The Catwoman Appreciation Thread.

[Darthphere]

I could care less about all the stats that you throw out here. I saw the movie and it didn't suck like you say. I just can't say that it was the greatest film that year. Although your statistic on the returns of the film illustrate that it did not make it's money back at the boxoffice. That isn't saying much because 90% of films made actually do. Now if you compare Catwoman to similar films like "Elektra", "Aeon Flux", "Ultraviolet", "Tank Girl", "Red Sonja", it did far better. Let's face it, female comicbook superheroine films do not do well at the boxoffice, but that's not the only revenue stream that the studios need to rely on to measure its success (i.e. you need to look at DVD sales, cable/PPV and TV as well). I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I guess you don't want to understand that.

No man, all thses movies sucked. And Catwoman is their queen. Have you ever thought of watching good movies?

 

[shinlyle]

I could care less about all the stats that you throw out here. I saw the movie and it didn't suck like you say. I just can't say that it was the greatest film that year. Although your statistic on the returns of the film illustrate that it did not make it's money back at the boxoffice. That isn't saying much because 90% of films made actually do. Now if you compare Catwoman to similar films like "Elektra", "Aeon Flux", "Ultraviolet", "Tank Girl", "Red Sonja", it did far better. Let's face it, female comicbook superheroine films do not do well at the boxoffice, but that's not the only revenue stream that the studios need to rely on to measure its success (i.e. you need to look at DVD sales, cable/PPV and TV as well). I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I guess you don't want to understand that.

So...you're saying that it wasn't a box office success.....and that's okay? Cute. Really Cute.

Now we're going to pretend that the DVD rentals/sales have made 55 million dollars (the amount the film lost in the box office). Fine. However, you do know that DVDs don't grow on trees, right? They cost money to produce, distribute and promote, just like the film itself. On top of that, the rental profits belogn more to the rental store than to the studio.

In the year 2099, Catwoman may FINALLY break even... maybe.

As for the thing about female superhero flicks, Catwoman, Elektra, Aeon Flux, Red Sonja and Ultraviolet didn't fail because they starred female heroes....they faled because they were awful films.

When Hollywood stops treating female leads as sex objects, and they start writing them as strong, interesting characters (something CINO failed to do), then we'll see some success for the ladies. Until then, we're left with whatever Hollywood decides to throw at us.

 

[shinlyle]

No man, all thses movies sucked. And Catwoman is their queen. Have you ever thought of watching good movies?

Careful...that's dangerous thinking there...!!

 

[Darthphere]

Id rather watch Elektra than Catwoman.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Yeah, personally, Elektra is underrated. I think it's a tad bit better that Daredevil theatrical cut, though it's nice seeing the film origins of the movie version of Elektra.

Though one thing struck me: along with Elektra, Nikolas said that her mother was killed in front of her...but he wasn't in Elektra...wassup with that!? But it was cool to see the necklace; it's kind of her thing, you know.

 

[jaguarr]

Now if you compare Catwoman to similar films like "Elektra", "Aeon Flux", "Ultraviolet", "Tank Girl", and "Red Sonja", it did far better.

Well, first off, CINO wasn't about Catwoman whereas those other films were about the actual characters they were representing (save for Ultraviolet, which was it's own creation). And, "better" how? All of them had terrible scripts, but I believe "Elektra" has done far better at the box office and in DVD rentals/sales and getting play on the pay movie channels than CINO has. I'd be willing to venture that "Tank Girl" and "Red Sonja" long recouped their costs, despite being crappy movies. Frankly, I'm amazed that you go to such lengths to defend CINO, man. We all know it was a crappy movie. I respect your right to like it and even disagree with that, but the fact remains that it was a critical and financial failure no matter how rosey you try to paint the picture.

jag

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

No matter how poor the movie is, it was the film out of those that did the best in box office. it made just (i mean JUST) over $80 mill worldwide, whereas Elektra made $60 mill, and tank girl made a 5th of it's budget back.

I've never heard of Red Sonja...

 

[jaguarr]

No matter how poor the movie is, it was the film out of those that did the best in box office. it made just (i mean JUST) over $80 mill worldwide, whereas Elektra made $60 mill, and tank girl made a 5th of it's budget back.

I've never heard of Red Sonja...

