Post: #51

I saw the movie yesterday. I liked it. It wasn't overtly feminist. It was a standard superhero movie, where the superhero just happened to be played by a fit female. I think Hollywood has gotten the message that in-your-face SJW themed movies don't bring in as much money.

Post: #52

Don't see any problem here. Just pretend you identify as a woman at the screening and they're not gonna ask you any further questions before letting you in.
Gal Gadot is a bit too skinny for my tastes but stil WB.

Post: #53

Post: #54

(05-25-2017 11:54 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Score one for "equality".

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/201...trage.html

Opinions?

From their statement:

“The most iconic superheroine in comic book history finally has her own movie, and what better way to celebrate than with an all-female screening?” wrote the Austin-based theater. “Apologies, gentlemen, but we’re embracing our girl power and saying ‘No Guys Allowed’ for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ‘Women (and People Who Identify As Women) Only,’ we mean it. Everyone working at this screening — venue staff, projectionist, and culinary team — will be female.”

Guys can still go - just show up and tell them you identify as a woman and they'll let you in, balls, dick, and all.

Post: #55

(06-01-2017 07:44 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 05:18 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Don't trust the reviews - either from paid shills who are desperate to have a feminist film make money after the catastrophe of Ghostbusters or the weaponized autistic Marvel fanboys who will slam the movie under hundreds of accounts.

I'm waiting for one of us to take one for the team...or for a download to pop up. If it's just a Rogue One level of feminism, I'll see it. As I said in a previous thread, I like Gal.

What the fuck is a professional critic anyway? They have 0 film-making experience(99% of them are just journalists/typists). I watched 100's of movies too...when the fuck do I get my own column in the HuffPo to bloviate? I trust those with skin in the game, not armchair-quarterbacking-journalists. I think like how retired athletes become sports analysts, retired actors or directors should write film critiques.

I'm going to check it out tomorrow and report back. Expectations are low; the DCAU films up to now have been a slipshod mess compared to the Marvel ones, most of which aren't even that great either, in every conceivable manner.

(Aside: I did see Ghostbusters. Review: Worst film I've seen in my life...only thing I've seen that was worse than the Super Mario Bros film in '94)

Very good point about today professional critics. Most of the time, they are a bunch of childlike fanboys and girls who think they know the characters and can do better jobs on these films. All of these people have ZERO talent and couldn't write a script, set a budget, make the cast and crew and direct the film.

If they had their way with these films, we'd have 5 hour long adaptations of comics or stories.

They know one version of the character and think that's the definitive version where characters of franchises have undergone numerous interpretations to match the times they live in. They then throw tantrums like whiny children who get mad because they didn't get the latest model of an iPod for their birthday because their character did something that they didn't see was how a character should act. They act as if they're gatekeepers.

Post: #56

^It's actually even better in the world of mainsteram american comics.
The guys that read batman as kids in the 80's who read comics with the superheroses still in their traditional silver age garb but with grittier stories finally grew up to become editors and writers in the early 00's so they go and bring back the silver age costumes but with the the bloody grit that was novel in their comics when they were kids. Killing and reviving characters became such a clicheed cliche that even sagas about how cliche it was became even worse clichées.

Post: #57

(06-04-2017 12:18 PM)El_Gostro Wrote:  The guys that read batman as kids in the 80's who read comics with the superheroses still in their traditional silver age garb but with grittier stories finally grew up to become editors and writers in the early 00's so they go and bring back the silver age costumes but with the the bloody grit that was novel in their comics when they were kids. Killing and reviving characters became such a clicheed cliche that even sagas about how cliche it was became even worse clichées.

It may piss off some to say this, but comic books are soap operas for men.

That's why it features so much stunt deaths/rebirths/incestuous superhero/superhero pairings, etc...

Post: #58

(06-03-2017 11:23 AM)El_Gostro Wrote:  I'll just leave this here

Into lil kids too...

Post: #59

There were no 'single fathers only' screenings for Logan.
There were no 'cancer patient only' screenings for Deadpool.

Yet the chicks have such a distinct chip on their shoulder,
they need to take what is supposedly a pretty straight forward superhero movie & make it a statement...


Edit.
I recommend upcoming "teenage boy bitten by radioactive spider" screenings only for 'Spiderman Homecoming'.
Plus, "Asgardian" screenings only for 'Thor Ragnarok' & African prince screenings only for 'Black Panther'.

Post: #60

At least Carter didn't need as much padding as Gadot...

Post: #61

^^^^ She had that body back before modern diets or exercise programs. Back then, women did this thing where they just didn't overeat! Crazy how well it worked.

Post: #62

Everything about this film and how they chose to reimagine Wonder Woman was carefully crafted to follow the middle-path of not offending anyone. I don't feel the film should be lumped into ROK's narrative of SJW cinema, for instance. While she's more of a warrior than Lynda Carter, she's not grimdark, bitchy, or man-hating. Yeah, it would have been nice if she could have been allowed to have classic old-school curves and beauty-pageant looks. That approach had to be sacrificed to appease SJWs, but I'd hardly call Gadot ugly. No tats, piercings, buzzcuts, or any other trappings of SJWs. She's good looking, just not a complete knockout.

Post: #63

^
Careful.
She also doesn't have armpit hair. That's a problem...

Post: #64

(06-03-2017 04:20 AM)MikeS Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 05:08 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Hated the concept of super heros as a kid. I thought they were trite and pointless.

