Look you don't segregate statistical data just so that it only shows what you want to see. That's what is called manipulating the facts. Only discussing the most successful films of the bunch is not really descriptive of what really went on in the industry to get where they are now. I don't know how many times I have to say that.
You also don't put in movies that came out in different decades, were made with no budget, went direct-to-video, or starred a cast of nobodies when discussing the prospects of big budget solo movies for League members like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, or Flash. That's what is called "a stupid comparison."
WHOA GOOD POINT!!!
You continue to shock me with the downright wacky crap you say. Amazon is a shopping website, people go there to SHOP. Very few people go there to actually post reviews; the handful who do are pretty much already fanboys of the product in question. You only get one side of the story from an insignificant amount of people...therefore it is ******ed to use a few Amazon.com user reviews to argue that a critical and box office flop like freaking
Ultraviolet was considered a good move, which you have done.
IMDB typically has thousands, if not tens or a hundred thousand user reviews for movies that see a wide release. There are good as well as bad reviews. Therefore, IMDB can give a better idea of what people actually think.
I don't trust anything that comes from the makers of Fox News.
More wacky bizarro logic from you. Are you saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fox, therefore you don't trust it? When the HELL did politics figure into this? I don't like Fox News either...but that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Rotten Tomatoes basically tallies up reviews from hundreds of prominent internet and newspaper critics, LINKING to each of their reviews. What you see on RT is what was actually reviewed.
That doesn't matter, that film is still part of the genre
I'm just going to say it. Only an absolute moron would think that
Love and Plutonium fits into the same category as
Batman Begins,
Spider-Man or proposed big budget movies with Green Lantern or Flash. Only someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about would think that
Love and Freaking Plutonium can figure into an analysis of how successful a big budget Wonder Woman would be.
Only a dishonest punk would call someone "ignorant" or "narrow minded" for not having heard of a low-budget, never-was movie like
Love and Plutonium.
I don't think I need to and you should see the number of folks on my side of the screen that are rolling on the floor over your erroneous comments.
Wow, you really are deluded. Please, for YOUR sake, just stop embarrassing yourself. You're the guy who has in the past claimed that
-The classic Wonder Woman costume that shows up in CARTOONS is an R-rating risk (and I'm sure it is, when Joker can mutilate people and get a PG-13
)
-A grand total of 25 or some other ridiculously insignificant number of horny fanboy user reviews of
Ultraviolet on Amazon.com shows that the movie is well regarded.
-Moviegoer polls about their GENERAL satisfaction level over a period of several years somehow represents their opinion on
one specific movie.
-CINO was a good movie.
-People are "ignorant" for not having heard of such blockbuster movies as
Love and Plutonium or
The Sidekick.
You said all of these things, not me. I can dig up the links too, for anyone who wants to see.
Outside of the total crazies (religious whackjobs, white supremacists), you may be the dimmest and most out-of-touch person I've ever talked to on the internet. Not because you disagree with me, but because you say things that are just so damn wacky, which couldn't have come from any logical thought process.
The MPAA states that %60 of films made never make their money back, so it isn't that hard a thing to do. If you are going to figure out that statistic yourself you need to include the entire population of that genre or all of the films made,
NO, you compare the chances of a WW, GL, or Flash film to other movies with similar traits, such as
-based on a known comic
-coming out in the same time period (the recent superhero boom)
-big budget
-summer debut
Movies with those traits have almost ALL been successful. Only in your BS analysis which throws things off with direct-to-video garbage do things look worse.
It was a summer block buster film, plain and simple. If it weren't it would have been released in the spring or fall. Let's not try to make up excuses to justify why it didn't meet expectations.
Oh look, the broken record, wall-of-ignorance debating "tactic." If you have a problem with one of my points, then
deal with it. Repeating your initial assertion again and again doesn't mean you win.
AGAIN, who here thinks that
The Incredible Hulk 2008 with Edward Norton received anywhere near the marketing and publicity as
Iron Man,
Indiana Jones, or
The Dark Knight?
These films were still in theaters when the Hulk was released. Moviegoers had the choice to go see them or TIH. That is what competition is all about.
WOW man. Movies of any kind make the bulk of their money when they first come out. 3 weeks later and even a smash hit film isn't really anything to worry about. Even 1 week later and a movie has already lost a lot of steam.
A movie that comes out nearly a freaking MONTH after Indiana Jones isn't competing with Indiana Jones. Only in Bizarro dnno1 world is it competing.
Iron man was a well known character for decades. That is why he got a cartoon of his own
Yeah that crappy, short-lived cartoon that was syndicated on Sunday instead of being on network TV on Saturday was really something.
Just because he wasn't as popular as the Superfriends or Spider-Man doesn't mean he wasn't well known.
Oh, he was known. There were still PLENTY of people who didn't know him, or only knew his name. He was nowhere near the recognition level of Spidey or Hulk. His popularity before the 2008 movie was lower than WW, GL, or Flash, who all got more exposure than him.
Therefore, the 2008 Iron Man movie is evidence that WW, GL, or Flash do not suffer too much from a lack of popularity to be the subject of a hit movie.
Not true. It was still alive. It just took 15 years to develop the next film.
Oh yeah, the Superman franchise starring Christopher Reeve was still alive when there were rumors of Nicholas Cage, a gooey black costume-in-a-can, CIA agent Luthor and gay robots fighting polar bears. Anybody with half a brain knew the franchise was dead, and you're playing word games if you try to argue that it wasn't.
We really don't know the exact contents of the scrip, only what they want you to know. Furthermore we do not know how these actors will work out together until we see a film clip or something like that. It really seems like the cast of "Watchmen" are working out with fans even though they are not prominent actors. Carla Gugino is the only actress that I could recognize right away.
1. Watchmen isn't pandering to the tween crowd.
2. Watchmen doesn't have a cast of people who would look RIDICULOUS as their supposed characters (shady 5'9 punk Superman, Jay Baruchel as the big bad, some college-age kid as Batman).
3. Watchmen released materials to assure the fans, instead of being all hush-hush as if the WB was ashamed and had something to hide.
That's because it won't make a difference.
Except that history shows that it does (Jack Black GL killed, Raimi pressed into including Venom despite not wanting to), and it's obvious that businessmen are where they are by
pleasing their customers. Keep crying about the fact that I'm not giving my respect to any old director by default.
t:
).
Couldn't have said it better myself. 