Ahhhh, but how much did those films each cost to make? Therein lies the trick. It's whether they actually wind up breaking even or turning a profit that helps define whether they were a success. CINO did NOT turn a profit or even break even. I believe Elektra did just well enough for them to kick around the idea of a second film. So, which is more successful? The one that will never be revisited in a million years or the one that could possibly get a sequel?

jag

 

[shinlyle]

No matter how poor the movie is, it was the film out of those that did the best in box office. it made just (i mean JUST) over $80 mill worldwide, whereas Elektra made $60 mill, and tank girl made a 5th of it's budget back.

I've never heard of Red Sonja...

It depends on how you look at it.

Catwoman made 82.1 million dollars....but it cost 135 million dollars to make. That means it actually LOST over 50 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

Elektra made 56 million dollars....but it only cost 43 million dollars to make. That means it made 13 million dollars in the box office.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

Tank Girl was a MAJOR flop. It cost 25 million dollars to make, but it only made back 4 million dollars. That means it lost 21 million dollars. Still...it didn't lose as much as Catwoman did.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tankgirl.htm

Ultraviolet made 20 million dollars, but it cost 30 million dollars to make. That means it actually lost only 10 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ultraviolet.htm

Aeon Flux made 51.5 million dollars, and it cost 62 million dollars to make. That means it lost 10.5 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aeonflux.htm


So you see, when compared to other films, Catwoman is still the queen of all of them, in terms of money lost. All the movies may have sucked, but only one managed to cost the studio that made it an estimates 53 million dollars.

 

[NateGray]

No man, all thses movies sucked. And Catwoman is their queen. Have you ever thought of watching good movies?

LMAO
Well I was going to say something with that list he put up but your response is pure gold....

 

[jaguarr]

It depends on how you look at it.

Catwoman made 82.1 million dollars....but it cost 135 million dollars to make. That means it actually LOST over 50 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

Elektra made 56 million dollars....but it only cost 43 million dollars to make. That means it made 13 million dollars in the box office.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

Tank Girl was a MAJOR flop. It cost 25 million dollars to make, but it only made back 4 million dollars. That means it lost 21 million dollars. Still...it didn't lose as much as Catwoman did.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tankgirl.htm

Ultraviolet made 20 million dollars, but it cost 30 million dollars to make. That means it actually lost only 10 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ultraviolet.htm

Aeon Flux made 51.5 million dollars, and it cost 62 million dollars to make. That means it lost 10.5 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aeonflux.htm


So you see, when compared to other films, Catwoman is still the queen of all of them, in terms of money lost. All the movies may have sucked, but only one managed to cost the studio that made it an estimates 53 million dollars.

You perfectly illustrated my previous point, Shin.

jag

 

[shinlyle]

You perfectly illustrated my previous point, Shin.

jag

That's what I'm here for, man!

 

[dnno1]

so you're older than him. doesn't mean squat. he still knows more about Catwoman than you.

That's not the point here. The man is claiming that Catwoman is a character that we have known and loved for 60 years and that is practically impossible for him and a lot of others (even me). In fact, the majority of those who went to see the film more than likely did not even know the character that well. There are not that many Catwoman fans out there to equate to $80M+ worth of revenue and the median age of the preponderance of moviegoers (18) does not indicate to me that they have the type of income to go and collect 60 years worth of Catwoman related stories (I don't think there is enough of that to go around either). Furthermore, he doesn't know how much I really know about the character. Your point is moot.

your point being? they still had enough sanity to notice that the movie was a piece of s#!t.

That's just your opinion. I have met several people who have seen the film that said it was ok.

...actually, people CAN know what happened before they were born. you do understand that don't you?

Yes, the could, but not everybody actually does. Anybody who would be interested in researching 60 years of any comic book character has got to be an adult or an avid collector and the average moviegoer does not always fit that category. Even if he/she decided to research it on the Internet, that would be a small number of people.

forums are meant for debate. this whole dividing into little groups thing you're suggesting is ridiculous. you're just annoyed because your arguments in defense of this so-called movie are being so easily shot down. it says a lot about just how bad the movie is. it's indefensible.

That's right, forums are meant for debate. They were not meant for people to ridicule and harass others who have a certain opinion (I think that's stated in the rules here). What I have found is that people like you are more than likely to resort to name calling, the use of foul language and or offensive images, as well as insults in defense of your adgenda... and I wouldn't call simply responding to a point as shooting it down. Nothing you have said has proven any of my points as incorrect.

 

[dnno1]

It depends on how you look at it.

