>>96297902>"Under-performed" isn't tankedI'm not saying it is. You aren't talking to one of the box-office shitposters.
> Again, the movies did badly monetarily and critically enough to cause some interference, but not enough to actually take serious action to affect the major problems.Bringing in Whedon ro re-shoot half of your biggest movie seems to be serious action.
>>96297910>Either they hate Snyder, capeshit, or are Marvel fanboys, and as such their biases demand they hate it before they get to see the filmI love this argument, it's always the last line of manchild fanboy defense.
So apparently you aren't allowed to do things like think about a artists or studios previous works when it comes to movies, you have to walk into each film fresh as a newborn lamb even though that's functionally impossible because human beings have things called opinions. If you have thoughts about someone's prior work, that's just "YOU WANTING TO HATE IT" instead of having a brain.
And yes, I am comically exaggerating your point. Because it's comically moronic. It's never worked, never made sense, and always used by fanboys who think that somebody not liking someone's prior work means they'll never be able to think that person could make something good ever.
And this is the part where I say that Wonder Woman got great reviews and you instantly sputter into screaming about feminism or it's not directed by Snyder so it does't count, or whatever other childish excuse you and yours always use when backed into this corner and can't except that your premise is retarded.
