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.

Guys! Book of Boba Fett was good actually. I got to SEE Cad Bane!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Guys! Book of Boba Fett was good actually. I got to SEE Cad Bane!

Memberberries are definitely a big part of it I think. Endless references to things made in better times lol.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
We’re a spoiled brat of an audience.

I have to admit that blaming the audience was not a approach I saw coming.

Why not? Disney's been doing it since The Last Jedi.

I expect it from executives, just not from the victims.

Disney: Are we not putting enough time and thought into our product? No, it is the consumer who is wrong.

Why not try reading all my original and response post. Because context is King. Could I have chosen better wording? Sure. But I didn’t. Hence the response post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Guys! Book of Boba Fett was good actually. I got to SEE Cad Bane!

Book of Boba Fett is odd.

The not-speeder bike chase sticks out like a sore thumb for sure. It’s a low stakes, low speed chase.

But. I’d rate the whole of the thing no lower than 7/10.

Mediocrity is Mediocrity. Being mediocre does not mean bad. It just means….wait for it…..mediocrity.

Acting is solid, sets are amazing, effects are great, script is frustratingly uneven, overall plot is on the wonk and disappointing, mostly because of wasted potential. But. None of it I’d argue is objectively bad. Just….mediocre.

 insaniak wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is with the number of new characters introduced, rather than the number of films.

I think it's this and the various crossover plots. You can't really expect the bulk of the audience to do any research into the characters and history. Marvel at least has been alright in that if you watch the films in release order it makes sense and most of the things you'd miss if you didn't watch the 33 existing films aren't stuff that generally impacts the story line too much.

I know the same thing killed off comic collecting for a few friends of mine - they had to buy so many issues of expanded universe and crossover to keep up that it just became too much to justify so they stopped.

Far too many movies in a single year, and being honest its quantity over quality.

Herzlos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is with the number of new characters introduced, rather than the number of films.

I think it's this and the various crossover plots. You can't really expect the bulk of the audience to do any research into the characters and history. Marvel at least has been alright in that if you watch the films in release order it makes sense and most of the things you'd miss if you didn't watch the 33 existing films aren't stuff that generally impacts the story line too much.

I know the same thing killed off comic collecting for a few friends of mine - they had to buy so many issues of expanded universe and crossover to keep up that it just became too much to justify so they stopped.

I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Three, having seen One and Two, and not much else Marvel.

There was a LOT that had happened that was pretty important to the third film that happened in non-GotG movies. I still had a nice time, and enjoyed the movie, but it still chafed me.

Yeah, I think Marvel forgot its own formula for success.

Each movie could stand alone and had a strong theme. I.e. a super hero in a spy movie, a super hero in a heist movie, super hero in a war serial, etc. That made the audience receptive and allowed them to lean into Tropes with a twist, because these guys are Superheroes!

Now, they do not do that. They have essentially DCEU'd themselves by trying to force everything to fit and the movie is just a connective tissue for the next series, movie, etc. The D+ shows and the rush to have 3 movies a year has caused this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why not try reading all my original and response post. Because context is King.

I did read the whole thing, and you are right that you did word it poorly, even so, I wasn't tickled by the rest of post just that part which is why only it came up. You can take it however you wish but I wasn't attacking you I just found the phrasing amusing because it made me think of the studio execs doing the Simpsons "No, it is the kids who are wrong".

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I think Marvel forgot its own formula for success.

Each movie could stand alone and had a strong theme. I.e. a super hero in a spy movie, a super hero in a heist movie, super hero in a war serial, etc. That made the audience receptive and allowed them to lean into Tropes with a twist, because these guys are Superheroes!

Now, they do not do that. They have essentially DCEU'd themselves by trying to force everything to fit and the movie is just a connective tissue for the next series, movie, etc. The D+ shows and the rush to have 3 movies a year has caused this.