Catwoman made 82.1 million dollars....but it cost 135 million dollars to make. That means it actually LOST over 50 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

Elektra made 56 million dollars....but it only cost 43 million dollars to make. That means it made 13 million dollars in the box office.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

Tank Girl was a MAJOR flop. It cost 25 million dollars to make, but it only made back 4 million dollars. That means it lost 21 million dollars. Still...it didn't lose as much as Catwoman did.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tankgirl.htm

Ultraviolet made 20 million dollars, but it cost 30 million dollars to make. That means it actually lost only 10 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ultraviolet.htm

Aeon Flux made 51.5 million dollars, and it cost 62 million dollars to make. That means it lost 10.5 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aeonflux.htm


So you see, when compared to other films, Catwoman is still the queen of all of them, in terms of money lost. All the movies may have sucked, but only one managed to cost the studio that made it an estimates 53 million dollars.

You included the advertising cost in the Catwoman figure but I do not think you did the same for the other films. Kind of misleading here. According to IMDb, the production budget for "Catwoman" was $85M. At one time it was the same figure at BoxofficeMojo.com

 

[NateGray]

That's not the point here. The man is claiming that Catwoman is a character that we have known and loved for 60 years and that is practically impossible for him and a lot of others (even me). In fact, the majority of those who went to see the film more than likely did not even know the character that well. There are not that many Catwoman fans out there to equate to $80M+ worth of revenue and the median age of the preponderance of moviegoers (18) does not indicate to me that they have the type of income to go and collect 60 years worth of Catwoman related stories (I don't think there is enough of that to go around either). Furthermore, he doesn't know how much I really know about the character. Your point is moot.



That's just your opinion. I have met several people who have seen the film that said it was ok.



Yes, the could, but not everybody actually does. Anybody who would be interested in researching 60 years of any comic book character has got to be an adult or an avid collector and the average moviegoer does not always fit that category. Even if he/she decided to research it on the Internet, that would be a small number of people.



That's right, forums are meant for debate. They were not meant for people to ridicule and harass others who have a certain opinion (I think that's stated in the rules here). What I have found is that people like you are more than likely to resort to name calling, the use of foul language and or offensive images, as well as insults in defense of your adgenda... and I wouldn't call simply responding to a point as shooting it down. Nothing you have said has proven any of my points as incorrect.

Ok I said it in my original post here but you keep missing the point THIS Catwoman is NOT repeat NOT the one who has been around for 60years.

This Catwoman movie was based off the elseworld Catwoman where they are like a slayer each generation a Catwoman is born and they were written only ten or so years ago GET IT....
So enough with the referencing 60 years of Catwoman crap.

 

[jaguarr]

Ok I said it in my original post here but you keep missing the point THIS Catwoman is NOT repeat NOT the one who has been around for 60years.

This Catwoman movie was based off the elseworld Catwoman where they are like a slayer each generation a Catwoman is born and they were written only ten or so years ago GET IT....
So enough with the referencing 60 years of Catwoman crap.

He's continually and conveniently avoided that point since he showed up in this thread.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

You included the advertising cost in the Catwoman figure but I do not think you did the same for the other films. Kind of misleading here.

Even if you take out the $35M advertising budget, CINO STILL lost well over $15M which is more than the other films without their advertising budgets. The other films didn't have NEARLY that large of an advertising budget, either.

jag

 

[shinlyle]

You included the advertising cost in the Catwoman figure but I do not think you did the same for the other films. Kind of misleading here. According to IMDb, the production budget for "Catwoman" was $85M. At one time it was the same figure at BoxofficeMojo.com

For trusting IMDB.com for numbers, I grant you zero points. They have NEVER had accurate budgets listed for their movies. Also, it's widely reported that the 100 million dollar budget is real...and the 35 million was forwarded to the film by Village Roadshow Pictures in hopes of building up the hype for the film....which failed.

 

[shinlyle]

That's not the point here. The man is claiming that Catwoman is a character that we have known and loved for 60 years and that is practically impossible for him and a lot of others (even me). In fact, the majority of those who went to see the film more than likely did not even know the character that well. There are not that many Catwoman fans out there to equate to $80M+ worth of revenue and the median age of the preponderance of moviegoers (18) does not indicate to me that they have the type of income to go and collect 60 years worth of Catwoman related stories (I don't think there is enough of that to go around either). Furthermore, he doesn't know how much I really know about the character. Your point is moot.

So...because I'm not as old as the character of Catwoman, I don't know what I'm talking about? Do you even hear yourself? Catwoman has been in comics, television shows, animated series', movies, and toy store shelves for over half a decade, and your telling me that it had no effect on the people who saw this strocity of a film?!

You're ******ed...there's no other excuse for it.

That's just your opinion. I have met several people who have seen the film that said it was ok.

