A little disappointed that so much of this was already in the last trailer, but I'm still pumped to watch it. Looks fun! Really digging Carol's new look.
creeping-deth87 wrote: A little disappointed that so much of this was already in the last trailer, but I'm still pumped to watch it. Looks fun! Really digging Carol's new look.
I'm the opposite. I dont want to see as much as possible through trailers. I want to see 99% of the movie after ive bought the tkt.
So show me 1 decent trailer, tell me the date & I'm good.
Over all looks like it's mean to to be more fun than high-stake which is nice. I'm burned out on Marvel. Anything that gets the Beastie Boys a paycheck is good in my book. And I hope they are paid a lot.
I'm just happy we finally seem to be moving on from all the whining about the blip. I want superhero movies to be fun, not some bs drama.
Doesn't hurt that I like two of the three characters. That's Cap'n and Ms. Marvel. Monica hasn't gotten enough screen time for me to actually care about her, but I guess this is her opportunity to change that.
In talking with Entertainment Weekly (EW), Brie Larson revealed that she and Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige felt The Marvels' connection to five previous MCU stories was "the way this story made sense to go:"
Those five are the obvious Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel, with the other three being Avengers: Endgame, WandaVision and Secret Invasion.
In talking with Entertainment Weekly (EW), Brie Larson revealed that she and Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige felt The Marvels' connection to five previous MCU stories was "the way this story made sense to go:"
Those five are the obvious Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel, with the other three being Avengers: Endgame, WandaVision and Secret Invasion.
Shame the Marvels promos are dancing on the wreckage of Secret Invasion before it even finishes.
I’m mostly interested for Ms Marvel. She’s funny and different enough to bring something new to this marvel movie, and I hope the whole movie leans into her and her comedic sensibility.
No kidding, if you don't want to know, don't click the one below!
Spoiler:
... somehow one of them - Monica Rambeau - ends up in whatever Earth was in MoM, where her mother is still alive - getting crushed by a giant statue turns out to not be her weakness - and we meet the Kesley Grammer version of Beast.
Unless it gets absolutely great word of mouth I plan on watching sometime later when it is on streaming. Just burnt out on MCU and don't feel compelled to keep up. I have nothing against the people in it, its just not "essential viewing" at this time.
Grumpy Gnome wrote: I like Nick Fury and Captain Marvel. If I am alone in that, so be it.
I get the impression that Fury has just been left damaged by Secret Invasion. If I was retired and had some shapeshifting kids tear up my lawn, I'd be grumpy, too. Or if I got turned into dust and there wasn't a single thing I could do about it, after a lifetime of taking life and death matters into my own hands. Those aren't bad hooks for character development. But in the actual show, he just comes across as being mean to who might just be his best friend. And for no reason whatsoever.
I'm not terribly invested in the character myself (although I always enjoy Jackson's performance), but it seems to me that they leaned a little too heavily into the deconstruction of a badass who wasn't shy about speaking bluntly but did so to inspire confidence in others. It's a pretty harsh shift he's gone through.
I like Captain Marvel just fine, but realistically she's an ass and gets away with it. It's not what I'd call inspiring for a superhero and something I consider a cause for being decisive as a character. Ego is often enough a plot point in the MCU like for instance the conflict between Iron Man and Captain America, and a pretty big one at that as it feeds into the ultimate defeat in Infinity War. The movies tend to be good about getting the point across that it's not a virtue and overcoming it is a worthwhile struggle so the hero(es) can come out victorious in the end. Captain Marvel has so far not gotten to the point where her attitude is challenged and shown to be detrimental to herself or others, which combined with effectively unbeatable superpowers isn't what I'd consider a popular setup for a hero. With all that power to deal with, she's too far removed from Superman's humble goodness on one end and the antihero with the heart of gold who's so powerful he doesn't have to care but comes around in the end anyway on the other. It's not that she's ill-defined, but she occupies a curious space in between those extremes which is dominated by qualities that need counterbalance to appeal to a larger audience.
Subjective as it is, my view is that a big part of being into superheroes is the combination of superpowers to enable them to do things and a moral compass that lets them make the right choices. One can't exist without the other. Captain Marvel is a walking, talking power fantasy, but has so far not had any reason to consider other people's opinions. Her way is the right way no matter what anyone else might have to say on the matter because it worked every single time. At least that's what she thinks. I wouldn't expect that kind of arrogance to go down well with a larger number of superhero fans.
I'm not super excited for this one nor am I expected much from it, but my socials seem extraordinarily invested in telling me it's terrible. Getting really sick of how dedicated to misery things are getting again, not even specifically referring to this film. The hate algorithm seems back in full force again.
I did and while the series was disappointing I was not disappointed in Nick Fury.
He was painful to watch at times because he reminded me of myself and some other folks I have worked with. People get older and there are some wounds more difficult to see than others. At first I was irritated that it seems Disney really wants to hammer down on “tired old warriors who are now broken” but I put aside the gripe and then just started empathizing with the character. I had to ignore plot holes throughout the rest of the show, especially Gaia's characterization and plot but Samuel Jackson portrayed Fury just like a number of veterans I know. Normally fueled by coffee, whiskey and hate for years without taking into account they may live long enough to have to start running on an empty tank. I do not expect Fury to be particularly charismatic. And the extreme confidence common in the world of professional violence easily lends itself to borderline bullying as well as arrogance and vanity.
My only real issue with Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel is that she comes across as not just superpowered but overpowered… which I find dull as far as it comes to story telling. However, the actor was fine and I honestly do not get why she is so widely loathed.
But then I also liked Green Lantern even though Ryan Reynolds himself does not..
And I was ok with Ms. Marvel. Not great but not terrible.
That said I did not like She-Hulk as well as Thor: Love and Thunder so not everything in the MCU gets a pass with me.
And I would like to see more writing in these shows on par with Loki.
Ahtman wrote: Unless it gets absolutely great word of mouth I plan on watching sometime later when it is on streaming. Just burnt out on MCU and don't feel compelled to keep up. I have nothing against the people in it, its just not "essential viewing" at this time.
Same. I burned out with Phase Three. I saw Black Widow and No Way Home and they were fun/entertaining, but that was about all the interest I could muster for MCU after Endgame and Far From Home. My general distaste for movie theaters in a post-COVID world doesn't really help either, seems like the quarantines and lockdown have resulted in people forgetting how to behave in a public setting and trying to watch a movie in a shared environment with people who think its okay to just talk through the whole fething movie is impossible.
Anyway, I feel like the MCU has mostly run its course and I'm not really invested or hooked into the narrative beyond that. Haven't bothered with the Netflix/D+ content really, saw Ms. Marvel - adored it, well acted, well written, adored the way it represented my homeland (thats New Jersey, in case it wasn't clear), but not enough to get me out to the theaters to see another film in the series. Probably won't watch it when its available for streaming either, just not interested.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A character nobody likes, staring in a sequel nobody cares about, featuring two characters no one's heard of.
Recipe for success!
H.B.M.C. wrote: A character nobody likes, staring in a sequel nobody cares about, featuring two characters no one's heard of.
Recipe for success!
I’ll maybe grant you Rambeau, but who hasn’t heard of Ms Marvel? She’s featured heavily in the comics series, headlined a video game, and had her own D+ series. If you don’t know who she is you haven’t been paying attention to Marvel at all for awhile so it doesn’t really matter anyways.
A failed Live Service game that was eventually put out of its misery, and not something that was ever mainstream (and it was an Avengers game, sold on the popularity of the movies and the characters people already knew). And the game was awful.
gak can get ruined, such is SI and Ms. Marvel. As for "The Marvels", personally I haven't cared about a single Marvel Universe product since the Avengers, and not even End Game, so meh. But Ms. Marvel did bomb on D+ and recent Disney showings have all been flaccid, reportedly due to the direction the stories are taking. I fail to see how The Marvels will change that fact.
AduroT wrote: Iron Man wasn’t a household name before his movie either.
Thats not even remotely true. I'm 34 at the end of the month. I dressed up as Iron Man for Halloween as a 7 year old kid in the 90s and I was never really that into comics. He was pretty widely known and popular courtesy of the 90s cartoon series that it seems most kids of a certain age in the US at least grew up watching on saturday mornings, likewise his presence in a number of video games of the era (Marvel v Capcom especially) made him pretty widely known. Hell, Ozzy Osbourne wrote a song about him in the flippin' 70s (thats a joke - it wasn't actually written about him and Ozzy supposedly was unaware of the existence of the comic book character at the time).
chaos0xomega wrote: Hell, Ozzy Osbourne wrote a song about him in the flippin' 70s (thats a joke - it wasn't actually written about him and Ozzy supposedly was unaware of the existence of the comic book character at the time).
True, but I knew a LOT of 80s/90s kids who thought it was.
The barrier for Iron Man was more that comic books were across the nerd divide for general audiences for most of last century. Not that he wasn't a popular comic book character.
A failed Live Service game that was eventually put out of its misery, and not something that was ever mainstream (and it was an Avengers game, sold on the popularity of the movies and the characters people already knew). And the game was awful.
... then you are the majority of the people who might go and see this film.
Get out of the bubble man. What we know isn't what most people know. We do not represent general movie-going audiences.
Sooooooo… They’re only supposed to make movies with characters from already popular movies? Can’t add any from comics or games or even their own series? That’s going to be kind of limiting.
AduroT wrote: Iron Man wasn’t a household name before his movie either.
Thats not even remotely true. I'm 34 at the end of the month. I dressed up as Iron Man for Halloween as a 7 year old kid in the 90s and I was never really that into comics. He was pretty widely known and popular courtesy of the 90s cartoon series that it seems most kids of a certain age in the US at least grew up watching on saturday mornings, likewise his presence in a number of video games of the era (Marvel v Capcom especially) made him pretty widely known. Hell, Ozzy Osbourne wrote a song about him in the flippin' 70s (thats a joke - it wasn't actually written about him and Ozzy supposedly was unaware of the existence of the comic book character at the time).
As someone who isn't into comics the larger part of Marvel characters was unknown to me. Basically if it wasn't on a screen, I didn't know it. I played a Captain America video game in the late 80s or early 90s. Hulk had a live action show. Maybe a cartoon, too. I don't remember. Spiderman was the big superhero cartoon back then, so plenty of exposure to him. I can't say about a standalone show for Iron Man or Thor, but they definitely had guest appearances in other shows. I'm inclined to agree that if you watched cartoons in the 90s, you'd know all the big characters. Add the Fantastic Four and the Thomas Jane Punisher for me, and that's about the extent of my knowledge of Marvel until the MCU got past its initial movies and started introducing less mainstream heroes.
As for Ms. Marvel, my first exposure to her was her show. Don't get me wrong, I like the show and the character, but prior to that I hadn't the faintest idea that she even existed. Even afterwards, when I saw the Crisis Protocol model, I was confused that it showed stretchy powers instead of sparkly powers. I may or may not be representative, but I have a hard time believing that she was anything but obscure prior to her first MCU outing.
AduroT wrote: Sooooooo… They’re only supposed to make movies with characters from already popular movies? Can’t add any from comics or games or even their own series? That’s going to be kind of limiting.
I'm with you when it comes to broadening the selection of superheroes we get to see. But how to put this. You know how one of Star Wars' strengths, regardless of any sneering at Star Wars Street, is that it has recurring characters and fan favorites who give it a known and loved face even if it introduces or focuses on new characters? It feels like that was a big strength of the MCU during its early run but was not meant to be a lasting feature.
Let's look at the heroes from the first Avengers movie. Tony is dead. Natasha is dead. Maria is dead. Steve is Joe Biden now. Bruce is reduced to She-Hulk's origin story. Thor got a standalone movie recently, but doesn't appear alongside other heroes anymore. Clint is the same with his own show. Fury is still active (you can't kill that melon-fether), and that's about it.
More often than not, shows and movies now are new guys who may get some help from second generation heroes. The big ones that got the ball rolling are almost all gone. I don't think it's wrong to lament the absence of the big names and attribute some of the waning interest in the MCU to that. It's not limited to just that, of course, but as a contributing factor I'd say it's a pretty big one.
No Way Home. Really good.
Black Widow. Sucked.
Dr. Strange 2. Passable.
Wakanda Forever. Sucked.
Thor 4. Super sucked.
Guardians 3. Passable.
After one good movie, and two that were passable (the D+ shows leave a lot to be desired) I’m over it. I probably won’t even watch this on D+.
Until they start actually making good movies again, I’m skipping most of the MCU these days.
You can argue about exactly how much public awareness there was about Iron Man, but there's no question he was a C-tier Marvel character at best. That's why they still had his rights. He was also kind of an unlikeable, womanizing alcoholic before RDJ.
People say that Marvel aced the comic book fidelity component, but they actually redefined some of the characters quite a bit for the films. Most movie goers just didn't know it. There was some Disneyification going on there even before Disney.
People say that Marvel aced the comic book fidelity component, but they actually redefined some of the characters quite a bit for the films. Most movie goers just didn't know it. There was some Disneyification going on there even before Disney.
The MCU is pretty heavily built upon removing the Mark Millar from Ultimates.
I don't think I would say Iron Man was C tier but a solid B. Sure he wasn't as well known as Spider-Man, Hulk or Captain America but he was an original Avenger and made appearances in animated series, even had his own in the 90s, as well as an appearance on The Incredible Hulk.
