Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Less Obvious Reasons why Catwoman Tanked

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Less Obvious Reasons why Catwoman Tanked

Author

Topic: Less Obvious Reasons why Catwoman Tanked

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 07-27-2004 01:56 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=794&ncid=790&e=3&u=/eo/20040725/en_movies_eo/14581

quote:
Apparently nobody much gave a meow about seeing the feline-friendly leather-clad Berry claw at Sharon Stone and other evildoers. The PG-13 Warners release, which reportedly cost almost $100 million to produce, had been mauled by critics (including being compared unfavorably to Garfield--me-ouch!), and Dergarabedian theorized, "Boys like to see the word 'man', not 'woman' " in their action flicks. At 3,117 sites, Catwoman averaged only $5,504.

And hiring a director named Pitof and giving him $100 million doesn't help either.

| IP: Logged

Ryan Luby
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-27-2004 03:34 PM

quote: Steve Scott
"Boys like to see the word 'man', not 'woman' "

Yeah, because NO ONE wants to see Halle Berry flying around in next to nothing and fighting other girls..

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 07-27-2004 03:55 PM

So, that would make 'Man Man' the ultimate grossing action film? [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Robert L. Fischer
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 145
From: Montreal, Quebec
Registered: May 2004

posted 07-27-2004 04:10 PM

I'm seeing it tonight at a drive-in, along with Anchorman (for the 3rd time) -- not so much because I want to, but just because I needed something to do tonight. I turned up the monitor volume on the sound processor in our booth while tidying up things and the dialogue didn't sound too terrible, so I'm guessing it's not quite as bad as it's made out to be.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-27-2004 04:20 PM

CatWOMAN 1
AnchorMAN 3

| IP: Logged

Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 698
From: Seal Beach, CA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 07-27-2004 04:41 PM

I know why! Wrong actress and wrong costume! Halle just looks sleazy in the new film.
If they had used Michelle again, in her classy latex suit, I would have been there opening day! [evil]

| IP: Logged

Ryan Luby
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-27-2004 04:47 PM

Michelle was an amazing catwoman.
(A decent script might've helped, too)

| IP: Logged

James B. Openshaw
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 106
From: Mt. Pleasant, SC, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 07-27-2004 05:11 PM

And to think this film was going to be transferred onto IMAX film.

Last time I counted the RottenTomatoes review count it was I think 13 fresh, 114 rotten ,not to mention #35 in IMDB's bottom 100 list.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 07-27-2004 05:13 PM

I agree Ryan, the script and production/direction sucked!

I've already melted down my screener copy into an art form...

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

Robb Johnston
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 147
From: St. Louis Suburbs
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-29-2004 09:53 PM

maybe it failed because it was the first "Comic Adaptation" that was not adapted form a Comic Book.

Find me an issue (Not Elseworlds) where Catwoman has any powers, where she died and was brought back to life, where she was anything more than the best trained cat burglar ever. Find me any issue where Catwoman's name matches the one in the film.

The film went against the desires of the comic fan. So they flipped off the key demographic and paid the price.

Please note, I don't care what colr the actress is that plays CW, but tie it to the Comic book somehow. All DC comics are adapted by the same company, so you don't have the rights issues that exist with some characters (Ben Urich was in Fox's Daredevil so he cannot be in Sony's Spiderman Franchise) So at least mention Gotham or Bats.

Just a bad idea from start to finish

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 07-29-2004 11:45 PM

quote: Robb Johnston
where she was anything more than the best trained cat burglar ever

I don't read comic books, so I had no idea that Catwoman was really a burglar. A great thief movie would have been much better than yet another superhero(ine) story. But I guess they were concerned that gloriyfying a thief would be un-PC or something stupid like that, and that a hero these days has to be absolutely clean and "positive".

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 07-30-2004 05:07 AM

Glorifying thievery would be wrong, but putting a role model for female empowerment in skimpy, hole-ridden leather is politically accepted as correct? It seems they might as well have added the cat burglar twist to this movie and it wouldn't have been any worse. Who knows what they were thinking?

I haven't seen it, nor plan on it. Several co-workers walked out after no more than 15 minutes.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-30-2004 04:54 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, there is but ONE Catwoman, and her name is Newmar!

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-30-2004 05:58 PM

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
Glorifying thievery would be wrong, but putting a role model for female empowerment in skimpy, hole-ridden leather is politically accepted as correct?

I'm not sure anyone made any claims about the character being a role model for female empowerment. On the contrary, I suspect it was intended more as a role model for male fantasies... and from the box office figures, not that many males seem to have been duly fantasised. Mieow!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.