Fine, but the original point is that the business model works.

It may not be clear in my initial post, but in my initial post I should have said making a *comic* movie w a female lead is risky. Not all or any genre film.

You're forgetting Super Man. And trivializing Batman and Spider Man, when they were either the top grossing or very close to the top grossing movies and franchises of all time is absurd.

I agree with your world view. Except you can't expect a business to take risks solely for altruistic reasons. It's not the model businesses operate by.

Except there was a robust history of male super hero franchises being the most successful franchises in all cinema. The risk wax the name, not the model.

MANIMAL

I would like to understand how so.

The smart-ass tone aside, sometimes conservatives have a point. I hate it when it happens because they tend to use one nugget of correctness to ballast the huge bullshit that composites the rest of their world view. But in this case, I do have to admit that hungar games et al aren't directly analogous to comic movies…

He can't make movies the world "needs". He has to make ones people will pay to see. Right now, the numbers indicate that male comic heroes make money.

Look, I'm all for strong female leads in sci-fi/fantasy/comic movies. But to make one is a gamble for a studio.

You mean Gotze? (you may know him as "Mr. Boat Boner")

Yet, there is a strangely robust dose of occultism there. Seriously, there is. Its a cousin of the New Orleans voo-doo and stuff. But occult/super-naturalism has always been a way for people to explain or contextualize random real-life horror visited upon them by very real fuckers (like diseases and governments).

No I get it. I'm kinda serious that something with bizarre, already established characters and fucked up premises would be fun.

I'd be really pleased if there was a Sub-Zero and Jake the Snake comic book.

You just listed a bunch of movies that are all good, but not one reaches the heights of Kubrick's 4th best movie.

He does not have way more very good movies than Kubrick. Or maybe its better to say I don't think there is a single "great" Woody Allen movie.

I'm sure NY Times hates war, but they will nonetheless cover wars.

you're right. The "Hatesong" feature should only put forth arguments supported by robust evidence and can withstand rigorous peer review.

Sublime is worse.

Lots to unpack here. but "You just managed to shit on 'white jock assholes' without saying any specifics of why those attributes alone make someone a bad person."