Yeah, thats a fair assessment. I don't know that "Tony Stark" was a name that I was necessarily aware of for example, or what his personality was or his backstory is or anything like that. I just knew that there was a character named Iron Man who occasionally teamed up with Spiderman, Captain America, and the X-Men who wore a suit of red and gold bulletproof armor that could fly and shoot blasts of energy from its hands. That was about the extent of it. That is the extent of what most people knew, and that was probably enough to justify my point and position.
See though, I was a bit nerdier than the other kids, so I also knew - courtesy of having watched the cartoon series - that Iron Man had a cooler more badass friend named Warmachine, who wore a similar suit that was colored black and silver, and which had a cannon and a rocket launcher mounted on its shoulders. So when we were all playing pretend down in the park and the other kids were fighting over who got to be who (and there was always a fight over who got to be Iron Man, Captain America, and Spiderman. Always.) I would always be like "Im Warmachine." and they'd all be like "who" and I'd explain it and sometimes they'd accuse me of making it up, and sometimes they'd be cool with it or id have a trading card of him to show them for proof or whatever. But Iron Man? Everyone knew who he was...
I first heard of Iron Man from How to Draw (less popular) Comics the Marvel Way. The second time I heard about him was from comics nerds calling him a douche due to some crossover. Third time was the movie.
I heard of Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel from the internet backlash over her existence. The second time I heard of her was some backlash over a new female character who was forced and unnecesssry, unlike that Kamala Khan. Third was the TV show.
AduroT wrote: I canceled mine when they raised the price…
…yarrrrr.
I’m doing the same. They jumped the price by 25% per month.
And then they try and sell me on an annual membership at a 15% discount over monthly.
So if pay for a whole year up front, it only costs me 10% more per month?
Yeah no thanks.
Pre-2008, I reckon quite a few folk would’ve heard of him. But damn few could’ve told you anything about the character and his adventures and powers.
Thus B tier, not A tier like Spidey; he wasn't familiar but he was known. There is a reason why he was picked to try and have an animated series when Spidey and X-Men were popular cartoons in the 90s as well as why he ended up getting a movie. He was just well enough known that they kept pushing to try and get him from B to A, unlike many many other comic characters.
And yeah, they're about to put their prices up again, and my subscription will run out just after Loki 2 is done, and beyond that I don't care.
SW has been utterly ruined by Disney, even going to far as to basically murder some of my fav characters in that slow-as-molasses boring Ahsoka show. And the MCU is on life-support, with all but a few D+ MCU shows being total garbage (or just slow, boring and devoid of any real plot). The MCU is salvageable, or I think it is at least, but it's going to take a whole lot of effort to get it back on track.
And now there's talk of Marvel bringing RDJ and ScarJo back from the dead. If that's happening, then we know it's over...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Honestly. Who do Disney think they are. Resurrecting dead characters. ThAt NeVeR hApPeNs In ThE cOmIcS.
Comic sales are even more.F L A C C I D than Disney's viewership these days, I hope.they keep learning from failures so both can just end themselves already
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I would say Iron Man was C tier but a solid B. Sure he wasn't as well known as Spider-Man, Hulk or Captain America but he was an original Avenger and made appearances in animated series, even had his own in the 90s, as well as an appearance on The Incredible Hulk.
It isn't like he is ROM: Space Knight.
When the first Ironman came out people thought the character was a robot.
General populous wise, people were more familiar with the song than the character.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Honestly. Who do Disney think they are. Resurrecting dead characters. ThAt NeVeR hApPeNs In ThE cOmIcS.
Why must you be so uncharacteristically clueless about this in this thread? The comics are not the movies. Never have been. And what works in the comics doesn't always (if rarely ever) work in movies.
General audiences will be far less forgiving about constantly returning characters.
Iron Man has always been popular enough to make regular appearances but never reached the kind of appeal that carried his own series. People had almost certainly encountered him whether its seeing an episode of the cartoon or in one of Capcom's fighters, but they didn't really know anything about him.
A big part of this is just that his rogue's gallery has always been kind of trash. So much of what makes a character interesting is the ability to have them face a consistent stream of exciting villains. That's really why Spidey and Batman and the X-Men thrive.
It's also hard to understate just how impactful the Extremis redesign really was. Replacing the "metallic tights" look that had dominated most of his design with something that looked like an actual machine really gave the character a proper engineer/gearhead hook that resonates with people. I still find it very hard to read any of his pre-extremis comics. The robo abs just don't work for me.
People say that Marvel aced the comic book fidelity component, but they actually redefined some of the characters quite a bit for the films. Most movie goers just didn't know it. There was some Disneyification going on there even before Disney.
The MCU is pretty heavily built upon removing the Mark Millar from Ultimates.
Yeah, with the militarized Avengers and all. Honestly, I thought that was one of the (perhaps very few) good things that they were doing on the DC side. Having the Justice League simply be an assemblage of powerful beings and not a division of a government agency. Superman explicitly telling the military/government that he won't work for them or be controlled by them is one of the things they got right in MoS, IMO.
And now there's talk of Marvel bringing RDJ and ScarJo back from the dead. If that's happening, then we know it's over...
It would be true to the source material though. Nobody killed in comic books ever truly dies.
It was one of the fundamental flaws of the MCU from the beginning. It just took time for it to become apparent. You can draw the same character for 100 years, but actors age out or move on. And star power still matters a lot in moviemaking. So if you want to keep that strict continuity, you're going to have to roll the dice on introducing new actors and characters and hoping they catch on like the originals. And audiences are more fickle than ever.
It didn't help that they likely expected Black Panther to be one of the big draws in the post-Endgame era. Then they thought they landed on the right actor-villain combo with Kang and stuff happened there too. And unlike the very early days of the MCU, it's harder for them to make easy course corrections.
LunarSol wrote: Iron Man has always been popular enough to make regular appearances but never reached the kind of appeal that carried his own series. People had almost certainly encountered him whether its seeing an episode of the cartoon or in one of Capcom's fighters, but they didn't really know anything about him.
A big part of this is just that his rogue's gallery has always been kind of trash.
Well, more than that, his most famous villain is full on Fu Manchu yellow peril nonsense, and that just doesn't fly now.
I was surprised when they managed to subvert it, and even more surprised when they managed to pull something decent out of comic's garbage fire concept in Shang Chi.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I would say Iron Man was C tier but a solid B. Sure he wasn't as well known as Spider-Man, Hulk or Captain America but he was an original Avenger and made appearances in animated series, even had his own in the 90s, as well as an appearance on The Incredible Hulk.
It isn't like he is ROM: Space Knight.
When the first Ironman came out people thought the character was a robot.
General populous wise, people were more familiar with the song than the character.
Again didn't say he was a household name just that he wasn't so obscure that no one but die hard comic fans knew of him. There is a far bigger middle ground between zero knowledge and comic book aficionado.
Fantastic Four seems to be another that is semi known that has been hoisted up on multiple occasions (several cartoons, an anime, and a few live action) but that just can't seem to make that break through to main stream popularity.
He would’ve been known, because he’s had cartoons in the past, and his own comic on the stands.
But, I wonder if it’s one of those characters the man in the street would recognise the name of, but not be able to say if it was a Marvel or D.C. character. That low level awareness stuff.
Its interesting that you assume such a person would know that Marvel and DC are different (or their names).
I can't think of many non-comics people that talk about 'that DC character, XX' or 'that guy from Marvel comics.'
Its different now, of course, because the film brands are pushed hard, but in the old days, comic books were comic books. The differences were for that comic book nerd.
Pre-2008, I reckon quite a few folk would’ve heard of him. But damn few could’ve told you anything about the character and his adventures and powers.
His specific adventures? No, not likely - other than "fights Marvel Comics bad guys".
His powers though? Easy. He flies around in an armored suit & shoots lasers out of his hands.
It's also a fair guess that his suit is some degree of invulnerable & that he's rich.
Headline on the Forbes article summed up my thoughts when the trailer started with Downey and Evans.
Spoiler:
The Final ‘The Marvels’ Trailer Is Transparently Desperate
Marvel is bracing for impact as The Marvels is shaping up to be one of the MCU’s biggest box office bombs, really no matter what the quality of the film ends up being. It’s the wrong film at the wrong time for the MCU, and early pre-sales have it tracking below DC’s disastrous The Flash.
So, Marvel and Disney are now pulling out all the stops. And by that I mean releasing a “final” trailer for the film that is so transparently desperate it actually hurts to watch. And I say that not as some weird Brie Larson-hater but as someone who is genuinely looking forward to the film (more Iman Vellani as Kamala!).
The trailer sheds the lighthearted tone of the older spots and appears to be trying to make this a direct continuation of Avengers Endgame. It opens with multiple scenes of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, both of whom have both left the MCU at this point, flashing back to their final battle against Thanos, while reminding us that yes, Captain Marvel was also there
But it’s not just awkward nostalgia bait, The Marvels is now content to spoil some of its own plot points and cameos in order to try to sell more tickets. Namely the trailer outright teases multiverse integration when that wasn’t seen before. It also shows off a cameo from Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie which was not previously known. And to top it all off, we have The Avengers theme playing over the title card at the end. Embarassing.
All of this serves the narrative that this is going to go badly, and Marvel knows it’s going to go badly. It feels like the last stop on the train where the MCU has been so die-hard about integrating its movies and Disney Plus shows, with Captain Marvel 1, WandaVision, Ms. Marvel and Secret Invasion all serving as “backstory” for this.
By signing up, you accept and agree to our Terms of Service (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), and Privacy Statement.
Once upon a time there was a grand plan that the “successors” to the MCU’s Tony/Steve/Thor central trio would be Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man. That was unraveled by Chadwick Boseman’s tragic death, then the insane online hate campaign against Brie Larson which disillusioned her from the role, and the only real thriving member for a time was Tom Holland’s Peter, but even he’s now sort of in limbo.
Plans are already changing after The Marvels on the assumption it will not do well. Disney Plus shows are being scaled back or are turning into more standalone projects that don’t require years of MCU backstory to enjoy. Marvel’s current biggest problem is figuring out what to do with Kang and Jonathan Majors, but past that, the future looks somewhat brighter with the Fantastic Four and X-Men on the way soon enough.
This isn’t going to be good, box office wise, but I do hope at least the movie itself is good, and it’s a shame they had a cut a trailer this cringe-inducing before release. Reviews should be in soon.
Tracking below The Flash in box offcie take is wild!
The "algorithm" behind this one has been pretty wild from the get go. I can't say I've seen as much clickbait with headlines clearly designed to skew me towards assuming the worst in a long while, but I've been feeling like there's been a big upswing of that in general in the last 6-8 months. Most of the YouTube suggestions outside of my subscribed channels are why something is DOOMED or FAILED or DYING or what have you. I'm back to wielding the block button regularly again.
In one of easily the single best years in video game history, I'm just at a point where the internet needs to shut up and let me enjoy things.
I’m starting to think it’s not a Marvel thing or a Disney thing or even a “movies” thing. This is in every aspect of life now. People are sick of it—all of it—and end up hating on everything.
Its weird, I watched most of the trailer on mute at work as I was packing up, and thought while the member berries were oddly strong at the start, it actually looked like they were trying to show off an actual plot for the first time (beyond zany power swapping), with an actual villain who legitimately seems like a threat (which is pretty novel for Marvel movies).
If Forbes wants to write a Doom Screed for the movie showing off an actual plot, then... whatever.
I did? The article posted further up insists that the trailer is desperate and cringe-inducing and stuff. I mean, since the author insists he's not some weird Brie Larson hater, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not some weird Brie Larson hater, we should see eye to eye on the trailer. Right?
Well, no. Hating Brie Larson is some weirdo deranged thing from clickbait sites.
The trailer seemed fine to me, but I can see people having completely different takes on the trailer in ways that have nothing to do with Brie Larson at all. Thats pretty normal, really.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m starting to think it’s not a Marvel thing or a Disney thing or even a “movies” thing. This is in every aspect of life now. People are sick of it—all of it—and end up hating on everything.
I don't think it's anything new. Sensational headlines have always sold; negative gossip has always been in heavy circulation. People write this stuff because people click on it. The main thing that's new is the ability for bots to push this stuff into heavy circulation regardless of how popular it truly is.
Well, reviews are out, and they are brutal. Critics known for their even-handedness are calling this a disaster. The only consistent point of praise is the actress who plays Ms Marvel.
Not really surprised. I've got a few critics I kind of go to that haven't chimed in I'll be curious to hear from. I learned a while back that meta scores matter far less than the opinions of people who's reviews I tend to agree with.
Oddly, IGN of all places seems pretty positive on it. At no point have I been hyped to see this one, but its increasingly becoming a curiosity.
Captain Marvel seems inconsistent, no coherent vision for the character
Monica Rambeaux just there
Feels like there were a lot of rewrites and reshoots leading to tonal shifts and threads that go nowhere.
Jokes not funny.
Now, I’m still planning to see this because I tend to enjoy the lighter toned MCU movies, even hated ones like Thor 4. I don’t see eye to eye with my favorite reviewers, but I respect their perspectives due to their articulation of what worked for them and what didn’t.
Nobody here can say one way or the other till we see it. When critics opinions sit on opposite sides of the spectrum it's fair to assume some or all of them can be dismissed. The truth probably sits somewhere in the middle.
LunarSol wrote: A lot of them are pissed that superheroes didn't go away in 2012 like they wanted.
Seems like a terrible attempt at dismissing criticisms.
Eh, I'm just kind of over the fandom as a whole. Whether it be the crowd screaming superhero fatigue for over a decade or the Snyder bros or any of it. I'm tired of spending more time on the discussion leading up something than the actual product is worth.
LunarSol wrote: A lot of them are pissed that superheroes didn't go away in 2012 like they wanted.