It's like a hell has been unleashed for me since all Hollywood ever creates these days are crappy super hero movies. Some are
good, but frankly I would never see them unless someone drags me to the theater to see it.

Pointless? Then who the hell do you send when an evil intergalactic planet devourer attacks Earth or nazis with ancient magical artifacts attempt a hostile takeover?

You send a professor of archaeology, of course.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #65

Opened to $223 million worldwide, double the early estimates.

Post: #66

RLM review is up:





Verdict: not terrible, but not great either, just... okay, I guess. Sort of thing.

If you're into superhero stuff, movie may actually be worth seeing (once a decent rip pops up online).

Post: #67

(05-26-2017 10:18 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The movie already created a lot of controversy among the feminazis for not being inclusive enough, wonderwoman not being hairy or fat enough.

Here's the culmination of their collective diverse super powers:

Post: #68

The success of WW and the failure of Ghostbusters 3 and Snatched should be making it fairly obvious to movie studios that if you want your movie to be successful in today's environment, stay away from the SJW crap. Actually, Snatched wasn't an SJW movie but it starred Schumer whose only fans are SJWs and feminists.

Post: #69

(06-05-2017 10:09 AM)C-Note Wrote:  The success of WW and the failure of Ghostbusters 3 and Snatched should be making it fairly obvious to movie studios that if you want your movie to be successful in today's environment, stay away from the SJW crap. Actually, Snatched wasn't an SJW movie but it starred Schumer whose only fans are SJWs and feminists.

The biggest difference, GB3 and Snatched starred ugly women without an ounce of femininity. Goldie Hawn was cute a thousand years ago but she's beat up today.

Post: #70

The New York Times came full on blazing after this screening:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/opini....html?_r=0

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/06/06...ooks-like/

Dalrock had a go at it:

Quote:This is what a feminist looks like.

Quote:But then suddenly you’re a 35-year-old woman sitting in a theater and you see the thing that was missing — the boss, the doctor, the president or the righteous superhero who happens to be a woman — and something clicks. Oh, this is what people mean when they talk about representation. This is why it matters.

The reason why women are not represented at 50% among superheroes is because there is no market for it. NO one wants to see that shit, not even women.

Quote:The photo shows two women in “Nasty Woman” T shirts wearing paper tiaras, with facial expressions so stunted the woman in the foreground looks like she just soiled herself.

Was the crowd at the theater so incredibly stunted that this was the best photo the Times could run to display the empowerment of the movie? Or perhaps the professionals at the NYT were crying too hard after watching the film to notice how laughable the photo was:

It was the first fight scene of the movie, and I was trying not to sob.

Maybe they were blinded by a strange feeling of ferociousness:

In fact, I was proud. So were legions of women I know who took daughters, nieces, nephews, mentees or simply went in droves, some of them to women-only screenings — and walked out of theaters with a strange feeling of ferociousness.

Bennett explains that the movie is important because visual images are important:

…visual storytelling — which brain researchers will tell you is processed tens of thousands of times faster than the written word. And yet so much of the messaging we receive about who can do what in the world is subliminal…

Indeed.

Molyneux had a take on it:

Post: #71

Be interesting to see how it fares in the weeks to come with greater competition.

This weekend has :
The Mummy. Tom Cruise blockbuster.
Megan Leavey. Female centric patriotic / war movie. With dog.

The following weekend has :
Cars 3. Kids movie to distract the kids.
Rough Night. Scarlett Johannson / female centric comedy thing to distract the female audience.

Then longer term, there's Transformers 5(?) & Despicable Me 3 to distract the blockbuster & kid crowd.

Post: #72

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The New York Times came full on blazing after this screening:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/opini....html?_r=0

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/06/06...ooks-like/

Dalrock had a go at it:

Quote:This is what a feminist looks like.

Quote:But then suddenly you’re a 35-year-old woman sitting in a theater and you see the thing that was missing — the boss, the doctor, the president or the righteous superhero who happens to be a woman — and something clicks. Oh, this is what people mean when they talk about representation. This is why it matters.

I cracked up on this one in the comments:

Quote:Reminds me of ...

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #73

I'm trying to watch it now. Have nodded off numerous times. Molyneuxs take is pretty spot on. It's garbage.

Post: #74

(06-01-2017 09:43 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 08:57 AM)C-Note Wrote:  The film so far is getting almost unanimous good reviews from critics and the public, and not all of those people are SJWs or feminists.

Professional critics are all paid hacks who have to tow the party line even if a movie is mediocre. It is likely that it was better than Cuntbusters, but some first reviews by IMDB are far better - the ones that hated it that is, not the thousands from India that get paid to post bullshit praise-crap:


Well - someone has got to watch it to verify. I for one find the main actress attractive, but I am afraid that the propaganda will be fisting you all throughout the entire movie - fisting you hard Wonder-Woman-style. Though I would not blame Gal Gadot, it is likely the fault of current feminist SJW social engineering culture and the feminist female director they hired.

The director did MONSTER and I can actually believe that a man-hating feminist can pull off a movie where a woman kills plenty of men in a gruesome way.

Pretty much this, I think Gadot is hot, but I don't plan on seeing the movie. . .I kind a forgot it was out until I heard someone mention that it was a feminist propaganda movie (like I couldn't see that coming.)

Pretty much sites like Rotten tomatoes are paid reviewers. They also had tons of glowing reviews about ghostbusters. Don't take that site seriously. It's a free site, how do you think they make their money?

Post: #75