Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mysterio wrote:
Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.

A sort of...Anti-Venom.

Ah venom... I should hate that film, but for whatever reason I don’t, I went in with such low expectations and actually really enjoyed it, I hope we get another, 18 this time though eh Sony.

Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!

 Manchu wrote:
Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!

I'm a little out of touch with corporate speak. Is that considered a failure these days?

 LunarSol wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!

I'm a little out of touch with corporate speak. Is that considered a failure these days?

No, I think failures are those that gross equal to or less than their budget.
Venom making over 8x its budget is most certainly a successful film

-

 Galef wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!

I'm a little out of touch with corporate speak. Is that considered a failure these days?

No, I think failures are those that gross equal to or less than their budget.
Venom making over 8x its budget is most certainly a successful film

-

Mostly a joke at the expensive of the videogame industry, where a $500M profit game is regularly deemed a failure or at least a disappointment.

It was funny this same topic came up with my buddies today the worry was one was reading about leaked information
on the Captain Marvel toys. Basically calling her the most powerful hero in the known universe..

That doesn't boad well adding this to trailer..

 Manchu wrote:
The trailer for First Avenger shows Cap’s character, in both senses, is not about physical but rather moral strength. Contrast to Captain Marvel, where the trailer just hammers away at her being physically powerful and justifiably arrogant about it.

Captain Marvel actually hammers away at her being a woman, and that we should be patting Disney Marvel on the back for (finally) doing a feminst-themed (live action) superhero woman movie (a la Wonder Woman, ignoring Catwoman, Elektra, Salt, etc.).

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I certainly hope there's more to the movie than the fact that Marvel can make a woman-led movie; the outside chance that it's as good and ground-breaking as Black Panther is a bit much, but if it can be the female equivalent, I'll be happy to watch it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!

If the budget was $100M, then it needs to pull at least $300M at the box office to cover costs including marketing and so forth.

Still leaving over half a billion in profit ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Genoside07 wrote:
That doesn't boad well adding this to trailer..

Agreed.

 Manchu wrote:
Still leaving over half a billion in profit ...

Not exactly. Those box office numbers are split between the theater and the studio.

$212M US Domestic = $125M studio revenue (80% opening weekend, tailing down to 50%)
+$641M global box = +$200M studio revenue (50% for most countries, but only 25% back from Japan & China)

The studio spent $100M production + $100M marketing, but they are getting back roughly $325M, so that's a tidy $125M profit for them.

The remaining $500M is going to theater owners, who have to pay for theater operations and so forth.

And part of that operational cost is paying for distribution, which makes its way onto that profit figure, too. On top of that, earning the confidence of cinemas around the globe plus developing the IP’s value. Venom is a hugely successful movie, especially considering rather low expectations from paid critics (which, magically, were [self]-fulfilled).

I think it's entirely possible that Captain Marvel starts off the movie as an indifferent superpowered A-hole, and then when she gets her feet kicked out from under her and finds out everything that was done to her, she finds her humanity as she becomes Carol again, but now with superpowers.

The standard hero trope. Basically Thor with a female lead. I think people just seem to reeeeaally want Marvel to finally fail at a movie.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think it's entirely possible that Captain Marvel starts off the movie as an indifferent superpowered A-hole, and then when she gets her feet kicked out from under her and finds out everything that was done to her, she finds her humanity as she becomes Carol again, but now with superpowers.

The standard hero trope. Basically Thor with a female lead. I think people just seem to reeeeaally want Marvel to finally fail at a movie.

Marvel does that a lot, and if you recall, it was Iron Man that did it before Thor (and Guardians).

It is amazing how long of a run Marvel has had without an obviously "bad" movie. But people thought that Guardians might be bad. And there were people who doubted RDJ as Iron Man before that came out. We'll wait and see.

That's my thought, too. Depending on how I feel after watching Aquaman, the worst Marvel movie is likely still likely on par with the best DC movie (Wonder Woman at this point, for me).

Venom did fine. It's getting a sequel. I was just making a joke.

 Mysterio wrote:
Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.

A sort of...Anti-Venom.

I thought critic proof meat that the film would do well despite critics givin bad reviews. Venom was critic proof. Do you mean the opposite, where critics will love the film but audiences won't?