Seems like a terrible attempt at dismissing criticisms.
Eh, I'm just kind of over the fandom as a whole. Whether it be the crowd screaming superhero fatigue for over a decade or the Snyder bros or any of it. I'm tired of spending more time on the discussion leading up something than the actual product is worth.
Yeah, my personal favorite is the ones where all the discussion is in the lead-up, of films no-one has seen yet. Then once they come out, discussion dries up because there's nothing worth talking about.
Or the 'what-the-30-seconds-of-end-credits-means-for-the-future-of-the-MCU/DCEU,' which is arguably worse.
Just saw it and I really dug it. Exactly the sort of fun, light hearted adventure I was expecting from the previews. Khamala was great in this, it was fun seeing her family again - and not just for a single scene either, they featured throughout and were thoroughly entertaining. I felt all three characters got their time to shine. There were some surprising cameos too, especially during the mid credits scene.
Spoiler:
Seeing Kelsey Grammar as Beast again was wild and totally unexpected. So curious to see what Monica gets up to in this other universe. And Kate! I loved Hawkeye and I've been waiting to see her again since that show ended forever ago. [/i]
From what I can gather the consensus is that it as ok movie: not great, not awful, just fine. Common thoughts seem to be boring villain, many of the actors seem seem disinterested, Kamala is a highlight, and a scenes with kittens is fun. In the end seemingly designed to be perfect for streaming.
One comment I saw: "Of all the films coming out in 2024, this is one of them".
This is one of the better ones of this phase. It’s bright, it’s very entertaining, and the cast are solid. It doesn’t drag its feet, and the plot makes sense.
It’s a comfortably above average MCU film. And I think people may be spoiled by just how decent the MCU’s fare is.
Audience scores are significantly higher than critic (80-85%). Seeing it tomorrow. By all acounts a light, punchy, fun one. Not the mcus greatest. Nowhere near it's worst.
No one described that as "one of the better ones of this phase", either; there is no need to compare it to the smell of a dumpster to come out as better, as it stands out all by itself.
GOTG3 is one of the better MCU movies, period. A note return to form.
For my money, whilst still quite enjoyable films, only Eternals and Black Panther 2 stand out as not that great.
Eternals is just…weird. It doesn’t feel or really act like part of the MCU.
Black Panther 2? Shot during the pandemic, and having lost an incredibly charismatic leading man. Both of which were significant challenges. Most of the film is better than its reputation suggests, with the biggest letdown being the big final scrap. Which is just….weird.
No one described that as "one of the better ones of this phase", either; there is no need to compare it to the smell of a dumpster to come out as better, as it stands out all by itself.
I likes the bit where they insult Draxx to his face, then wipe his memory, with the implication that this is a semi-regular occurrence.
It didn’t go as I expected. After all, Kamala mentioned the bracelets have power over space and time. So I was expecting Danvers to harness that to adjust her behaviour.
But Cpt Rambeau suggests “but you could like….just use your power to restart Hala’s Sun”
Which, not without in-movie cause, Danvers clearly never considered. Probably because she was more focussed on the guilt her good intentions caused.
And I think that was the better ending. The sins of Danvers remain - that stain on her soul. But, importantly, she put it right. In a sense, she made the villain’s plan succeed, but better.
To me the theme of this movie is communication. Just…talking to each other.
Saw it. Really enjoyed it. I would agree with the assessment that it's light and breezy fun with a couple of good poignant moments that don't slow it down.
I would agree that it's a middle of the road good Marvel movie, but I would also like to point out that at this stage a middle of the road good Marvel movie is just a good movie as far as comic movies go. Id place it in the same teir as IM 1, Dr Strange 1, etc...
Not the best Marvel movie. Not as heart wrenching as GotG3, or the absolute solid maybe best movie Winter Soldier is but a good time seeing a decent story.
Lore implication stuff.
Spoiler:
So confirmation of what the Bangle is. Quantum Bands. Being the Quantum Bands,,,, Quasar?
The Quantum Bands were used by a couple of Eternals to give birth to children the natural way. Those kids were Thanos and Starfox.
It's interesting that Carol effectively saved Hala (at the cost of 2 other worlds because of Dar-Ben) but the skrulls are still fethed. However they are now on Earth, and with the implications of Secret Invasion maybe there is a story there eventually.
Lance845 wrote: Saw it. Really enjoyed it. I would agree with the assessment that it's light and breezy fun with a couple of good poignant moments that don't slow it down.
I would agree that it's a middle of the road good Marvel movie, but I would also like to point out that at this stage a middle of the road good Marvel movie is just a good movie as far as comic movies go. Id place it in the same teir as IM 1, Dr Strange 1, etc...
Not the best Marvel movie. Not as heart wrenching as GotG3, or the absolute solid maybe best movie Winter Soldier is but a good time seeing a decent story.
Lore implication stuff.
Spoiler:
So confirmation of what the Bangle is. Quantum Bands. Being the Quantum Bands,,,, Quasar?
The Quantum Bands were used by a couple of Eternals to give birth to children the natural way. Those kids were Thanos and Starfox.
It's interesting that Carol effectively saved Hala (at the cost of 2 other worlds because of Dar-Ben) but the skrulls are still fethed. However they are now on Earth, and with the implications of Secret Invasion maybe there is a story there eventually.
They probably want people to forget that Secret Invasion ever happened. I mean, wouldn't you?
Anyway, the opening. US$47m. That's pretty dire, to say the least. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for the meetings that they'll be having at Marvel today.
Voss wrote: Or the 'what-the-30-seconds-of-end-credits-means-for-the-future-of-the-MCU/DCEU,' which is arguably worse.
When what the post-credits scene will be is more exciting than the entire proceeding film, then you have a problem.
The only thing I'm looking forward to about this movie is the Honest Trailer or Pitch Meeting video about it.
But yeah, that opening box office is pretty bad given what the budget is. Can't say the supposedly good audience score can save it from the general apathy that the MCU has generated from all the poor content they've been putting out.
Yeah, Chapek really damaged the brand during his short tenure helming the ship. They're gonna have to work hard to build trust with the audience again. While I like the Marvels just fine, I can understand the apathy in the wake of Endgame. The Multiverse Saga is just not nearly as tight as the Infinity Saga.
Id say it's a combination of Chapek brand damage and the writers/actors strike.
The lead up to this film was drowned out by 1 rumor mills and 2 poor advertising. Iman, Brie, and Teyonah would have been doing the circuit and instead sat by silently.
WE knew this movie was coming out and the other comic nerds knew this movie was coming out, but time and again it's proven that the nerds don't produce the profits. The general audiences do. And the general audiences are not watching the press releases and paying attention to message boards.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Yeah, Chapek really damaged the brand during his short tenure helming the ship. They're gonna have to work hard to build trust with the audience again. While I like the Marvels just fine, I can understand the apathy in the wake of Endgame. The Multiverse Saga is just not nearly as tight as the Infinity Saga.
That's an inherent problem with breaking open a multiverse (and time travel). It can't be tight. Anyone can be anything and immediately swan off, or replace or be replaced. Stakes are down, normal storytelling is out the window. Any temporary resolution is going to be rooted in nonsense metaphysics and lose at least part of the audience, who mostly want a payoff for the specific version of characters they care about.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: GOTG3 is one of the better MCU movies, period. A note return to form.
For my money, whilst still quite enjoyable films, only Eternals and Black Panther 2 stand out as not that great.
Eternals is just…weird. It doesn’t feel or really act like part of the MCU.
Black Panther 2? Shot during the pandemic, and having lost an incredibly charismatic leading man. Both of which were significant challenges. Most of the film is better than its reputation suggests, with the biggest letdown being the big final scrap. Which is just….weird.
I really liked Eternals a lot more than I expected. I found myself rather engaged with the cast, though admittedly their actual conflict wasn't nearly as compelling as their little bouts of humanity throughout. Definitely a slow burn and not what Marvel is known for, but I found myself really lost in it whenever the Deviants weren't in the picture.
I can definitely see where BP2 had potential to live up to the original, but it is clearly a salvaged project. You can pretty much see every scene Boseman was meant to be in and the cast is often playing double duty to fill in for him, both in terms of the plot and to try and carry the franchise he put everything into. Shuri definitely suffers the most. She's clearly meant to focus on befriending Ruri and giving us a view into Namor and the people of Atlantis, but she's also somehow supposed to carry the hate of loss and the burden of leadership that is clearly Boseman's arc through the film. Wright does a pretty great job of it, but its still too much for one character to carry through the film. A really, really weird final battle does not help at all (though the actual duel is fantastic).
What kind of biased media is actually saying this is one of the "best year for video games"? All the big titles dying or DOA, with only a few exceptions who have always been outsider studios.
About the only positives are big AAA western companies losing boat loads of money and "double As" getting ahead, and live service games dying.
As for the movie -- well deserved; one just don't beat decades of established popular characters with new ones with barely any establishment nor beloved character buildup. The Captain Marvel film was controversial, Kamala Khan is a who and the other one a literal "WHO EVEN IS THIS?" to your average movie goer or even casual fans.
Putting at least 274.8 mil into this project (more than the Avengers, which was to feature a cast consisting of a long list of well-know comic fan favorites, the breakthrough Iron Man, and friends) is ridiculous and Disney should have seen this coming.
Look, Avengers had the Hulk, the Captain America, and the Robert Donny Jr. to lead the helm. Like it or not Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is, not least for her sexiness, sold tickets. I can't comment on Hawkeye, but the names of the first three alone would almost guarantee a hit. The Marvels was betting on Captain Marvel to carry the film in the promotional stage, and a controversial name like that simply isn't gonna cut it.
cuda1179 wrote: I've said this before, but it keeps irritating me. Disney needs to learn English. It should be Higher, Faster, FARTHER. Farther, not further.
Farther is more literal. Further is for more abstract or theoretical distance, much like the purely theoretical target audience for this film.
lcmiracle wrote: What kind of biased media is actually saying this is one of the "best year for video games"? All the big titles dying or DOA, with only a few exceptions who have always been outsider studios.
Tears of the Kingdom, Street Fighter 6, Final Fantasy 16, Armored Core 6, Sea of Stars, Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, Vampire Survivors, Super Mario Wonder. That's just the stuff I like and not including things like Baldur's Gate 3 which aren't my thing but undeniably great.
It might be a terrible year for live service garbage, but there hasn't been a year this good for games that aren't just constantly asking for more money in years.
lcmiracle wrote: What kind of biased media is actually saying this is one of the "best year for video games"? All the big titles dying or DOA, with only a few exceptions who have always been outsider studios.
Tears of the Kingdom, Street Fighter 6, Final Fantasy 16, Armored Core 6, Sea of Stars, Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, Vampire Survivors, Super Mario Wonder. That's just the stuff I like and not including things like Baldur's Gate 3 which aren't my thing but undeniably great.
It might be a terrible year for live service garbage, but there hasn't been a year this good for games that aren't just constantly asking for more money in years.
Compared to the previous year -- this is the year in which AAA titles actually suffers. Baldur's Gate put shame upon AAA developers so much they wanted blood; and Armored Core has always been excellent, as is Fromsoft's want.
Spiderman 2 is skub with fans, don't delute yourself. FF16 sales dropped off much faster than FF15, shipping 3 millions copies in the first month when FF15 sold 5 million on the first day and FF7 remake 3.5 millions on the first day, on top of that it's another skub with the fans. And don't even lie about Alan Wake 2, with the fans no even getting to play as Alan Wake? This year is either filled with garbage or near-garbage, no mistake. If it were for Fromsoft and Larian Studios this would be year without a single worthwhile new game.
Have you played this stuff or do you just quote sales numbers as the ultimate barometer of quality? Is your opinion formed by the click bait echo chamber? Maybe we just like completely different kinds of games? You're going so far out of your way to be hostile about this I don't really have a baseline from where you're coming from.
Like, lets be clear. I never really latched on to things like Call of Duty and the Assassin's Creed franchise along with most UbiSoft offerings became a competitive grind I fell out of love with a decade ago. Bethesda's style never really clicked with me either so if that kind of stuff is what you're into, I can see being less enthused than I've been. Just trying to get an idea where you're coming from.
I wonder how much D+ is actually killing Disney, and they really should have left Streaming to Netflix and licensed it out to them instead?
Are we going to see the "death" of streaming as all the studios are losing buckets of cash on it? Will it reconsolidate back to Netflix now? Or will the studios keep dumping $$$ in for market share and add Adverts to it all?
If CEOs could admit their mistakes, we’d probably be back to the Netflix/Tubi model.
But my guess is we’ll see more Balkanized paid-subscription services to go full ham with advertisements. Worse customer experiences for steeper prices.
Well, with D+ jumping 3 bucks a month for me I’ll be dropping it. How many streaming services am I supposed to have, and how much are these companies expecting the average person to spend a month?
With Prime, D+ and Netflix, it’s over $40 a month. And with the number of shows and movies on each, who has time to watch that much TV??
Add in Paramount, HULU, and god knows how many others and one can easily be running over $100 a month for streaming.
As for the Marvels though? I don’t even care what Marvel Studios puts out at this point anymore. And I’m a huge Marvel comics fan and was a fan of the MCU. They’ve killed my interest in the franchise simply by over saturating us with too much. And it’s not even the good stuff! They literally have 70 years of stories and characters along with the sales data of which stories/characters sold and all they’re making is stuff with unpopular characters, and modern storylines that aren’t selling comics.
Which is why I’ve about completely given up on Marvel Studios.
