Talk:Catwoman (film)

Untitled

I think this article lacks enough information about WHY Catwoman is considered so terrible. It confused me. Is the only reason people don't like this movie because it's not really based off Batman's catwoman?Kevin 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard that it was chock full of plot holes (apparently, she gets killed at work... and then goes back to work. What the...?) and barely showed Berry at all in the ultra-hyped, belly-bearing "urban dominatrix" costume due to her digital self being blurred so often due to the character's quick movements. Other than that, I have no idea. Considering how soundly it was panned by the critics, I'm surprised though that Daredevil and Batman & Robin were considered worse. B&R was OK, in my opinion (not the best, but not the worst, either. The villains were a little over-the-top, but the film wasn't completely horrible IMO), and aside from a few little nonsensical things and a blandly-played hero, Daredevil didn't seem all that bad (from what I saw of it when it aired on TV, anyway. I did watch most of it, including the end), even though the chick from Alias who played Elektra has these eyebrows that always make me think she's constantly constipated... and the stunt work was nice and flashy, with the fight on the teeter-totter, for instance, being fun to watch. I think people are sometimes a bit picky when it comes to superhero movies :P. But anyway. Quote some of the scatching reviews it got, if you can find them. That should do the trick. Runa27 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same problem. Everyone says the movie sucked, but I saw it and I don't think it sucked. As for her getting killed and coming back, the magic cat revives her, so apparently the people at the theater weren't paying attention. TheRaven7 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that annoys me too. I mean, I liked it, and everyone else seems to be bashing it for no reason. --81.233.196.49 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah and how much profit did the film make when released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.25.242 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(For the above comment) what do you expect when Press and critics batter the film before its cinema release, It put people off it. I think if the critics had shut up the film would of been up in the 150-200m range, it was a really good movie but the same goes for all movies, its critics that harm the box office totals of a lot of big budgeted movies when they slate the movies but each of them forget that it's an opinion and not fact what they say. 91.105.14.104 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood; he was saying that it made $80 million (a huge amount of money) regardless of critics' opinions, so that's pretty good. You think the studios somehow deserve to make money? No, they have to earn it. Critics help us avoid wasting our money and therefore supporting crappy films. Having such a big budget was their choice. 76.10.156.237 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Also, read your own post: "it was a really good movie", then "each of them forget that it's an opinion and not fact" - in that case, keep your opinions to yourself. 76.10.156.237 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird paragraph

The movie studios have a schedule planned to release a major superhero-themed movie every summer, and due to problems with the production of the new Batman movie, Catwoman was greenlighted for production instead to fill its spot in the schedule at the last minute. - this is that the end of 'Response', and looks quite dated. Not only that, but I think this is an unattributed and unsourced quote. I think it should be removed or at least heavily edited. Luis Dantas 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Catwoman 2 merge

I suggest that Catwoman 2 be merged into this article, and the former be redirected here. An article about a movie that didn't make it seems superfluous to me, unless there is a significant amount of information on it. --Chris (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Razzie acceptance

Maybe rework the Razzie acceptance, Berry really took it on the chin - and went to collect the award, and did a self-mocking reprise of her tearful acceptance of the Oscar for Monsters Ball. She got a lot of credit and goodwill for doing so. Or did I remember it different to any one else? Gavin Bl 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's so bad?

Look, I can understand the rage of all the DC comics nerds who expected to see Selina Kyle but got Patience Phillips instead. Suggesting that the movie had anything whatsoever to do with anything ever previously done by DC Comics in any way whatsoever was obviously one of the worst advertising blunders of crappy superhero movie history.

With that said, I think people have expected way too much from this movie, expecting it to be something it wasn't intended by it's creators to be and if you try to separate it from anything DC-Comics related and watch it as an example of your typical mindless Hollywood action flick with just enough story to justify some fun Face Punching, then it's not a particularly bad example of that hopeless genre of Hollywood films. Surely someone somewhere has reviewed it positively?? Anyone? Anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the movie was a success doesn't matter what critics say, despise taking 80mil out of a budget of 100mil the DVD sales took it over the budget in some distance making it a profit film, the film was get it 'LOOSELY' based on DC's comic, too many compared it to the comics (Aka the Razzies), gets up my nose because Catwoman was a brilliantly made movie and it should garner a sequel with Halle but because of bad press it won't get one. 91.105.14.104 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliantly-made? Please give me some of what you're smoking, I would like to watch it again and enjoy it this time. 76.10.156.237 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a great film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.134.41 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quasi-spin-off?

What is that term supposed to mean? --Mika1h (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Some of this section makes little sense.86.136.170.58 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catwoman (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013124330/http://www.omglists.com/article/87233/6-stupid-superhero-movie-recasts/ to http://www.omglists.com/article/87233/6-stupid-superhero-movie-recasts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724130824/http://sandiegometro.archives.whsites.net/reel/index.php?reelID=713 to http://sandiegometro.archives.whsites.net/reel/index.php?reelID=713

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Writer says it is bad

One of the credited writers said the film was bad recently when conservative commentators mentioned Catwoman in discussions about Black Panther. It might be worth mentioning in the critical response section, or if the writing and production details are expanded. -- 109.79.163.79 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Also some films received negative reviews, but this film really was panned [1][2] and in this case it is not POV/SYN to say as much. If anything it would be misleading to understate how badly received this film was. -- 109.79.82.61 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

He discussed the film before on his website, without being quite so harsh about it. He specifically discussed the writing credits, and how the arbitration process whittled down the many (ten possibly more) writers to those that were ultimately credited.

Someone wrote a book about Catwoman too, which mentions the difficult development and the writers arbitration (upwards of twenty different writers!) -- 109.79.124.184 (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported claim that this film was a box office bomb. Even though it made less than the production budget, that is not enough to call it a bomb or a flop, sources are still needed. (Found more than one edit where bomb was added by anonymous editors.) -- 109.79.124.184 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again. I reverted another attempt to change the summary to say box office bomb/"flop". Again secondary sources should be saying this before this encyclopedia does. -- 109.78.203.13 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)