Horror movies are generally critic proof, in that they will get their audience regardless of reviews.

Critical darlings that audiences spurn would typically be foreign stuff, or period drama pieces.

Really good point about horror movies and, by implication, excellent point that Venom is a horror (or, specifically, horror/comedy) film.

I really doubt paid critics will pan Captain Marvel. It’s far more likely that, if there is any problem, it will be that the movie divides the heretofore unified MCU audience - which is much, much worse.

The flipside of being consistently successful is having no experience with overcoming failure. Venom and Into the Spider-Verse show Sony has some real insight there.

For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

I think "dividing" is a bit much. Once again, there might be a vocal vast minority on the internet who throws a hissy fit over the fact that captain marvel has tits. But the vast majority of people who go see marvel movies are people who don't read into any of the crap we sit on here and talk about. Most people will just go watch it because its the next marvel movie. it will make a ridiculous pile of money. Most people will enjoy the movie going experience even if it isnt their favorite movie. And the marvel machine will keep chugging along.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

Is CM a feminist film?

As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.

What did I miss?

 StygianBeach wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

Is CM a feminist film?

As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.

What did I miss?

It has girl cooties.

 StygianBeach wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

Is CM a feminist film?

As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.

What did I miss?

It's a feminist film so that anyone who ends up disliking it can be dismissed as a misogynist.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

Is CM a feminist film?

As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.

What did I miss?

It's a feminist film so that anyone who ends up disliking it can be dismissed as a misogynist.

Feminist like Terminator 2?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Mysterio wrote:
Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.

A sort of...Anti-Venom.

I thought critic proof meat that the film would do well despite critics givin bad reviews. Venom was critic proof. Do you mean the opposite, where critics will love the film but audiences won't?

"Critic-Proof" in the sense that no critic will pan it regardless of how...not good it may (or may not!) end up being.

I mean, sure, I hope it is really good, and eventually "Carol" shows up and replaces "Vers", and that's when she goes over 9000.

AND that's also when her 'real' personality shows up too?

Terminator 2 was a great film with a natural progression of Sarah Conner. She finds out a future robot is out to kill her and starts to
prepare by improving herself; training with guns, there is a reason and history shown.

Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.

Rey a homeless girl that spends her days tearing down old war equipment suddenly can fly like a ace and do powerful things with the force with no training.

That is bad story telling but people try to lump it in with misogynist and feminist to deflect the real problem .. its a bad movie.

I am hoping they don't fail but they must have a good story. the current trailer was't the best so I start to worry.

Hey, can we keep the starwars hate in the starwars threads? Nobody involved in making sw is involved in making this.

 StygianBeach wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.

CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.

Is CM a feminist film?

As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.

What did I miss?

From what I can tell, it is being coded and marketed that way.

It can be both.

There is a sub-faction of toolbags who can't stand to see non-white CIS male leads succeed, thinking the world is some sort of zero-sum game in which the presence of a non-white CIS male lead somehow directly devalues their existence as white CIS males. feth 'em.

I don't know whether the movie will have any feminist message or not, but the first trailer was marketed in such a way as to guarantee some anti-feminist pushback. I think Marvel was hoping to tap into some of Wonder Woman's cultural moment, but for various reasons couldn't.

"Anti feminist" is like saying "pro racist" in that, for whatever reason, you have decided that equality or representation or whatever is something that needs to be fought or have a stand taken against it.

Yeah. Equality activists have idiots amongst them. But the core message is a "no gak" thing any reasonable person is for.

Basically, who gives a gak what the anti feminists have to say?

 Lance845 wrote:
"Anti feminist" is like saying "pro racist" in that, for whatever reason, you have decided that equality or representation or whatever is something that needs to be fought or have a stand taken against it.

Yeah. Equality activists have idiots amongst them. But the core message is a "no gak" thing any reasonable person is for.

Basically, who gives a gak what the anti feminists have to say?

I was attempting for a term more neutral than incel or MRA. I'm talking about a very small segment of the audience who are very active in YouTube comments. I saw the marketing as a sort of a negative dog whistle, where most people won't notice anything political but a small few will be triggered.

And for better or for worse, stirring up the anti-whatevers or tiptoeing around them is now an unavoidable aspect of marketing.