As for the Marvels though? I don’t even care what Marvel Studios puts out at this point anymore. And I’m a huge Marvel comics fan and was a fan of the MCU. They’ve killed my interest in the franchise simply by over saturating us with too much. And it’s not even the good stuff! They literally have 70 years of stories and characters along with the sales data of which stories/characters sold and all they’re making is stuff with unpopular characters, and modern storylines that aren’t selling comics.
Which is why I’ve about completely given up on Marvel Studios.
I think I'm about the complete opposite. My Marvel exposure as a kid was primarily Spiderman, and then X-Men as a teenager. As much as I enjoyed the Spiderman and (most of) the X-Men movies, I've quite enjoyed the fact that the MCU has given me a bunch of movies about characters I was either only vaguely familiar with or didn't know anything about at all.
I also wonder if it's the storylines that aren't selling comics, or just the fact that print media is dying generally.
As for the Marvels though? I don’t even care what Marvel Studios puts out at this point anymore. And I’m a huge Marvel comics fan and was a fan of the MCU. They’ve killed my interest in the franchise simply by over saturating us with too much. And it’s not even the good stuff! They literally have 70 years of stories and characters along with the sales data of which stories/characters sold and all they’re making is stuff with unpopular characters, and modern storylines that aren’t selling comics.
Which is why I’ve about completely given up on Marvel Studios.
I think I'm about the complete opposite. My Marvel exposure as a kid was primarily Spiderman, and then X-Men as a teenager. As much as I enjoyed the Spiderman and (most of) the X-Men movies, I've quite enjoyed the fact that the MCU has given me a bunch of movies about characters I was either only vaguely familiar with or didn't know anything about at all.
I also wonder if it's the storylines that aren't selling comics, or just the fact that print media is dying generally.
Yeah, same here. Before watching the original Avengers back in 2012, I couldn't tell you a damn thing about Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow - any of'em. Phase 1 is what made me fall in love with those characters, and I highly doubt I ever would have been exposed to them otherwise. I have no problem with them introducing new heroes to general audiences, so long as the stories are written well.
I think I'm about the complete opposite. My Marvel exposure as a kid was primarily Spiderman, and then X-Men as a teenager. As much as I enjoyed the Spiderman and (most of) the X-Men movies, I've quite enjoyed the fact that the MCU has given me a bunch of movies about characters I was either only vaguely familiar with or didn't know anything about at all.
I also wonder if it's the storylines that aren't selling comics, or just the fact that print media is dying generally.
Spiderman and zoids. And Transformers. Was that marvel?
I tell you, if they did a good Zoids series in the style of the British comic I would be hooked and paying a subscription...
As for the Marvels though? I don’t even care what Marvel Studios puts out at this point anymore. And I’m a huge Marvel comics fan and was a fan of the MCU. They’ve killed my interest in the franchise simply by over saturating us with too much. And it’s not even the good stuff! They literally have 70 years of stories and characters along with the sales data of which stories/characters sold and all they’re making is stuff with unpopular characters, and modern storylines that aren’t selling comics.
Which is why I’ve about completely given up on Marvel Studios.
I think I'm about the complete opposite. My Marvel exposure as a kid was primarily Spiderman, and then X-Men as a teenager. As much as I enjoyed the Spiderman and (most of) the X-Men movies, I've quite enjoyed the fact that the MCU has given me a bunch of movies about characters I was either only vaguely familiar with or didn't know anything about at all.
I also wonder if it's the storylines that aren't selling comics, or just the fact that print media is dying generally.
Yeah, same here. Before watching the original Avengers back in 2012, I couldn't tell you a damn thing about Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow - any of'em. Phase 1 is what made me fall in love with those characters, and I highly doubt I ever would have been exposed to them otherwise. I have no problem with them introducing new heroes to general audiences, so long as the stories are written well.
The problem is, they aren’t written very well.
There are literally decades of amazing stories they could use and adapt.
And they aren’t using any of them.
Saw it yesterday and really liked it. Certainly one of the best recent Marvel movies imo. The jokes landed ('he's bilingual' was great), it didn't outstay its welcome and big-screen Ms Marvel was a delight.
As mentioned earlier? SAG strike meant it received little to no hype. That’s a factor here, given how much advertising is usually done for a Blockbuster. Now we kinda see why it was done.
Yet, audience scores remain high. Almost as if….its a genuinely decent movie. Which having seen it with my own eyes and brain? It is.
Lack of hype, lack of advertising, lack of interviews in the run up all matter. Especially when an overwhelming percentage of those who have seen it enjoyed it.
And it’s another “did we even watch the same film, or were you too busy looking for things to nitpick you didn’t actually pay any attention” situation when it comes to reviewers.
No plot element goes unexplained by the end. Our main characters all have motivations which make sense. The performances are no worse than Fine.
Yeah, the hate for this movie is really bizarre. People really want this to fail and the genuine delight in its box office woes is so weird. It's no Winter Soldier or Infinity War, but it comfortably sits with most other MCU movies in its quality IMO.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Yeah, the hate for this movie is really bizarre. People really want this to fail and the genuine delight in its box office woes is so weird. It's no Winter Soldier or Infinity War, but it comfortably sits with most other MCU movies in its quality IMO.
Similar things happened with this year's DC superhero films. Shazam 2 and Flash weren't masterpieces, but they got beat up a little more than they deserved.
No one showed up for Shazam 2, and that was even a sequel to a film that did decent BO, had very high audience and critical scores, and then did well in streaming. You would expect it to top the original's numbers or at least maybe match it. But audiences still seem to be cagey about watching films in theaters. They'll come out for certain experiences, but not others that they would have pre-COVID. And I think that superhero fatigue is fairly real at this point.
I'm really not sure that anyone is going to care much about James Gunn's new DCU. It's the right idea, 10 years too late.
The Flash is another oddity, given the bizarre and illegal behaviour of its lead.
I for one have no wish to endorse such behaviour, and so won’t watch it. The same reason I don’t watch films starring Jared Leto, Rebel Wilson, James Corden, Tom Cruise and others.
Anyway, I think this is kind of a bigger Solo effect, a movie that would have struggled to attract a huge audience to begin with following up on one or more punishing duds. The audience might like the film, but they won’t take the risk after the last couple times their hands were burned.
Add in the terrible economy, and you have a situation where people are saving their dollars for the few movie experiences that really stand out.
I'm really not sure that anyone is going to care much about James Gunn's new DCU. It's the right idea, 10 years too late.
I think the thing that's easily forgotten is that superhero films have been cultural milestones for decades, but not the same style of superhero movies. The genre has "died" at least half a dozen times, only to sprout up again. A lot of the failures of the DCEU really come down to it holding on to a grounded style that had been building since X-Men but really peaked with The Dark Knight. A lot of the MCU's success is a result of building on the style of the Rami Spider-Man films, which seemingly peaked with Endgame. Gunn's new DCU might be a flop, but it also might set the tone for what super hero films resonate with the next decade of audiences. Above all else though, what makes audiences see these films is making them good films. The MCU has always had some high grade mediocrity, but the greats carry audiences through the couple hour lulls here and there. I'd actually wager that Phase 3 films have a simliiar average quality, but its a lot harder to ignore weekly doses of 45 minute time sinks.
I think it's complicated. IMO, the grounded style itself didn't do in the DCEU when offerings like Daredevil through The Batman were very popular in that same time period. And while I wouldn't call WW a grounded film exactly, it certainly had a level of grit to it that the first Cap film kinda lacked.
So I think it's much more about the style's execution, application, and timing. Safe to say that Snyder had trouble with all three of those with BvS.
Anyway, yes, maybe Gunn's DCU reignites the genre. But it's really hard to just whip up a genre-changing 'great' film. And I'm not sure that theaters are a rational marketplace these days.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Very little. Certainly never displayed an ounce of talent or charisma.
You included her in a list of people who did/do crimes or were abusive to coworkers (and Tom Cruise). Did she not commit any crime or abuse?
I'm sure there's...something.
People can do whatever they want. Personally, I think if one boycotted every film that had a sh*tty person attached to it, you'd be left with a very small list of movies to watch. Hollywood's issues didn't begin and end with Harvey Weinstein and Ezra Miller, for chrissakes.
So PERSONALLY, I don't worry about that stuff. I can go see a film to support all the hundreds of non-sh*tty people who worked hard on it to feed their families.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Yeah, the hate for this movie is really bizarre. People really want this to fail and the genuine delight in its box office woes is so weird. It's no Winter Soldier or Infinity War, but it comfortably sits with most other MCU movies in its quality IMO.
Similar things happened with this year's DC superhero films. Shazam 2 and Flash weren't masterpieces, but they got beat up a little more than they deserved.
No one showed up for Shazam 2, and that was even a sequel to a film that did decent BO, had very high audience and critical scores, and then did well in streaming. You would expect it to top the original's numbers or at least maybe match it. But audiences still seem to be cagey about watching films in theaters. They'll come out for certain experiences, but not others that they would have pre-COVID. And I think that superhero fatigue is fairly real at this point.
I think this is a big part but its broken into a few segments
1) People who are just sick of superhero films. IT might be they were never fans; or they are just wanting something a little fresh and perhaps original.
2) People who might be casual fans but are burned out on the constant cross-over films that require you to have seen multiple other TV shows/films to keep up; often with totally different characters/ensembles. I'm very much falling into this group. I like the idea, but they have networked so many different elements together that the films feel messy and perhaps I don't want to "Watch 16 hours of content to see one film". Even though I'm also accepting the argument put forth in point 3 - that all those hours of watching are only to keep up with a very basic story.
3) People who are serious fans but are getting lost/frustrated with how all the interconnected stories are often boiling down to insanely simple plots. Ergo for those who are keeping up and are engaging; there just isn't a deeper layer to most of the stories being presented. It's all super shallow standard comic/action flick film writing. Even the characters often lack the emotional elements within the films. Partly because being killed often just means you'll be reintroduced later; or because the film has another halfdozen to dozen character to focus on as well so your death kind of gets glossed over rather fast. There's no time to process sense when its onto the next action sequence.
DC/Marvel seem to have gone super super hard with the whole crossovers thing. Something that once was a one-off comic or few comics has become a core foundation and I think it creates very messy situations. TV series and comics can somewhat handle it better, but films just fall apart when you've 120mins to cram a halfdozen to a dozen lead characters into a film; each one of which comes with several prior films (and might even have reboots before that). I know I certainly find it very hard to keep up casually, plus when taken into live action a lot of the characters can start to appear quite bland/the same when they are out of costume and such. Esp if they have actor changes/art style changes/etc.. between films.
In the end I think if they want to stay on the superhero train I almost feel like what they need to do is take a step back from all the massive universe stories and end of the world as we know it every single time; and actually focus on core stories and development. Perhaps even risking some new heroes or character that haven't have the limelight as much. Certainly don't do ANOTHER spiderman origin story - for dear love of gods not another (that's what 5 or 6 now?)
Honestly it feels like the Super Hero films are burning out, but that we are stuck because nothing's really coming in (or getting a chance to come in) to replace them.
Addressing the critics on X/Twitter, horror author King wrote: “I don’t go to MCU movies, don’t care for them, but I find this barely masked gloating over the low box office for The Marvels very unpleasant.
“Why gloat over failure?” The Shining writer questioned, hypothesising that “some of the rejection of The Marvels may be adolescent fanboy hate”.
I think obsessing over the box office figures is super weird in general. I've loved so many things that don't sell well that I have little correlation between the two. I know people like having it as evidence to feel like their opinion is justified, but I personally have zero stake in the financial success of things. I definitely don't need get attached to hating something to not see it.
LunarSol wrote: I think obsessing over the box office figures is super weird in general. I've loved so many things that don't sell well that I have little correlation between the two. I know people like having it as evidence to feel like their opinion is justified, but I personally have zero stake in the financial success of things. I definitely don't need get attached to hating something to not see it.
I think people focus on them because its often those numbers which define if the thing you enjoyed (or not) gets any sequel work. A film that does really great might well get a sequel; or if not at least the director/filmteam might get other work on other projects. Meanwhile if it does "so so" or badly then there's a higher chance that any sequel will
a) Never happen
b) Get a drastically reduced budget which can seriously impact its quality and what it can do
c) Enter "development hell" where it bumbles along for utterly years and might never release
Bob hit the nail on the head. At least, that's what happened in my family. I am using that as a small microcosm of the wider audience.
My wife (and child as well) is usually into seeing Marvel movies in the Cinema, liked Ms. Marvel on D+, liked the first film well enough, likes female supers, has Capt Marvel merch, and doesn't hate Brie Larson at all. That said, she has no interest in seeing this film.
The reason? Marvel phase 4 has not been good. She was not impressed by anything since Shang-Chi. She saw all those in the cinema and felt disappointed by them.
Therefore, she would rather go see the Hunger Games Prequel than The Marvels.
Elsewhere I was critical of the marketing trying to get audiences to conflate Captain Marvel with the original Avengers characters (talking just about MCU here, obliviously) and that it was mistake to pretend that Danvers has the same cache at this point so throwing up up a trailer that went "Iron Man > Captain America > Captain Marvel" was probably a mistake. I didn't talk about the actresses or the film just the marketing of it and was told that I am a gross misogynist that should go fornicate elsewhere.
I hope to get time to see The Marvels in the cinema as it looks kinda fun compared to some of the recent offerings.
