240
Deadpool & Wolverine: $438,300,000
The Marvels: $206,136,825
Madame Web: $100,298,817
(Yes, I know Madame Web isn't an MCU movie.)
Here's looking at you, bub.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
240 points (88.7% liked)
movies
1733 readers
709 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd argue that the poor performance of female-led comic book movies is absolutely due to sexism.
Not on the part of the fans, though.
It's like studios, writers, directors, whoever panics when they're gonna put a woman/girl on-screen and no longer know how to use their actors.
Women in an action scene? Easy peasy
Women as an object of affection? All day with their eyes closed
Women as comic relief? Eh, they're working on it
But once a woman is supposed to command the scene and be in charge of the action, these movies seem to fall right back into sexist tropes. For some reason, the creators can't just write a superhero movie and shove a woman or girl in the lead role.
Case in point: Wonder Woman
The first Wonder Woman movie was essentially Thor, but with better pacing. Of course it was a great fucking film. WW87? Holy shit did they hit the sexism hard for that movie. They turned Wonder Woman into a lovesick puppy who couldn't decide between saving the fucking world and boning some dude who hosted her dead boyfriend's spirit. I get it and it probably could have worked had they not made the villain a cat-lady stereotype turned chick-flick hot girl turned literal cat-lady.
They keep pandering to the lowest common denominator and audiences won't settle for that anymore. Not for their favorite characters who can literally do anything
The villain in 87 was absolutely fantastic though.
The rock or the Trump insert that had more likeable characteristics than the real Trump?
I think calling him Trump is underselling him. He's a personification of what capitalists think capitalism is. He's the American dream. He's infinite growth. He's a good deal. And even being a mythologised portrayal of capitalism, he's still bad. If you give capitalists exactly what they want and how they want it, they'll still destroy the world. That's the point of the movie.
I had to be told he was a Trump insert. I honestly thought he was just a Gordon Gekko type. His only redeeming quality was he did love his son, which is why I didn't make the Trump connection at first.
Broadly speaking, I get it, but too many aspects of the movie were either undercooked or someone needed to be willing to tell Patty Jenkins that her ideas aren't very good. I agree with RLM said that the movie was a bunch of empty platitudes. That ending monologue was nonsense.
Also, just bring the boyfriend back with a body made of clay. It side steps so many issues and plays into Wonder Woman's original origin.
Solid agree.
Especially when the female/LGBT/Black/immigrant story would actually need to deal with or acknowledge difficult topics executives and big studios back off rather than embrace it. It often leaves things feeling weak, or forced.
And then if you add an underbaked romance plot... Bleh
The first Wonder Woman had all those tropes too. People just seem to not remember that. I have never figured out why.
Having the tropes doesn't make the movie bad per se. A bad use of the tropes makes it bad.
WW1 works as a dumb action flick. WW87 fails even at that. Diane giving that moral speech at the climax of the movie felt like a 80s cartoon "moral lesson" - thinking about it, it sure feels like the movie was a big budget, 80s toy-seller cartoon episode
I'd argue that the first one used those tropes whereas 87 fell back into them to the point that they became themes.
Solid agree.
Especially when the female/LGBT/Black/immigrant story would actually need to deal with or acknowledge difficult topics executives and big studios back off rather than embrace it. It often leaves things feeling weak, or forced.
And then if you add an underbaked romance plot because women need to be paired up to have a happy ending... Bleh