It does depend on the production budget. They probably blew 250M total making and promoting
GOTGV2 when all's said and done. Considering domestic and int'l box office takes (50/25%), they probably didn't get into profit until it passed the 700-750M zone. Which is why studios prefer their movies front-loaded, to get most of it up-front.
GOTGV2 had next to no competition for the month of May (
Alien Covenant barely dented it). It won't be the same for
Spider-Man: Homecoming, which will have War for the
Planet of the Apes and
Dunkirk right on its ass.
Nobody is expecting
WW to make
Guardians money. But
WW's domestic gross will match its budget this week, and it's also the fourth consecutive DCEU film to land a 100M+ OW. Even
Doctor Strange didn't manage that with the MCU brand behind it. *** (Remember when you said
Strange might make a billion dollars?) *** The only Marvel origin movie to have a 100M OW was
Iron Man.
Thor,
Captain America,
Ant-Man and
DS didn't.
Monker wrote:*I* never said such things. I said it would be about as good as Thor 1. And, I would say it is a bit better that than that and is more comparable to CA:TFA. But, what it is NOT is Iron Man 1, or CA:Civil War, or Avengers 1...and IMO, Doctor Strange was better...but I doubt most agree with that.
Doctor Strange started out fine but once he started training, the MCU's default settings were activated: unnecessary humor, lame gags in the midst of action, more
Star Wars mentor-padawan pathos, and serious nerfing. You've no idea how much Strange got nerfed. He's practically SINO.
Wonder Woman is the better movie, and Gal is the better fit. (And she didn't have to worry about speaking in a different accent.)
Monker wrote:I think you people have simply lost all perspective.
Uh-huh.
Monker wrote:Absolutely not. It means DC turned from creating movies that suck to creating ONE movie that is good. It is JL that will push things forward. And, if it is not a billion dollar film with good reviews, forget about DC.
Disney keeps making
Pirates movies, even though they're very expensive. This latest one had a much lower performance. Its domestic take is really lacking. Remember, studios get far less of the foreign take.
So
Justice League needs to make a billion or "it's curtains for DC"? That's not a wager I'd care to make.
Aquaman is being made right now. As soon as Matt Reeves can shift is focus from
WftPotA, things will get rolling on The Batman. This summer at Comic Con, WB will own Hall H again. Expect heavy JL coverage, an Aquaman teaser, and announcements for
Wonder Woman 2,
Batgirl,
Suicide Squad 2,
The Batman, whatever.
The two best CBMs of 2017 will belong to Fox and WB. Neither
SM:H nor
Ragnarok is going to change that.
Monker wrote:First Harley Quinn is not a "household name". That's just ridiculous.
Sorry, sir.
Suicide Squad's 745.6 million cumulative gross? You can feel free to attribute much of that to Harley Quinn. She was undeniably one of the movie's big draws. She made her debut as an animated character, and then her comics counterpart enjoyed increased popularity, not the other way around. Here you go.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/08/01/margot-robbies-harley-quinn-in-suicide-squad-could-be-2016s-most-popular-movie-character-how-did-she-get-started/?utm_term=.9e7f142ad014Batman: Arkham Asylum has something to do with it, too.
Harley's been popular since day one, but somewhere between 1992 and 2017, the clown princess of crime skyrocketed into one of DC's biggest assets across comics, games, and films. So when did this spike happen, and who or what do we have to thank for her rise to stardom? The answer is 2009's Batman: Arkham Asylum, the game that took Harley out of the comics and cartoons and proved she could excel in the darker, grander DC universe.
https://nowloading.co/p/why-batman-arkham-asylum-is-responsible-for-harley-quinn-popularity/4255431Monker wrote:The last time Batgirl was introduced the batman franchise went downhill fast.
20 years ago. The climate has changed. I'd rather see Batwoman (Cassandra Cain), but if Joss wants to make a Batgirl (Barbara Gordon) movie, my ass is there, regardless.
Monker wrote:I really don't want there to be a Black Widow movie.
Neither does Kevin Feige. Brie Larson's way cheaper. Widow probably won't play a heavy role in
Infinity War, either. Too many characters, and Widow won't be too effective in such a scenario. After Phase 3, you may not see her as much, unless Downey splits, which will free up a lot of money.