The thing for me is I like superhero movies, but there's only so many I can watch in a given time period due to cost and time (versus using that money and time on other things). What made me go to every MCU film up until skipping GOTG3 was the connection between the stories through the Avengers/Infinity War plot. For me, launching the next phase without having the next underlying arc ready to build, followed by the chaos about which properties may or may not continue the breadcrumbs they've left is just meh, and I'll pick and choose based on individual characters (eg I would see Blade anyway, whereas Fantastic Four I would only go and see if I'm expecting to see Doom, Surfer or Galactus).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The Flash is another oddity, given the bizarre and illegal behaviour of its lead.
I for one have no wish to endorse such behaviour, and so won’t watch it. The same reason I don’t watch films starring Jared Leto, Rebel Wilson, James Corden, Tom Cruise and others.
My daughter is 9 and she's picking up on strange obsessions in cinema. Her impression of celebrities seems to be they are mostly weirdos, I think Jonathan Majors is what clued her in.
Her reason for not wanting to see the Marvels is because it's a cat movie. The leads don't matter to her, just that there's a lot of cats in the film and we have dogs.
I'm happy not to spend the $60+, but missing that sense of wonder and excitement that came with going to the movies. Lead actors are what used to carry that, and I don't see it as much anymore.
Lance845 wrote: The death of the movie star is a good thing. Over paid rich feths wielding far too much power in a collaborative effort.
Sorry, movie stars aren't going anywhere. Nor are TV & theatre stars.
There will always be someone who draws audiences by turning in better performances (overall or in certain niches)/being funnier/being prettier/or by just having some sort of charisma that draws interest.
And those who invest the $$$ to make these shows? They'll keep right on giving those people top billing & pay, etc - thus making them stars. So long as whatever they have is selling enough product.
It’s also not something the MCU or Star Wars has ever been particularly noted for.
Sure, our original Core Avengers are household names now? But when they were being signed up, they were either faded stars of yesteryear (Downey Jr) “Wasn’t he in?” (Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo) or outright “sorry, who?” (Chris Hemsworth, Tom Holland, Tom Hiddleston)
Now? Absolutely household names who can increase a box office by having their name on the hoardings.
Lance845 wrote: The death of the movie star is a good thing. Over paid rich feths wielding far too much power in a collaborative effort.
Sorry, movie stars aren't going anywhere. Nor are TV & theatre stars.
There will always be someone who draws audiences by turning in better performances (overall or in certain niches)/being funnier/being prettier/or by just having some sort of charisma that draws interest.
And those who invest the $$$ to make these shows? They'll keep right on giving those people top billing & pay, etc - thus making them stars. So long as whatever they have is selling enough product.
I'd also add that because moviemaking is a collaborative effort, more talented actors can contribute more to the production than just reading the lines as written. Just keeping it to the MCU, RDJ brought a lot to the table that wasn't in the Iron Man script. In fact, I thought I remember reading that he and Favreau were heavily involved in rewriting IM on the fly.
Part of the Phase 4 problem is just that everyone, including Disney, is expecting what Endgame grew up to over a decade when most of the cast is very much in the Captain America 1 to Iron Man 3 level of star power.
LunarSol wrote: I think obsessing over the box office figures is super weird in general.
I bet if the film was doing really well we wouldn't see comments like this one.
Well, probably not simply because there'd be little reason to comment on the box office figures if they were better, would there?
That said, I feel the same way about box office records. Like, its super fun when studios congratulate each other for major achievements, but when it becomes an actual competition and people start talking about adjusting for inflation or what have you it veers into the same sort of weirdness that is similarly trying too hard to equate sales and quality in an overly direct manner.
Don't forget a LOT of the consumer market we've built these days (esp if you're in any way tied to the stock market) is built on short term profit. When films are front loaded with massive amounts of debt to start with, those investors and producers want/need to see a very quick return on that investment so that they can plough money into future projects which will take years to complete - as well as gain profits for their big investment.
So even though merchandising and steady sales could yield a very healthy profit over time; the "box office" big launch both sets a tone for those likely future sales. Its super rare that a film flops/flounders at the box office and then becomes a big hit later. Indeed even when it does happen its often within a "niche" that its popular
Sure and that's certainly true, but why should I care? How does it affect my enjoyment of the product? I'm not saying this as a fan; I haven't even seen the film myself, but I've been absolutely bombarded with information telling me how I should feel about it and I just find it really weird. Just finding myself increasingly put off by how the algorithm wants me to think. It seems like its constantly telling me what I should hate or why I should hate something I enjoyed. This film has felt like an extreme example of that and I haven't even seen it. XD
LunarSol wrote: Sure and that's certainly true, but why should I care? How does it affect my enjoyment of the product? I'm not saying this as a fan; I haven't even seen the film myself, but I've been absolutely bombarded with information telling me how I should feel about it and I just find it really weird. Just finding myself increasingly put off by how the algorithm wants me to think. It seems like its constantly telling me what I should hate or why I should hate something I enjoyed. This film has felt like an extreme example of that and I haven't even seen it. XD
Because these days influencers and marketing are all about telling you what you should think. Even professional reporters are all about telling you what you should think rather than providing either their own personal views or impartial ones. Plus anything that "trends" online gets repeated like crazy these days as everyone is chasing clicks
LunarSol wrote: Sure and that's certainly true, but why should I care? How does it affect my enjoyment of the product? I'm not saying this as a fan; I haven't even seen the film myself, but I've been absolutely bombarded with information telling me how I should feel about it and I just find it really weird. Just finding myself increasingly put off by how the algorithm wants me to think. It seems like its constantly telling me what I should hate or why I should hate something I enjoyed. This film has felt like an extreme example of that and I haven't even seen it. XD
Welcome to the internet? This has been happening for a long time now. It's just the tide has turned the other way now it's irrefutable that The Marvels has done poorly, even mainstream media has to acknowledge it and is jumping on the bandwagon (probably doesn't help Disney isn't doing great financially, so less monies than usual to buy out more shills very likely). I remember when the internet kept yelling about how Ghostbusters 2016 was great and it only failed because of misogynists and nothing to do with the movie being just bad and actively attempting to attack their audience for not bowing before it like it was the second coming of Christ.
Also, what you just said about not watching it but feeling defensive about it makes me think of this skit:
Definitely nothing new; I've just been taken aback by how concentrated its been for this film. It's also just something I've been trying to step away from. Spend more time enjoying things for myself than being fed hot takes of how I'm supposed to feel.
All fiction is imaginary. Marvel is the intellectual property of a multinational corporation who is free to do what they want with their property and can re-imagine it however they like. Are their decisions good for profitability or brand identity? Only time will tell. The only thing true is that fiction has no rules it must adhere to since it's all made up stories that were created to generate revenue.
The concept of "fandom" is a relatively new occurrence in history (maybe 50ish years). Previously anything with a "fandom" had a niche market that kept it afloat, so the fans ended up feeling like they were part of the thing. Over time corporations saw that content with fandoms yielded not just potential for immediate profit, but potentially perpetual profit as well. Broaden the fandom, potentially broaden the source of revenue generation. This is where the problem lies.
With a niche fandom content will more likely be driven by people with a passion for the content and who have had to establish themselves previously as someone who could make good content outside that niche in order to justify people willing to invest in the creator's vision for making content with limited appeal.
Alternatively, with a niche fandom there is more likely to be forgiveness within the fandom for subpar content since they're just happy to have something. ANYTHING!
We're at a point now where the MCU went from a niche fandom to wide appeal. There is a firehose of content that is not being driven by people passionate about the content. The original niche fans are irritated because they felt like none of this would have existed without their decades of caring, and what is coming out now is not good content and is not loyal to the fandom that got them to this point.
the more recent fans see all this content that has not been very good for a few years now and just will say, "Meh." They don't have decades of invested passion. They just something that used to be great and now is a shadow of it's former self. Not a big loss to them. They'll just stay home.
LunarSol wrote: Sure and that's certainly true, but why should I care? How does it affect my enjoyment of the product? I'm not saying this as a fan; I haven't even seen the film myself, but I've been absolutely bombarded with information telling me how I should feel about it and I just find it really weird. Just finding myself increasingly put off by how the algorithm wants me to think. It seems like its constantly telling me what I should hate or why I should hate something I enjoyed. This film has felt like an extreme example of that and I haven't even seen it. XD
Welcome to the internet? This has been happening for a long time now. It's just the tide has turned the other way now it's irrefutable that The Marvels has done poorly, even mainstream media has to acknowledge it and is jumping on the bandwagon (probably doesn't help Disney isn't doing great financially, so less monies than usual to buy out more shills very likely). I remember when the internet kept yelling about how Ghostbusters 2016 was great and it only failed because of misogynists and nothing to do with the movie being just bad and actively attempting to attack their audience for not bowing before it like it was the second coming of Christ.
Also, what you just said about not watching it but feeling defensive about it makes me think of this skit:
This whole situation has reminded me of two things:
1) That to often the internet sees things in terms of 1 or 10. Giving a work (game, book, film) a 7 is seen as an insult or treated as a mark of failure. If you say a movie is fine, and not amazing, then it somehow becomes "a garbage fire that will be the end of marvel!?!".
2)The whole, weird cottage industry that has grown around the MCU on places like YouTube. Mot referring to critics but specifically only talk about the MCU. Usually things like "The X-Men are coming soon!" every week for the last eight years or gloom and doom prognostications as easy rage bait.
LunarSol wrote: Definitely nothing new; I've just been taken aback by how concentrated its been for this film. It's also just something I've been trying to step away from. Spend more time enjoying things for myself than being fed hot takes of how I'm supposed to feel.
You're never 'fed' hot takes. You have to actively go watch them. Unless you have a serious virus on your computer, screaming idiot videos aren't going to autoplay when you sit down at it.
Saw the movie. It's got cute girls, action, humor, and kittens. I had a really good time watching it, which is rare since Infinity War. If Strange 2 didn't have a touch of Raimi, I'd have no trouble deciding if The Marvels is my favorite movie out of this phase.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Anyway, I think this is kind of a bigger Solo effect, a movie that would have struggled to attract a huge audience to begin with following up on one or more punishing duds. The audience might like the film, but they won’t take the risk after the last couple times their hands were burned.
Add in the terrible economy, and you have a situation where people are saving their dollars for the few movie experiences that really stand out.
Sounds very reasonable. And if true, just like Solo it's sad and undeserved.
How did the Kree civil war result in their star dying?
And if their star is dying, how does zapping it with marvel juice restart it?
And if she can survive flying into a star (along with her outfit!) how are there any stakes for Captain 'I caused a genocide but don't think about that - there's cats' Marvel going forward?
I didn't catch that. Somebody couldn't resist pushing the big, red button? Civil Wars tend to be an emotional affair.
Lord Damocles wrote: And if their star is dying, how does zapping it with marvel juice restart it?
The nucular reaction in the sun was said to have slowed. I assume the idea is that the energy she adds stimulates a big enough fusion reaction so the sun can sustain the process once more.
Lord Damocles wrote: And if she can survive flying into a star (along with her outfit!) how are there any stakes for Captain 'I caused a genocide but don't think about that - there's cats' Marvel going forward?
That's nothing new. She's been like that since the finale of Captain Marvel. Which leads me to believe that she'll wear glasses and start a career in journalism, and her stakes revolve around her integrity as a journalist and romancing the newspaper's hotshot reporter.
They recast the actors who portrayed Goose, the OG Flerkken from Captain Marvel. Replaced unceremoniously and they think we, the audience, are too stupid to not notice. I was literally shaking the entire movie.
I think of all these problems as the result of losing the supreme intelligence. The Kree are a civilization that has given up basically all of their autonomy and knowledge and handed it over to an AI overlord. Yeah, THAT Kree guy might understand plasma reactions or whatever as part of their individual tasks in the Kree Empire, but they have no idea what the bigger picture is or how their work contributes to any larger ongoing things.
When the Supreme Intelligence was destroyed it didn't just cause a civil war. For the first time in thousands of years Kree society had nobody paying attention to any of the bigger pictures or understanding how all the cogs in the machine fit together to keep things running. When war broke out over who would be in charge imbalances set in. Production and Industry are no longer being balanced against sustaining systems and air pollution kicks in. The Kree very well may have been maintaining their star all this time. And then, suddenly, as focus shifted elsewhere because of the civil war and other problems... they weren't. This is the result of a series of cascading problems that have been spiraling out of control since the 90s when Carol tore the Supreme Intelligence apart. It's the result of 30 years of probably not just neglect, but actively damaging everything around them as they utilized technologies for short term effects without any understanding of what mitigating techs they needed to stop it from ruining themselves. The Supreme Intelligence was the only thing spinning all the plates before and now nobody even knows how many plates need to spin.
And if their star is dying, how does zapping it with marvel juice restart it?
It was slowed. Comic book cosmic radiation + Infinity stone based powers etc... She basically relight the pilot light on the fusion reactor.
And if she can survive flying into a star (along with her outfit!) how are there any stakes for Captain 'I caused a genocide but don't think about that - there's cats' Marvel going forward?
I mean, You could ask the same question about Thor couldn't you? He took a concentrated beam of the full force of a star straight to the face and was running about with narry a sun tan 10 minutes later.
While I can't speak for either of the two posters you asked this question, I myself have not seen it and, I have to say, it was incredible. Superlative in almost every way.
10/10. Looking forward to watching it, potentially, numerous times.
While I can't speak for either of the two posters you asked this question, I myself have not seen it and, I have to say, it was incredible. Superlative in almost every way.
10/10. Looking forward to watching it, potentially, numerous times.
I'm genuinely curious what the point of this post was...
It was okay, but not great by any means...kinda where post-Endgame MCU has been mostly. Run to the ground and bit tired, but still some glimmers of old magic.
