Nah b. It's not hindsight. It's just stating the repeated blunders WB has made and then they basically shoot themselves in the foot for.
They decided to make Catwoman, that's on them. Shooting down Whedon after the fact. It really aint about Avengers to me. I watched all them seasons of Buffy. WB just make bad decisions a lot with this area when they're not making Batman movies.
I'm not buying the female superhero movie won't work bull ****. That's just continued repeated ignorance on their part. It's not that female superhero movies won't make money, it's that bad movies don't make money and hell you can call that hindsight if you want too but I'm sure the ppl involved in **** movies know they're making **** movies at some point.
That is obviously hindsight because of Whedons success. Despite Schumachesr crappy films, those made some money, doubling the budget was more than enough to make a film profitable back then.
Plus you guys are acting like Whedons is going to be a sure fire hit already, I would have loved to see it but if I were in the CEOs shoes, I can see where he is coming from after seeing Catwoman and Elektra flop, that already give any female led film to come after a bad taste. Again it's not like DC didn't try, look at all the multiple other scripts they looked at and the tv pilots that was shot where they managed to make Palicki look like Chyna.
Again I completely agree with their bad decisions, lots of them, I blame the CEO and I already said that hiring Nolan was a struck of lightning but I could also see why he would be hesistant with Whedon and his WW film.
If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.
This is obviously isn't true, Transformers continually make billions. TMNT made money that a sequel is on the way.
yeah thats a Genetic fallacy and insanely dumb, you don't pay CEO to make logically fallacious decision.
bunch of movies staring men fail every year no one says male lead wont work, no one said we can't have another blond guy because Green lantern flopped.
It's not fallacy, it migh tbe sexist and a stupid decision but it is true.
And of course a bunch of male led films are going to fail, most of the films are led by men. If two women led films are made and both fails, then to CEOs and business men who can be sexist, easily sees that as a bad investment on women, despite the film just sucking badly. Again that is all I am saying, I see the risk in it especially when Whedon is still unknown to the movie world and only has tv shows in his resume.
Again, there is a reason that there is barely an explosion of female led films today in comparison to a decade ago, 2 dcades ago, 3 decades ago. Hell the days of Arnold, Stallone, Willis, JVD, etc... action flicks of the 90's pretty much exploited women for the most part. Then you can go back to the cheesy films of old where they do sexploitation films.
Seriously, take a look at the history of women in films and the struggles they had. There are still critics out there who says women can't be funny and deny the success happening right now.
there is nothing different about today and back then; other than quality films starring women have been made, forward thinking studios were able to see an under served market.
Thats not hind sight, thats appropriate criticism and they deserved to be fired.
There is complete difference, you are insane if you don't think it is different. All these films for women are written by women so they understand how to make the film. Hollywood is still filled with male writers who just can't write for a woman. This was even a skit on Seinfeld, which runs pretty true. They also mentioned this when WW comics started, she was still exploited until some woman (forgot her name) started writing her books, it was in that PBS documentary.
some of the more recent iterations of aquaman I've seen are badass and worked for me to break away from that lame role we usually equate him with. I hope it translates well on the big screen