I partially agree. I'd say there was still a strong, studio-driven tonal and visual throughline for most of the early MCU films. And I'd say that awkward, in-film future setups were happening as early as Avengers 2. I think it's because there's so much content and therefore so much story that it's boxing them in on the narrative front, while audiences feel overwhelmed and like they're constantly being pointed to the next thing. One of the things that the MCU did really well early on was rope in the comic die-hards, and general nerd audiences, and the regular moviegoing public. Now maybe it feels more like they're making stuff for their biggest fans who consume everything AND in a timely enough manner to be up to speed on the next thing.

Anyway, this why I'm skeptical of James Gunn's DCU. They're going hard on interconnectivity, with TV, movies, and animation all being part of the same universe. What's more, he's promising that directors will still get to do their things in their own styles (Ben Affleck would seem to disagree). Which feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too. I guess he might be going for what really worked well in the early MCU, with keeping the universe-building to end credit scenes and such, and then only really bring them together in the big event team-up movies.

Then again, if Superman: Legacy is just kinda meh, then who knows how much of the thing even gets built. And back on topic, I'm just not sure if audiences really care right now.

In The Marvels thread there was an argument that all box offices are down right now.

Wish did terrible, Hunger Games Prequel hit $100M after two weeks, that is the #1 box office as well. Napoleon is doing worse. No movie is really doing that great right now.

It's the economy hurting box office. I predict that Aqua-man will also do well-below expectations. It was wise to delay Dune II.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think any writer, even one with more experience, would have trouble writing good movies under the apparent conditions at Disney.

That's why there are no experienced writers LEFT at Disney. They weren't allowed to write decent stories, only overly-political trash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
In The Marvels thread there was an argument that all box offices are down right now.

Wish did terrible, Hunger Games Prequel hit $100M after two weeks, that is the #1 box office as well. Napoleon is doing worse. No movie is really doing that great right now.

It's the economy hurting box office. I predict that Aqua-man will also do well-below expectations. It was wise to delay Dune II.

Is it the economy though? Or is it just burnout on movies in general? We've been given SO MUCH 'meh' at the theater, we're no longer willing to spend megabucks consuming 'meh' at the theaters?

Add in streaming services. Why pay extra to go to the theater when we can watch it in the comfort of our own homes on the streaming service we're already paying for? It's got to be REALLY good to get our money now. You can't put put a quarter-billion dollars of 'meh' and make your money back, it's got to be GOOD.

Somewhere along the line that got lost.

Maybe people are getting tired of constant status quo propaganda?

 Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think any writer, even one with more experience, would have trouble writing good movies under the apparent conditions at Disney.

That's why there are no experienced writers LEFT at Disney. They weren't allowed to write decent stories, only overly-political trash.

That's certainly a take you have there, given that most writers are "overly-political".

There's a reason why Winter Soldier was widely considered such a strong film.

I’m struggling to think of any writing that’s overly political in the MCU, besides maybe the Black Panther movies, maybe. Most movies come down hard on the side of the status quo, and portray sympathetic, reform-minded characters as villains who are secretly psychopaths.

My experience with “political” complaints about Disney movies is that they have more to do with the casting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I’m struggling to think of any writing that’s overly political in the MCU

Feige said about Wandavision in an interview that the reason for Doctor Strange not having any involvement (as you'd expect!) was that they didn't want to have a white man saving the day.

Certainly, when folks say a film is political they typically aren't referring to its stance on governance or economy, what they mean is "I can't sympathize with characters who aren't straight white men"

 Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think any writer, even one with more experience, would have trouble writing good movies under the apparent conditions at Disney.

That's why there are no experienced writers LEFT at Disney. They weren't allowed to write decent stories, only overly-political trash.

Wondering exactly what politics is being objected to here.

 Easy E wrote:
In The Marvels thread there was an argument that all box offices are down right now.

Wish did terrible, Hunger Games Prequel hit $100M after two weeks, that is the #1 box office as well. Napoleon is doing worse. No movie is really doing that great right now.