I haven't seen any of the Marvel shows, so initially I was bit out of loop about some things. First two-thirds of the movie were fine. Switching thing was quite funny and well done. "Singing planet" and "Cats" went into "So dumb it's funny" territory. Ending dragged the movie down, however. Very plain-by-numbers and underwhelming. Skrulls had shockingly small role. On the plus side, in the era of bloated blockbusters, this one was not overly long.
Performances...Larson was given bit more emotion to play with than the first movie. I don't think she is necessarily great actress, but she has undeniable presence on screen. Parris as Monica Rambeau felt somewhat of a weak link, by contrast. Any scene with action on it, she seemed awkward. I just didn't buy her as a superhero. Kamala was fine, but I found her family somewhat annoying.
Jackson was disappointing. This was easily the weakest Fury I have seen. Surely that was a Skrull, or then he's done with the role. They should have had some other character altogether there. Why not Brand??!
It's not the worst MCU movie ever, but really if this is the level they can reach, it would be probably best to let it die. They won't, of course.
Scrabb wrote: I was referencing the youtube clip from the message MDG quoted.
He is, as usual, playing forum cop against sentiments he disagrees with.
Or, I’m seeking to find out if those who seem to dislike the film have, y’know, actually seen it.
Because if not? Their opinion is frankly worthless. If they have and they didn’t like it? Entirely fair enough.
That works on people not paying attention.
But the last few years every marvel movie reaction thread has featured people complaining about phase 4 and the direction the franchise is taking. Some people have gradually (or abruptly) stopped going to theaters to see the movies but are still invested in the MCU.
The Marvels is, by most accounts, standard post-Endgame MCU fare, with a forgettable villain and lighthearted fun. Marvel is a franchise. Their ads are usually a decent representation of what you'll get. You can very reasonably understand what you're committing to if you buy a ticket to The Marvels. That used to be part of the appeal of a MCU offering in the theater.
The Marvels has far fewer people going to see it than an MCU film normally enjoys. Negative commentary without seeing the film is entirely possible and valid, especially if anyone wanted to understand why people are staying home (although more of the people you'll want to get a handle on probably aren't saying anything about the Marvel's anywhere).
Because you're such an avid participator in geek media I know you know all this.
Opinions on why people stopped watching "X" franchise at the last film are valid but commenting directly on a film they haven't seen and have no intention of seeing is nonsense.
Frankly, anyone who bases their opinions on YouTubers or film critics without seeing the movie itself is a muppet and their opinion should be discounted.
I have no intention of watching The Marvels and if someone asks why it's because I'm not into superhero stuff anymore.
I don't know the plot, I don't know how the actors did, and I don't know what the visuals are like, because I haven't seen it and can't comment on it.
Actors promoting a film might account for 10% of box office.
Again, the lack of Larson, Paris and Vallani out on a red carpet isn't what sank this film.
do you think it's as low as that ? I'd suspect more if only because a flood of publicity reminds people a film is out, and trails for the chat show boost that even more
but i'd agree that it isn't the only reason this hasn't set the world on fire. 'Just Girls' shouldn't be a reason for folk not to see an action movie, but it probably does have a significant effect, but the lackluster phase 4 (and TV shows) is probably the biggest reason.
Gert wrote: Opinions on why people stopped watching "X" franchise at the last film are valid but commenting directly on a film they haven't seen and have no intention of seeing is nonsense.
Frankly, anyone who bases their opinions on YouTubers or film critics without seeing the movie itself is a muppet and their opinion should be discounted.
"But Teh Internet said it was bad..."
Youtubers have a business to run, and they know what their audiences want to hear. They (most of them, anyway) are no more partial than some paid lobbyist, or the film industry itself.
Gert wrote: Opinions on why people stopped watching "X" franchise at the last film are valid but commenting directly on a film they haven't seen and have no intention of seeing is nonsense.
Frankly, anyone who bases their opinions on YouTubers or film critics without seeing the movie itself is a muppet and their opinion should be discounted.
I have no intention of watching The Marvels and if someone asks why it's because I'm not into superhero stuff anymore.
I don't know the plot, I don't know how the actors did, and I don't know what the visuals are like, because I haven't seen it and can't comment on it.
Pretty much this.
If you don’t want to see a given movie? You don’t want to see a given movie. No further justification or explanation required.
But when folks are saying it’s bad, and haven’t, y’know, actually seen it? That is a genuinely worthless opinion.
Scrabb wrote: I was referencing the youtube clip from the message MDG quoted.
He is, as usual, playing forum cop against sentiments he disagrees with.
Or, I’m seeking to find out if those who seem to dislike the film have, y’know, actually seen it.
Because if not? Their opinion is frankly worthless. If they have and they didn’t like it? Entirely fair enough.
Haven't seen it and therefore have no opinion on the film. I just found it funny that Marvel posted The Meowvels video and maybe they were wondering if it would have done better in the theaters than The Marvels has done so far.
Haven't seen it and therefore have no opinion on the film. I just found it funny that Marvel posted The Meowvels video and maybe they were wondering if it would have done better in the theaters than The Marvels has done so far.
The Youtube ad revenue will probably make it more profitable than the actual movie is.
The movie is losing 100 million dollars or more, so yeah. Unless they’re buying kittens overnight shipped from Australia, it couldn’t be less profitable.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The movie is losing 100 million dollars or more, so yeah. Unless they’re buying kittens overnight shipped from Australia, it couldn’t be less profitable.
Real losses or Hollywood Accounting losses?
Because, gentle reminder, there's a load of stuff done to make it so even profitable films appear to be unprofitable
Well, real losses in theatrical release. There are often additional profit streams that can make a movie profitable, such as merchandise and home video sales…although neither of those have been healthy money makers in more than a decade. The death of these alternate streams of income is a big factor in studios being much more risk adverse. There’s a YouTuber named Dan Murrell who talks about the box office every week, with charts to show how much of the ticket sales from each region goes towards the movie, and how much they need to make to cover their reported budgets. He hasn’t gotten around to The Marvels yet, but he covered all the big summer flops, and it was eye opening.
Anyway, we went to see the Marvels yesterday and we really enjoyed it. The closest comparison to jump to mind is the Buffy episode The Zeppo, which also has an under-developed world-being villain used as just “another apocalypse” backdrop to a story about Xander finding his own personal groove. I love that episode because it is funny and unconventional and makes light of what most episodes take seriously—but apparently lots of fans hate it.
Scrabb wrote: I was referencing the youtube clip from the message MDG quoted.
He is, as usual, playing forum cop against sentiments he disagrees with.
Or, I’m seeking to find out if those who seem to dislike the film have, y’know, actually seen it.
Because if not? Their opinion is frankly worthless. If they have and they didn’t like it? Entirely fair enough.
Are you saying that you've never, for instance, crapped on a DC film that you haven't seen? Because it feels like you've done a fair amount of that, but maybe you actually buy tickets to a lot of them.
Kanluwen wrote: Because, gentle reminder, there's a load of stuff done to make it so even profitable films appear to be unprofitable
They won't need to cook the books to make this film unprofitable. It's going to do that all on its own.
It's dropped out of the top 5 in its third week, falling a further 37% compared to last week.
Assuming a 35% drop off each week from now until it finishes its run, it won't even hit $100m domestically (assuming consistent 35% drops it wouldn't even hit $100m a year from now if it stayed in cinemas!).
LunarSol wrote: Definitely nothing new; I've just been taken aback by how concentrated its been for this film. It's also just something I've been trying to step away from. Spend more time enjoying things for myself than being fed hot takes of how I'm supposed to feel.
You're never 'fed' hot takes. You have to actively go watch them. Unless you have a serious virus on your computer, screaming idiot videos aren't going to autoplay when you sit down at it.
Social feeds are absolutely loaded with clickbait headlines. I don't actually watch the videos; I'm speaking merely on the titles.
Are you saying that you've never, for instance, crapped on a DC film that you haven't seen? Because it feels like you've done a fair amount of that, but maybe you actually buy tickets to a lot of them.
I for sure have and have definitely tried to step away from doing so. I THINK I've largely avoided talking about Flash outside of filling in some comic knowledge for friends. Something to try and be mindful about for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On that note, I have finally seen The Marvels and overall, its fun. One of the better post Endgame films, probably similar to Multiverse or Wakanda Forever but not as good as No Way Home or Guardians 3.
What does stand out throughout the film is that its definitely hampered by the issue with Marvel production as a whole. This movie fits very cleanly into the plans of.... 2021... 2022 at the latest. It feels like this was supposed to release hot on the heels of Far From Home or Wandavision and its delay definitely impacted the ability to build into it the way most Marvel films do.
It's also pretty obvious the reliance on D+ series to branch stories hurts. There's more clunky exposition here explaining Kamala and Monica's prior events than most of the MCU combined. I also can't shake the feeling that there was supposed to be more of a Multiverse reveal here; with the jump hexes and Wanda's hexes being tied closer. It's almost like everything is shuffled out of order. I can see this film without Kamala ending with her receiving the bangle. It's like putting a puzzle together wrong then finding the missing piece.
All that said, what we've got here is a breezy fun film. Brie gets so much more to do than the original film and Iman is as adorkable as ever, though not all of her lines quite land. Teyonah probably gets the worst treatment of the 3 being regulated to a lot of backstory and mechanical info dumps. I feel like we don't get quite enough time with either co-lead to fully play out their arc but their arcs are a lot stronger than a lot of recent films overall.
The plot is.... well, its hard not to notice the Spaceballs influence, but its stronger than expected. There's some really odd leaps of logic like the Skrull king thinking the peace talks were going well immediately after being told his planet would be destroyed by the their oppressors. I guess they get citizenship maybe? The Kree are really just far too complex for the film.
The movie definitely shines in its individual moments. The trio's bonding on Carol's ship are all great, the Disney planet is fantastic, even if they don't commit to the bit as much as I'd like and Fury's subplot is legitimately one of the funniest bits Marvel has done in a while and definitely a better follow up than Secret Invasion. The quantum switching feels like a well expored gimmick though doesn't come into play as much in the end as it probably should.
Overall glad I saw it. Solidly mid-tier but a film I would have liked more of as opposed to a lot of recent entries that felt mid tier and overlong.
It looks like the Marvel problem may be more of a Disney problem, via Variety:
“Wish” misfired in its opening weekend, extending Disney‘s bleak box office fortunes.
The animated musical fable, about the Wishing Star that so many Disney characters have wished upon over the studio’s century-long history, failed to become the de facto choice for families around Thanksgiving. “Wish” opened in third place with a dull $31.7 million over the five-day holiday, a far cry from Disney’s past Turkey Day feasts.
Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
Maybe. We'll see how Godzilla Minus One does this weekend.
I’m more curious how Aquaman 2 will do. It’s a sequel to a $billion+ grosser that’s part of shared universe, like The Marvels. However, I haven’t seen the same kind of hate-boner for it that I have for The Flash and The Marvels. Feels like anything could happen.
For Godzilla, is it an American release of a Toho movie? It’s not an American production, right? If so, I’d expect it to make roughly Dragon Ball Super Hero numbers…and yet to be profitable.
Do Japanese Godzilla films generally do well outside of Japan?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
In Fast-X's case, it's not that the movie didn't make a lot of money - $700m is very high - it's more that the simply mind-bogglingly absurd budget of $340m (WTF???) meant any return it got wouldn't be good enough ($1.2b minimum to break even). And Mission Impossible was a victim of Barbenheimer. Had those movies not opened the week after M:I, it m:ight have been a different story for that film (and we wouldn't be getting a knee-jerk pivot from Paramount with a different title on the next one, so we have a Part One with no follow-up).
The Creator is a sad one. Only cost $80, but brought in just over $100. It makes me worried that, as it wasn't an established IP, it will drive Hollywood further into the arms of slapping any IP onto anything for brand recognition.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
Do Fast X, Mission Impossible and The Creator count as bombs? First made almost $300 million more then budget ( 567/291), the second near 400 million more then its budget (714/340) and the latter $20 million more then its budget (104/80). Maybe Box Office disappointments, as they might’ve been projected to make more and it didn’t pan out, but neither stunk it up as bad as DC’s roster or The Marvels.
Also just looking at the list of movies in 2023, Hollywood budgets are insane. Can’t be sustainable. But what the feth do I know, I sell motorcycle parts.
Fast X and M:I have their excuses, but Super Mario went home and porked the prom queen. Pre-pandemic, a little thing like Barbenheimer would not have slain M:I any more than one $billion franchise would prevent another. Now, the box office is almost a zero sum game, where the success of Barbenheimer comes at the cost of M:I, Haunted Mansion, Elemental or whatever the animated chum they threw to the shark that month, and I think there was another film that suffered. This year is a graveyard for attempted blockbusters.
Agreed about The Creator. I really wanted it to succeed for the same reasons.
Also agreed on Aquaman. I’m really looking forward to that opening weekend to see whether it sinks or swims.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
Do Fast X, Mission Impossible and The Creator count as bombs? First made almost $300 million more then budget ( 567/291), the second near 400 million more then its budget (714/340) and the latter $20 million more then its budget (104/80). Maybe Box Office disappointments, as they might’ve been projected to make more and it didn’t pan out, but neither stunk it up as bad as DC’s roster or The Marvels.
Also just looking at the list of movies in 2023, Hollywood budgets are insane. Can’t be sustainable. But what the feth do I know, I sell motorcycle parts.
The studios seem to be reacting like they’re bombs. Also, if they made most of their money overseas, then they’re a lot less profitable than if the bulk of that was domestic. But yeah, at least they didn’t crater like Marvel and DC.
