• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Divergent

I agree. In the long run it can only help more female led genre films.
 
So the movie did an estimated 56mil. It had a better weekend multiplier than Twilight and The Hunger Games (the Hunger Games isn't a great comparison though because it opened so much larger), got an A cinemascore (I think cinemascore is unreliable but I'm just giving you guys all the info) and 40% of the audience was male so it's more Hunger Games than Twilight in that respect. It's opening was more comparable to Snow White and the Huntsman than the aforementioned films. It's a solid number though. I wonder if it can hit 150mil total? It's going to have to withstand Captain America but I could see it having a decent run.

I know I keep saying it but I think it bares repeating, I sure hope a studio (lets be honest it's Marvel) get off their asses and make a Superhero movie starring a woman that's actually respectable because if they treat it like a real film I see no reason why it couldn't be a hit.
 
For something like Divergent, which is highly derivative material*, especially of The Hunger Games, these are really good numbers.

Vs Hunger Games and Twilight where they're on their own, not using another other franchises as a spiritual crutch.
 
Personally, another YA adaptation that looks good is The Maze Runner, which looks fantastic.

I think Fox is trying to stake out their own YA weekend, with Lionsgate hogging the late March and pre-Thanksgiving spots for Divergent and The Hunger Games already. Late September isn't usually a good sign for live-action movies, but since Fox started work on a sequel script after pushing The Maze Runner to that area, maybe the strategy will pan out.
 
I'm actually surprised at how well it did. The previews just seemed really off to me.
 
I read from the fans of the franchise said the movie could've been a whole lot more faithful. The major beats were hit, but everything else was left out of the movie.
 
That goes for most adaptation of books though. Time constraints will always limit you on that when filming.
 
Yeah it's a given but you know some fans. It's no different from 'Wolverine should be 5'4' crowd...though Catching Fire was hardcore faithful.
 
I know I keep saying it but I think it bares repeating, I sure hope a studio (lets be honest it's Marvel) get off their asses and make a Superhero movie starring a woman that's actually respectable because if they treat it like a real film I see no reason why it couldn't be a hit.
i agree. plus always cast an actress with some experience and good performances from previous movies. plus some meat on their body. not those skinny wannabe actors. then a movie about a main female character can work.

when WB will see this they will cast a fantastic actress for Wonder Woman . plus now that muscular superheros are so popular i am 100% sure that WB will cast an actress that has some meat on their bones.it will be easier for training. now there is no way that WB would cast a mediocre skinny ex-model actor.


curse you WB. Freeze in hell :dry:
 
I thought this was decent. Felt like it took too long to have any actual tension and was mostly just a prolonged training sequence, I could see some potential and the sequels should be more interesting though.

Drastically inferior to The Hunger Games but drastically superior to Twilight, so pretty much what I expected.
 
That goes for most adaptation of books though. Time constraints will always limit you on that when filming.

True. I felt Ender's Game suffered from that fairly heavily. Hit most of the major beats, but certain moments in the movie didn't have the punch they do in the book due to some of what was cut.

My GF just got into this series, so I am seeing this movie sometime this week.
 
And as for people constantly posing the "Who would win in a fight, Tris or Katniss?"... the two are more likely to team up. I'd say a fight would only end up in a draw.
 
So, now can we stop with that whole "female superhero movies won't sell" nonsense that some people keep pushing? If this movie, which got mixed reviews and a rather poor marketing campaign, still did well, then that excuse is shot full of yet more holes (and 2013 already turned it into Swiss cheese).
 
I think it only works if the film is based on a property females have a devotion to.
 
i agree. plus always cast an actress with some experience and good performances from previous movies. plus some meat on their body. not those skinny wannabe actors. then a movie about a main female character can work.

when WB will see this they will cast a fantastic actress for Wonder Woman . plus now that muscular superheros are so popular i am 100% sure that WB will cast an actress that has some meat on their bones.it will be easier for training. now there is no way that WB would cast a mediocre skinny ex-model actor.


curse you WB. Freeze in hell :dry:
I'm not going to judge a performance without seeing it yet. People loved Rebecca Romijn as Mystique and she was a model. On the whole though of course I perfer actresses like Lawrence and Woodley to get the vast majority of these sci fi action adventure films.
 
Just saw it, thought it was good. Didn't hate it but didn't LOVE it either. Interesting enough premise and everything was solid. Needed more Maggie Q though.

So, now can we stop with that whole "female superhero movies won't sell" nonsense that some people keep pushing? If this movie, which got mixed reviews and a rather poor marketing campaign, still did well, then that excuse is shot full of yet more holes (and 2013 already turned it into Swiss cheese).

If only. They will just keep coming up with excuses. 10 female lead movies does not mean this female will be successful so we will just skip her.
 
I think it only works if the film is based on a property females have a devotion to.
I disagree, a female led Superhero movie can succeed. It can bring in males and females. They haven't stopped making male led films because John Carter, Battleship, Jack the Giant Slayer, R.I.P.D and countless other male led action/adventure movies bombed.
 
Plus, females will be drawn to it for their reasons, whatever they may be, while a lot of men would see it as just another cool action movie with a badass protagonist.
 
Right now is there even a show in TV with a female in an action lead role? I watch Lost Girl on SyFy because it has kind of a Buffy vibe.
 
Marvel will look like clowns if they don't have a female heroine in phase 3. That will mean 16 or 17 movies in the MCU, every single one of them with a white male lead.
 
Right now is there even a show in TV with a female in an action lead role? I watch Lost Girl on SyFy because it has kind of a Buffy vibe.

Orphan Black. It's off right now but it's back on in a month.
 
That is a seriously awesome show, it feels like forever since season 1 ended.

I just watched it all over the course of a day about a month ago and it's already killing me waiting for season 2. I can't imagine the wait from watching it when it aired.
 
I disagree, a female led Superhero movie can succeed. It can bring in males and females. They haven't stopped making male led films because John Carter, Battleship, Jack the Giant Slayer, R.I.P.D and countless other male led action/adventure movies bombed.

I second this, especially the bolded part. Men will go see movies with female actresses in the lead, provided it's appealing. Last year and this weekend show that female protagonists sell tickets: The Heat, Gravity, Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Frozen, and now Divergent.

Studio execs, it's not rocket science.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"