Junior, all you've contributed to this thread is an "opinion". You've brought ZERO facts with you....that's why we mock you...that, and your horrible taste in movies...

Yes, the could, but not everybody actually does. Anybody who would be interested in researching 60 years of any comic book character has got to be an adult or an avid collector and the average moviegoer does not always fit that category. Even if he/she decided to research it on the Internet, that would be a small number of people.

Yeah...no one would have seen her on the cartoon, the old Batman TV show, or in Batman Returns or anything. Someone would have to be living in a cardboard box for the last 20 years not to know anythign about Catwoman.

That's right, forums are meant for debate. They were not meant for people to ridicule and harass others who have a certain opinion (I think that's stated in the rules here). What I have found is that people like you are more than likely to resort to name calling, the use of foul language and or offensive images, as well as insults in defense of your adgenda... and I wouldn't call simply responding to a point as shooting it down. Nothing you have said has proven any of my points as incorrect.

I resort to name-calling because it's fun, and you deserve it. You don't address facts with more facts, you simply spout off more opinions. This thread isn't a debate....it's us saying, "The movie flopped", and you trying to convince us that it doesn't make the film a failure...which it does. You've yet to debate anything. Your past 20 posts have been spent trying to discredit me or build up a movie that lost 53 million dollars and failed almost 2 years ago.

Also, everyone here has proven all of your points to be incorrect....you just refuse to admit it.

 

[dnno1]

Id rather watch Elektra than Catwoman.

Must be a Marvel fan.

 

[dnno1]

Even if you take out the $35M advertising budget, CINO STILL lost well over $15M which is more than the other films without their advertising budgets. The other films didn't have NEARLY that large of an advertising budget, either.

jag

That all depends on who's figure you want to take as accurate. IMDb lists Catwoman's PB at $85M. If you use that figure then the film only lost $2.9M.

 

[jaguarr]

That all depends on who's figure you want to take as accurate. IMDb lists Catwoman's PB at $85M. If you use that figure then the film only lost $2.9M.

imdb.com's figures are notoriously incorrect. I think I'll go with an industry-respected source like boxofficemojo.

jag

 

[shinlyle]

That all depends on who's figure you want to take as accurate. IMDb lists Catwoman's PB at $85M. If you use that figure then the film only lost $2.9M.

If you use that number, that also makes you "wrong".

WB reported the 100 million dollar budget. I'd think that, if anyotn knew how much the film cost, it would be the studio that produced it.

 

[shinlyle]

imdb.com's figures are notoriously incorrect. I think I'll go with an industry-respected source like boxofficemojo.

jag

That's....that's just crazy talk!!!!

 

[dnno1]

So...because I'm not as old as the character of Catwoman, I don't know what I'm talking about? Do you even hear yourself? Catwoman has been in comics, television shows, animated series', movies, and toy store shelves for over half a decade, and your telling me that it had no effect on the people who saw this strocity of a film?!

You're ******ed...there's no other excuse for it.

You are not undestanding me. You said that she was someone that we have known and loved for 60 year and that is virtually impossible. You couldn't have known the caracter for more than 20. In fact, the average person going to the movies could not have known about the character for more than 20 years (or more like 10) since their average age ranges between 12 and 24. I am willing to bet that it would be a small number out of of those who actuall know Catwoman that well.

Junior, all you've contributed to this thread is an "opinion". You've brought ZERO facts with you....that's why we mock you...that, and your horrible taste in movies...

Which just proves that you really don't read my posts. Quite a few of them are cited back to sources such as the Motion Picture Association of America, USA today and others.

Yeah...no one would have seen her on the cartoon, the old Batman TV show, or in Batman Returns or anything. Someone would have to be living in a cardboard box for the last 20 years not to know anythign about Catwoman.

There are a lot of people who don't watch TV or have access to Cable, but yet still go to the movies. That is very possible.

I resort to name-calling because it's fun, and you deserve it. You don't address facts with more facts, you simply spout off more opinions. This thread isn't a debate....it's us saying, "The movie flopped", and you trying to convince us that it doesn't make the film a failure...which it does. You've yet to debate anything. Your past 20 posts have been spent trying to discredit me or build up a movie that lost 53 million dollars and failed almost 2 years ago.

Also, everyone here has proven all of your points to be incorrect....you just refuse to admit it.

That doesn't make it right (because it is fun). What kind of answer is that? What I have been saying is that because the movie did not do well at the boxoffice does not mean it will end up as a failure in the longrun. People here refuse to consider the revenue from DVD sales which could easily make up the differece.