What were Disney doing releasing Haunted Mansion in July?
nels1031 wrote: Do Fast X, Mission Impossible and The Creator count as bombs?
Unsuccessful? Yes, at least in comparisons to their budgets (especially Fast X). Bombs? Probably not. They didn't open poorly and then collapse hopelessly like a string of recent comic book films.
I doubt we're going to get Fast X 2 and 3 like Vin hinted at, but I do think we're going to get Fast X 2 with a reduced budget (and I hope they finish the series with the next one). I mean, a $250m budget is an absurd amount, and that would be nearly $100m less than what Fast X cost, so I could see them slashing $140m off the last one and trying to do it for $200m (which is still insane!). They did Fast 7 on $190m. They can do that again.
I wonder if the churn of blcokbusters doesn't help. We wanted to see The Marvels but after a week of two of being too busy, when we wanted to book it was down to just two showings a day, neither at good times for us. I'll guess I'll wait for the stream on D+, but I would have liked to have seen it on the big screen.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
Do Fast X, Mission Impossible and The Creator count as bombs? First made almost $300 million more then budget ( 567/291), the second near 400 million more then its budget (714/340) and the latter $20 million more then its budget (104/80). Maybe Box Office disappointments, as they might’ve been projected to make more and it didn’t pan out, but neither stunk it up as bad as DC’s roster or The Marvels.
Also just looking at the list of movies in 2023, Hollywood budgets are insane. Can’t be sustainable. But what the duck do I know, I sell motorcycle parts.
They definitely count as bombs- they weren’t profitable. For a film to make a profit it usually has to make more than double its production budget, sometimes 3 times the production budget. The figure vary but a fair rule of thumb is that the marketing budget is usually around equal to the production budget for smaller to medium budgeted films (under $100m production budget) and sonewhere between 50-75% of the production budget for larger productions. Then the theatres take a cut, usually something in the region of 50% of the ticket price goes to the theatre, so the producers of a film can expect to only take half the box office gross (this generally varies between domestic and foreign box office).
For the examples you have to break even the box office would need to be in the region of $900m for Mission Impossible, making it around $300m short; $1.02B for Fast, it was also around $300m short; and The Creator needed $240m so fell short by $135m or so.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Non-Disney films like Fast X, The Flash, Bkue Beetle, Black Adam, Mission Impossible, and The Creator all bombed, too. It’s not just a Disney problem but a cinema problem. If not for Super Mario Bros and Barbenheimer, box office would be back at pandemic lows.
What do all of those movies have in common?
They're not well written.
Surprisingly, as Disney keep discovering, you can't just shovel slop to your audience Nd have them lap it up endlessly.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m more curious how Aquaman 2 will do. It’s a sequel to a $billion+ grosser that’s part of shared universe, like The Marvels. However, I haven’t seen the same kind of hate-boner for it that I have for The Flash and The Marvels. Feels like anything could happen.
There's a morbid curiosity to what happened with Amber Heard in this but I suspect it will perform fairly well overall. I'm very curious on this one myself. I considered the original the best bad movie of the year and really enjoyed it, but it walked a razor thin line of dumb fun that could go very wrong very easily.
I’m wondering if it’s partly an advertising issue; I used to know what was coming out at the cinema mostly from watching trailers at the cinema. Once you stop going regularly (2020/21, looking at you) you get out of the cycle. The only reason I knew that The Creator was a thing was because of a YouTube ad, but those rarely seem to be for films.
And no, Google, I don’t want to buy a Pixel 8 with best take, so please, please, stop showing me that damn ad!
Jadenim wrote: I’m wondering if it’s partly an advertising issue; I used to know what was coming out at the cinema mostly from watching trailers at the cinema. Once you stop going regularly (2020/21, looking at you) you get out of the cycle. The only reason I knew that The Creator was a thing was because of a YouTube ad, but those rarely seem to be for films.
And no, Google, I don’t want to buy a Pixel 8 with best take, so please, please, stop showing me that damn ad!
I think its more than that.
Not only aren't you going to the cinema, but a lot of people are no longer watching just 4 TV channels. They aren't even watching them beyond the news or a specific show; instead they are streaming. Streaming from services that don't want to advertise the next Disney film because either they are advertising their own stuff to keep you on their service and/or because you've paid to get ad-free.
So I figure that's having an impact too - films are having to advertise along with everything else and have potentially lost that captive market of direct advertising; meanwhile your direct advertising vector of your streaming service is more concerned with keeping streamer bums on seats and thus advertising itself.
Aash wrote: They definitely count as bombs- they weren’t profitable.
Not profitable =/= bomb. Bomb has a specific connotation. Just not making a profit doesn't really constitute a "bomb".
I agree the term isn’t well defined, but for me, if a film falls short of breaking even by its entire production budget (as is the case for these three films) then I’m inclined to think that would constitute a bomb, or a flop or whatever your preferred term.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m more curious how Aquaman 2 will do. It’s a sequel to a $billion+ grosser that’s part of shared universe, like The Marvels. However, I haven’t seen the same kind of hate-boner for it that I have for The Flash and The Marvels. Feels like anything could happen.
There's a morbid curiosity to what happened with Amber Heard in this but I suspect it will perform fairly well overall. I'm very curious on this one myself. I considered the original the best bad movie of the year and really enjoyed it, but it walked a razor thin line of dumb fun that could go very wrong very easily.
China helped out the original's box office quite a bit. Not sure that's gonna happen again, but we'll see.
I think Wan's instincts were right on with the first film. It's Aquaman...starting Jason Momoa. So just make it big, dumb fun with bright colors and lots of spectacle. It looks like the same formula for this one, but who knows? Audiences have been very difficult to figure out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m more curious how Aquaman 2 will do. It’s a sequel to a $billion+ grosser that’s part of shared universe, like The Marvels. However, I haven’t seen the same kind of hate-boner for it that I have for The Flash and The Marvels. Feels like anything could happen.
There's a morbid curiosity to what happened with Amber Heard in this but I suspect it will perform fairly well overall. I'm very curious on this one myself. I considered the original the best bad movie of the year and really enjoyed it, but it walked a razor thin line of dumb fun that could go very wrong very easily.
Box Office Pro has shared its long-range forecast for Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, and it doesn't look like James Wan's DC Comics sequel will be making much of a splash when it arrives in theaters next month.
According to early predictions, Aquaman 2 looks set for a $32 million - $42 million opening weekend at the domestic box office. This would be lower than The Marvels' debut ($47M), which obviously doesn't bode well for the movie's theatrical run.
I am also inclined to think it is a theatre problem related to larger market forces.
Consumers are still spending in the US despite inflation, but they are not spending on movie theatre tickets. Consumer spending maybe shifting away from experiences and back to staples/products with a life span. This shift will impact cinema ticket sales as they fall on the experience side of the equation.
Well will it mean the big companies who dominate filmmaking will have to pander completely to China for blockbusters as they are now the big cinema market. Already criticism of China is absent, will big budget big studio filmmaking have to embrace the many other restrictions as well?
Easy E wrote: I am also inclined to think it is a theatre problem related to larger market forces.
Consumers are still spending in the US despite inflation, but they are not spending on movie theatre tickets. Consumer spending maybe shifting away from experiences and back to staples/products with a life span. This shift will impact cinema ticket sales as they fall on the experience side of the equation.
There's also streaming to consider.
I've got Netflix, Amazon, & D+.
Anymore if I see what looks like to be just a mediocre movie? If it's going to be on one of those 3 platforms & I've got any interest? I'll just wait patiently.
For example: Disney's Haunted Mansion this summer. I didn't think it looked good enough to spend the $ or work it into the schedule to see it in the theatre. (I was correct)
But since I'm already paying for D+ for the various SW/MCU stuff? Sure. I'll give Haunted Mansion a watch some evening while building/painting Wharhammer....
And that's exactly what I did. On Halloween.
I don't know how Disney counts my monthly subscription fee as far as determining if something was successful. Especially if I watch the thing months after it debuted. But they've got to be making less than if I'd seen it while it was in the theater.
And I know my local theaters making less.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Well will it mean the big companies who dominate filmmaking will have to pander completely to China for blockbusters as they are now the big cinema market. Already criticism of China is absent, will big budget big studio filmmaking have to embrace the many other restrictions as well?
The era of China is over. China has pivoted to promoting their own cinema in theaters, playing fewer US productions and keeping a bigger chunk of ticket sales. Even the fewer American movies that are allowed in theaters there have been less successful than similar films from 2018 and earlier. Chinese films now dominate Chinese box office.
I can’t help but wonder if US theaters would be doing better if ticket prices had stabilized 5 years ago.
If the studios were smart it would mean making movies smarter.
That 200+ mil budget isn't necessary. Spend more time in pre production planning the movie right and you have more time for better special effects and less reshoots.
The creators budget shows you exactly what you can acomplish with a solid plan of production.
If...
They won't be. Entirely stupid lessons will be "learned" from this.
Lance845 wrote: If the studios were smart it would mean making movies smarter.
That 200+ mil budget isn't necessary. Spend more time in pre production planning the movie right and you have more time for better special effects and less reshoots.
The creators budget shows you exactly what you can acomplish with a solid plan of production.
If...
They won't be. Entirely stupid lessons will be "learned" from this.
The problem is for every dumb brainless utterly stupid plot film that fails because of its utterly stupid plotting and writing; you've then got a Michael Bay Transformers film that manages to turn a big profit. It's got the exact same terrible writing; its got the exact same abuse of the source material and yet its made vast amounts of money.
Lance845 wrote: If the studios were smart it would mean making movies smarter.
That 200+ mil budget isn't necessary. Spend more time in pre production planning the movie right and you have more time for better special effects and less reshoots.
The creators budget shows you exactly what you can acomplish with a solid plan of production.
If...
They won't be. Entirely stupid lessons will be "learned" from this.
The problem is for every dumb brainless utterly stupid plot film that fails because of its utterly stupid plotting and writing; you've then got a Michael Bay Transformers film that manages to turn a big profit. It's got the exact same terrible writing; its got the exact same abuse of the source material and yet its made vast amounts of money.
Yeah, but even those michael bay garbage movies could be made for less and make even more. It's pure risk assessment. If you want to fund a movie fund it early when costs are low and ensure it's planned. Don't sign off on shooting without a plan for shooting the whole thing. If the movie costs half as much as it would otherwise it makes even more when it hits big and you lose less or still turn a profit when it does poorly.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Well will it mean the big companies who dominate filmmaking will have to pander completely to China for blockbusters as they are now the big cinema market. Already criticism of China is absent, will big budget big studio filmmaking have to embrace the many other restrictions as well?
The era of China is over. China has pivoted to promoting their own cinema in theaters, playing fewer US productions and keeping a bigger chunk of ticket sales. Even the fewer American movies that are allowed in theaters there have been less successful than similar films from 2018 and earlier. Chinese films now dominate Chinese box office.
I can’t help but wonder if US theaters would be doing better if ticket prices had stabilized 5 years ago.
That and China is not the economic power house it once was.... even using their BS numbers. However, that is a topic for a different thread.
Perhaps this slump at the cinema will lead to more mid-range movie types that have been squeezed out by streaming. Genres like the Rom-Com may make a comeback for the right price.
I wish. I’d love to see more low and mid-budget movies find big audiences.
Often when I bring up supporting smaller or more independent movies, people push back by insisting theaters are too expensive to take risks, or to watch comedies and Rom-Coms.
I don’t know. I try to support comedies in the theaters as much as I can, but I get why it stings a family to fork over $80 for a movie that has no spectacle.
Easy E wrote: I am also inclined to think it is a theatre problem related to larger market forces.
Consumers are still spending in the US despite inflation, but they are not spending on movie theatre tickets. Consumer spending maybe shifting away from experiences and back to staples/products with a life span. This shift will impact cinema ticket sales as they fall on the experience side of the equation.
There's also streaming to consider.
I've got Netflix, Amazon, & D+.
Anymore if I see what looks like to be just a mediocre movie? If it's going to be on one of those 3 platforms & I've got any interest? I'll just wait patiently.
For example: Disney's Haunted Mansion this summer. I didn't think it looked good enough to spend the $ or work it into the schedule to see it in the theatre. (I was correct)
But since I'm already paying for D+ for the various SW/MCU stuff? Sure. I'll give Haunted Mansion a watch some evening while building/painting Wharhammer....
And that's exactly what I did. On Halloween.
I don't know how Disney counts my monthly subscription fee as far as determining if something was successful. Especially if I watch the thing months after it debuted. But they've got to be making less than if I'd seen it while it was in the theater.
And I know my local theaters making less.
Yeah, I’m in the same boat, if it’s not something that I absolutely have to see on the big screen (e.g. Dune), I will likely wait. It also then becomes a justification of how much I’m spending on monthly subscriptions…
Every year around Christmas, Phoenix Theatres puts all of its chips on one major tentpole, gambling on a movie so big, so broadly appealing, it’ll keep auditoriums stocked into the new year. In the recent past, the Midwest-based chain has gone all in on 2022’s “Avatar: The Way of Water,” 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and 2019’s “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.”
But this holiday season is different. For the first time in more than a decade, excluding the pandemic-stricken 2020, there’s no surefire blockbuster with the potential to gross $1 billion globally to cap off the year.
“The holiday season is on the shoulders of ‘Aquaman,’ and that’s not a good shoulder to put anything on,” says Jeff Bock, an analyst with Exhibitor Relations. “Can it cut through the negative DC noise?”
It sounds like the theaters are a little leery of Aquaman being able to save Christmas for them this year.