It's the economy hurting box office. I predict that Aqua-man will also do well-below expectations. It was wise to delay Dune II.

I have a very hard time blaming the economy, because a) it's not actually a bad economy, and b) box offices have in the past done very well in actual recessions anyway. It was a business thought to be somewhat recession-proof (and again, we're not in one). IIRC, 2009 was a record year for the industry. Right now inflation is high, but unemployment is low and GDP is growing. It should not add up to audiences staying away from films they would have flocked to see in years past.

I think the main issue is just that people have adjusted their lifestyles post-COVID. They streamed a ton of stuff during lockdown and found out that they're very happy to stream most films at home. gak, I know people who still won't go to game conventions, and they're not even particularly fearful (they interact normally, don't wear masks in public, etc.) It's not unlike the whole WFH revolution...paranoid execs are trying to put that genie back in the bottle, but good luck with that...habits have changed.

The trick for the industry is figuring out which films people still want to see in the theater. Like I said before, the latest MI film seemed to check every single box, from star power to great reviews, to big franchise, to spectacle. And BO was mediocre while friggin' Barbie became a cultural phenomenon. Audiences are mercurial for sure.

Streaming is a factor.

For instance, if it’s a movie my friends and I want to see? We can all pay for a cinema ticket, or wait a surprisingly short period for Prime to have its premiere, and pay £19.99.

Or, wait a bit longer for Disney+ to put it up as part of my overall subscription.

Compare to when I was growing up and well into the 90’s, where it was cinema, wait a few months, then VHS. That added impetus to go see it on the big screen. Then factor in Lockdowns when we didn’t have much of a choice.

I was previously of the opinion Cinemas might’ve had their day. The town I was living in had one cinema, on the arse end of nowhere which charged West End prices. So it was a chore to get to and sodding expensive.

Then I moved. My new local cinema is a classic flea pit, which only charges £7 a ticket, and is like, a 10 minute walk.

Sure the cinema itself isn’t all bells and whistles. If I want that it’s a 20 minute drive up the A20 to Ashford, and a massive jump in ticket price to £14.99 for a bog standard 2D screening. Which frankly is not worth the travel or extra expense.

Certainly for families, a trip to the Cinema can now be prohibitively expensive in a way I swear it never used to be.

Look, sports teams are having similar issues with their attendance. I'm a season ticket holder of an NFL team that actually doesn't struggle on that front, but I'm constantly being surveyed by them about the game/stadium experience, etc. They're keeping their ears very close to the ground with customer satisfaction, because they know they're an expensive product and they've seen the market soften.

I think theater (and in-stadium) experiences are superior, but I also understand how home setups can close the gap to a degree where people would rather just stay home.

Edit: You can maybe make the case that Disney itself trained MCU fans to stay home by releasing so much non-theatrical streaming content.

Whilst not a big sports fan? I have been to Scottish Premiere League games as a kid (come on the Jambos!), and a few Sunday League type games.

And there is definitely something to be said for the live, in-person atmosphere. Certainly it’s vastly preferable in the stadium than in a normally fairly quiet pub on match, where my fellow patrons don’t seem to understand Tellies are one-way communication devices, and they can’t in fact hear you bellow “cam on, cam on”.

But for certain sports, like Snooker and Darts? Give me the televised version where possible, as I can see and appreciate the skill behind the sport better.

With movies? I’m no home theatre, but I’ve got UHD screens and importantly, no spotty, smelly teenage pics talking during the film. Also I can pause it if I need a wee.

The cultural shift is certainly a big factor. I vastly prefer to see movies in theaters but its remarkably difficult to summon the collective will to make it happen. There's so many things competing for time and the thought of being locked in to an experience rather than multitasking is increasingly foreign. I realize that forced focus is why I enjoy theaters so much but its still hard to justify.

