[ SECRET POST #2583 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2583 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #369.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: tl;dr

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Neither movie had much of an audience to begin with. Compare Frozen to other animated family releases over the last decade, many of which bombed. Likewise YA readership is a small fraction of a blockbuster's audience. That's doubly true of comic book collectors who are trivial and irrelevant when it comes to movie marketing, reflected in the fact that few superhero movies have done more than shake hands with their source material while holding their nose.

But note, my argument wasn't that Wonder Woman will succeed or fail. It could certainly suck. My argument was that it's unlikely to succeed or fail because Wonder Woman is a Woman. Hunger Games had a 400+ million box office. Before Hunger Games there was Twilight, as much as we like to cringe at it, which was another blockbuster success with a woman as protagonist. (Some analyst pointed out that Catching Fire is the first female-led film to take top yearly slot since the Exorcist by comparison.) The argument that a big-budget blockbuster and a female lead are incompatible with each other isn't true anymore.

Re: tl;dr

[(Anonymous)]

It's going to be the same as it always is with video games: If a game with a female lead does poorly, it's because of the female lead, if it does well, it's despite the female lead. It's not even a question if there is truth to it, but that's what at least a good number of people will say about a female lead superhero movie as well.

Re: tl;dr

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, in that case I definitely agree (It was late last night and I've been reading a bunch of posts and articles asking why WW doesn't have a movie, so there might have been some projection in my comment, haha). There have been plenty of female-led blockbusters (Gravity, Snow White and the Huntsman, Brave, etc.), and just because WW is female does not automatically mean the movie is doomed for failure. I think there are a lot of things about the WW character that could prevent her from having a successful movie (critically or financially) and drawing in numbers, or even getting off the ground in the first place, which I talked about in my last comment. Her story is much less "universal" than Batman, Superman, etc. because she is so firmly entrenched in gender politics, and I question she will be able to draw in that general audience because of it.

I disagree that Frozen and Catching Fire did not have much of an audience to begin with. Frozen premiered during a time when there was little, if any, competition for children's movies, and it was a princess one to boot. Catching Fire did not solely rely on the YA demographic (though Hunger Games is one of those titles like Harry Potter in the sense that it can appeal to many outside the designated demographic), but rather the audience from the first film, which was critically and financially successful.