Early tracking doesn’t look good, but early tracking is often blind to enthusiasm. I wouldn’t be surprised if it flopped, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it hit $1 billion. Momoa has charisma, and the first film was the kind people “had” to see on the big screen.
On one side, everyone will remember the great adventuring time they had with the first one, forgetting all the DC nonsense that's come between then and now, and race to see the follow-up. Instant billion dollar film. DC cheers as the DCEU goes out with a bang.
On the other side, everyone does remember WW84, Josstice League, BvS, Black Adam, Blue Beetle and, worst of all, The Flash... and just avoids even going near it. DC cry as the DCEU goes out with a whimper.
Overread wrote: Not only aren't you going to the cinema, but a lot of people are no longer watching just 4 TV channels. They aren't even watching them beyond the news or a specific show; instead they are streaming. Streaming from services that don't want to advertise the next Disney film because either they are advertising their own stuff to keep you on their service and/or because you've paid to get ad-free.
So I figure that's having an impact too - films are having to advertise along with everything else and have potentially lost that captive market of direct advertising; meanwhile your direct advertising vector of your streaming service is more concerned with keeping streamer bums on seats and thus advertising itself.
I think this is definitely a thing. I can't even remember the last time I saw a movie trailer that I didn't specifically go looking for. And when I go back over movie release lists from the past few years looking for stuff to watch, I come across a lot of movies that I've either never heard of, or heard about when they were in development and then forgot about.
Studios need to find new and better ways to advertise.
Overread wrote: Not only aren't you going to the cinema, but a lot of people are no longer watching just 4 TV channels. They aren't even watching them beyond the news or a specific show; instead they are streaming. Streaming from services that don't want to advertise the next Disney film because either they are advertising their own stuff to keep you on their service and/or because you've paid to get ad-free.
So I figure that's having an impact too - films are having to advertise along with everything else and have potentially lost that captive market of direct advertising; meanwhile your direct advertising vector of your streaming service is more concerned with keeping streamer bums on seats and thus advertising itself.
I think this is definitely a thing. I can't even remember the last time I saw a movie trailer that I didn't specifically go looking for. And when I go back over movie release lists from the past few years looking for stuff to watch, I come across a lot of movies that I've either never heard of, or heard about when they were in development and then forgot about.
Studios need to find new and better ways to advertise.
Yeah every so often I get one of those 10-20 latest movies collections trailers on youtube and I watch it and realise that I've probably only heard of one or two of the biggest names in the list. Then I forget about it because I don't see another video like that for ages. For me I also started trying to avoid trailers because we've gone through a long phase of trailers trying to show almost every major twist and turn a film takes; in films that are often fairly light on plot to start with. Which kind of feels too spoilery for me and thus I don't want to spoil the experience. OF course this means I also miss out on the film even being released
On one side, everyone will remember the great adventuring time they had with the first one, forgetting all the DC nonsense that's come between then and now, and race to see the follow-up. Instant billion dollar film. DC cheers as the DCEU goes out with a bang.
On the other side, everyone does remember WW84, Josstice League, BvS, Black Adam, Blue Beetle and, worst of all, The Flash... and just avoids even going near it. DC cry as the DCEU goes out with a whimper.
Hey! Blue Beetle was actually pretty fun. At least for the price of the subscription and my kids enjoyed it
"Quality needs attention ... It doesn't happen by accident. Quantity, in our case, diluted quality," he said, per NBC News.
With The Marvels in particular, Iger said part of the reason it's falling short is because it was shot during the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore "there wasn’t as much supervision on the set, so to speak, where we have executives [that are] really looking over what’s being done day after day after day.
The covid bit is questionable. The IMPACT of Covid on their production methods is not. Things changed a lot and the quality drop did start from there. Though I wouldn't say it was covid that caused oversight on quality control to step away. It was Bob Chepeks insane production schedules.
Anything filmed during covid was done with minimal staff on set since they all needed to be vetted. I don't think that really impacted the quality of this movie though. A lot of Marvel films pre-COVID were about this good or worse. It may have impacted the ability to coordinate with other projects though.
Still nothing like the impact we saw early on, like US Agent's new assignment being given in a giant empty room with people standing ridiculously far apart.
I don’t think anyone is arguing The Marvel was affected by COVID, as we’re now two years out of lockdown in the UK at least.
Filming began on 26 July2021, and we were getting back to normal by then if memory serves. Sure you’d still take precautions, but much of that was “get your jab and any scheduled boosters”.
But, it did directly impact preceding movies, which set a tone for this batch of post-Endgame movies.
I still feel that’s overblown, as going over a list of what’s been released? I’ve enjoyed the vast majority of it no less than I enjoyed the preceding movies.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don’t think anyone is arguing The Marvel was affected by COVID, as we’re now two years out of lockdown in the UK at least.
Filming began on 26 July2021, and we were getting back to normal by then if memory serves. Sure you’d still take precautions, but much of that was “get your jab and any scheduled boosters”.
But, it did directly impact preceding movies, which set a tone for this batch of post-Endgame movies.
I still feel that’s overblown, as going over a list of what’s been released? I’ve enjoyed the vast majority of it no less than I enjoyed the preceding movies.
That was SUPER early into the vaccination. I got mine in April that year and I was just after healthcare staff. Getting back to normal sure, but normal was kind of being redesigned on the fly. Hollywood was trying to keep filming and there were multiple productions shut down when someone on the crew got sick so they were all pretty much operating on skeleton crews with the stars kept as isolated as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kale wrote: I also think it was effected by diseny+
Why go to the cinema when you can wait a month or two then see it as a free bonus on top of the rest of the stuff you see on disney.
Even if you just subscribed for 1 month it would still end up a hell of lot cheaper than going out to the cinema.
In theory you go to the theater to see it to prep for the next thing that will be out before the current things is on D+. That doesn't really work when the schedule is a mess and the hype for the next thing is confused at best.
It seems the majority of people who saw The Marvels found it enjoyable, to one degree or another, and I'm not sure how having more MBAs on set to tell wardrobe and make up how to do their job would have made it better. The issue on how much money it made seems like more of a problem on the marketing end compounded by general malaise for big budget film making (probably television as well) at the moment.
"Quality needs attention ... It doesn't happen by accident. Quantity, in our case, diluted quality," he said, per NBC News.
With The Marvels in particular, Iger said part of the reason it's falling short is because it was shot during the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore "there wasn’t as much supervision on the set, so to speak, where we have executives [that are] really looking over what’s being done day after day after day.
Well, he is right about the Quantity diluting quality.
The anti-WFH sentiment is just par for all corporate leaders who have spent a ton of money on HQ buildings. They need to justify those as assets still on their balance sheets. Disney has spent a lot of money on buildings. Therefore, of course he sees WFH as bad.
Script writing is one thing. Directors and actors get on set and decide to improv or do some other stuff. The words on the page don't translate to the screen directly. You need oversight of the entire process.
Another complication is the cutting of the film. Alien 3 is a fantastic example of how a very bad cut can tear a film's logic and story a part.
Consider that there were films like Gangs of New York which apparently had 8 hours of material cut from the final version. That means a MASSIVE amount of story and development was made that never got finalised and was cut out of the final show.
This can sometimes be where you see a directors cut that really improves a film because they put back the parts that were cut so that the film would fit to the cinema's time constraints.
This is one area that streaming films might have a boon because you can do much longer films and people can just hit pause and such.
So sometimes a great film cuts hacked to bits and the story is disjointed and poorly done because so many development and connecting parts were stripped out. It's one of those moments where you realise that its something they won't have seen during the production because each segment was perfectly fine originally, it just hacked apart.
If a film requires extensive extra material to complete the story/character arcs/themes etc. then it is in all likelihood still badly written.
'It was well written when it was five times the length' is not synonymous with 'it is well written'.
If the writers aren't able to tell a functionally complete story within the allotted run time, then they have no business writing for projects with the sort of budgets Disney is throwing around.
Besides which the Marvels was cut down significantly due to a longer cut being even worse, supposedly (yay more musical numbers!) so I'm not sure that just adding more material would really help.
Its not "well written when it was 5 times the length".
Again, directors ask actors to do stuff. Actors improvise on the day.
The script could be perfect. Then you improvise and that shot you really like doesn't fit with earlier shots anymore. So you need reshoots to put it together cohesively. Which mean previously shot material is cut.
More and more i think movie making is chaos when it doesn't need to be and that chaos begets more chaos.
Lance845 wrote: Its not "well written when it was 5 times the length".
Again, directors ask actors to do stuff. Actors improvise on the day.
Then they're doing it wrong. An actors improvising scenes to make it better is a rarity.
Directors don't ask (especially not for 'stuff'). Directors, surprisingly, direct. According to a finished script in locations that were already determined. Going for a better take or a different angle, is one thing (and part of the directing process), but if they're fathing about still making scenes up and adding significantly to the run time, they're a screw-up.
Lance845 wrote: Its not "well written when it was 5 times the length".
Again, directors ask actors to do stuff. Actors improvise on the day.
Then they're doing it wrong. An actors improvising scenes to make it better is a rarity.
Directors don't ask (especially not for 'stuff'). Directors, surprisingly, direct. According to a finished script in locations that were already determined. Going for a better take or a different angle, is one thing (and part of the directing process), but if they're fathing about still making scenes up and adding significantly to the run time, they're a screw-up.
Remind us again what you do for a living that gives you such insight?
Other than for idle discussion & winning trivia contests, I don't see what it matters to any of us how much footage is shot vs used. Or how much $ the studios spend on a project.
I mean, Gangs of NY was a fine film. But I'm never going to want to watch another 5+ hours worth of it. Mostly because it largely wouldn't be anything more than alternate versions of scenes, maybe some bloopers, etc.
Likewise with the $$$ being spent. I'm not financing these projects. So it's not MY problem if so much was spent on them that Disney or whomever can't turn the profits they desire. Eventually, once they've lost enough $, they'll figure their budget problem out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Directors make script changes all the time. They’re almost as infamous for it as producers.
Not to the point that it produces 5x the footage. Scene adjustments are one thing (does this flow better, does this sound better), adding more and more and more to a movie is something else.
Directors have scripts rewritten all the time. They also have significant writing changes made during shooting. Granted, there are also directors who meticulously plan everything ahead of time and don’t need to shoot on the fly…until the studio demands reshoots.
Watch the making of documentaries for a lot of films and you’ll see a lot of directors who change the script significantly before shooting, and many who keep changing it during shooting.
i wouldn't be surprised if the 'lack of supervision' relates more to post production where versions of the film are screened for multiple test audiences, and then re-cut (and maybe reshot) to make them as (bland) acceptable as possible.
they wouldn't have been able to do this under covid conditions, and even if they had got feedback from home screenings that's a different situation from a full cinema of (hopefully excited) patrons.
I'm pretty sure we're all more likely to have both greater positive and negative reactions in a group situation (just from crowd feedback and atmosphere) so screenings would have been less useful, which is probably to the detiment of the box office (although perhaps not the technical quality of the film)
Curious if some of it comes down to timelines which is definitely something supervision can improve. The biggest issue I had with the film is just that it really needed to come out a year ago at the latest, and whatever delayed it out 18 months definitely impacts its ability to be part of the sense that things are building up to something interesting again.
LunarSol wrote: Curious if some of it comes down to timelines which is definitely something supervision can improve. The biggest issue I had with the film is just that it really needed to come out a year ago at the latest, and whatever delayed it out 18 months definitely impacts its ability to be part of the sense that things are building up to something interesting again.
It definitely felt like it should've come out before Secret Invasion given Furys pleasant attitude. You'd think the events of SI should be reflected somehow....
I've got 3 explanations for this disconnect:
1) The most likey explanation is....
Bad writing. Or even more likely just poor coordination between projects.
2) What I'm seeing storywise is not always being presented to me sequentially. So it's like watching a Tarentino movie.... but with superheroes & split between projects vs contained within 1 film.
3) Multi-Verse crap.
We assume everything we're seeing is following the same timeline (let's call it the 616) - unless we're specifically told otherwise (What Iff..../Spiderverse/now revealed Netflix & ABC shows & assorted scenes)
And this isn't an unreasonable assumption given Ironman----Endgame.
But there's nothing actually telling me what timeline a given show/movie is set in. I ASSUME SI & Marvels are chapters in 1 timeline. I can't really prove that though.
LunarSol wrote: Curious if some of it comes down to timelines which is definitely something supervision can improve. The biggest issue I had with the film is just that it really needed to come out a year ago at the latest, and whatever delayed it out 18 months definitely impacts its ability to be part of the sense that things are building up to something interesting again.
It definitely felt like it should've come out before Secret Invasion given Furys pleasant attitude. You'd think the events of SI should be reflected somehow....
It was originally scheduled for July 2022 and was delayed to Feb 2023 (with Thor 4 taking its place) before being delayed again Nov 2023 (and Ant Man being rushed up to fill its spot). I definitely think the film makes more sense in its original slot, where it would have followed Multiverse of Madness almost directly.
The bright side to audiences skipping the theatrical release is that if The Marvels are meant to be set before Secret Invasion, Disney+ can just put the movie in the right slot and most of the viewers will never even know about the out of sequence release.
Bit of a patch that doesn't help with the original release, but then I usually think better of Marvel and Star Wars shows when I binge them, which isn't happening with the original release either.
Consider that there were films like Gangs of New York which apparently had 8 hours of material cut from the final version. That means a MASSIVE amount of story and development was made that never got finalised and was cut out of the final show.
And since the musketeers sequel made with the extra bits without paying the actors more, can't be used to make another film