There's also just the matter of increased competition. Prestige TV and AAA games often provide a similar experience and have a little more space in the cultural zeitgeist currently. The watch list is ever growing, but its the shows that people check your progress on regularly, which are also a much greater time commitment.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is with the number of new characters introduced, rather than the number of films.

I think it's this and the various crossover plots. You can't really expect the bulk of the audience to do any research into the characters and history. Marvel at least has been alright in that if you watch the films in release order it makes sense and most of the things you'd miss if you didn't watch the 33 existing films aren't stuff that generally impacts the story line too much.

I know the same thing killed off comic collecting for a few friends of mine - they had to buy so many issues of expanded universe and crossover to keep up that it just became too much to justify so they stopped.

I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Three, having seen One and Two, and not much else Marvel.

There was a LOT that had happened that was pretty important to the third film that happened in non-GotG movies. I still had a nice time, and enjoyed the movie, but it still chafed me.

I suspect I missed most of those references since I've seen *some* of the Marvel but not all.

I remember finding "Thor: Love and Thunder" and "Dr Strange: Multiverses of Madness" a bit random and odd at points because I hadn't seen the previous films. They were enjoyable, but made an awful lot more sense when I watched the others. Admittedly I can't even remember the details now.

Herzlos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is with the number of new characters introduced, rather than the number of films.

I think it's this and the various crossover plots. You can't really expect the bulk of the audience to do any research into the characters and history. Marvel at least has been alright in that if you watch the films in release order it makes sense and most of the things you'd miss if you didn't watch the 33 existing films aren't stuff that generally impacts the story line too much.

I know the same thing killed off comic collecting for a few friends of mine - they had to buy so many issues of expanded universe and crossover to keep up that it just became too much to justify so they stopped.

I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Three, having seen One and Two, and not much else Marvel.

There was a LOT that had happened that was pretty important to the third film that happened in non-GotG movies. I still had a nice time, and enjoyed the movie, but it still chafed me.

I suspect I missed most of those references since I've seen *some* of the Marvel but not all.

I remember finding "Thor: Love and Thunder" and "Dr Strange: Multiverses of Madness" a bit random and odd at points because I hadn't seen the previous films. They were enjoyable, but made an awful lot more sense when I watched the others. Admittedly I can't even remember the details now.

Spoilering just in case...


Not a minor detail.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Then I moved. My new local cinema is a classic flea pit, which only charges £7 a ticket, and is like, a 10 minute walk.

Sure the cinema itself isn’t all bells and whistles. If I want that it’s a 20 minute drive up the A20 to Ashford, and a massive jump in ticket price to £14.99 for a bog standard 2D screening. Which frankly is not worth the travel or extra expense.

Curiously, ticket prices have gone down drastically here since before Covid, though any time I've been the cinemas have been quiet (I don't go at popular times). IIRC Vue is £5/ticket for most things now whilst Cineworld has upgraded all the seats to premium and charges £9.
The popcorn/drinks/snacks are still scandalous though.


But anyway, I'm not convinced ticket prices are what put people off going to the cinema.

Your right Gorgon, the economy is not that bad in the US. However, people's spending has probably been directed to other area than entertainment spending at the cinema. I think the economy (and post-Covid) spending has been focused more on staples and less on entertainment dollars.

No streaming service has really made a profit either. So, Streaming maybe cannibalizing ticket sales, but I am not convinced there is as much disposable income going into entertainment as their was pre-Covid (as a percent).

 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoilering just in case...

Spoiler:

Gamora died sometime between GotG 2 and 3... In a non-GotG movie.
Also there's a new psychic Russian dog who showed up as semi-part of their crew between them as well.

Not a minor detail.

Cosmo is technically in Guardians 1

Herzlos wrote:
whilst Cineworld has upgraded all the seats to premium and charges £9.
The popcorn/drinks/snacks are still scandalous though.


But anyway, I'm not convinced ticket prices are what put people off going to the cinema.

Last trip to the Cineworld in Bury St Edmunds was £13, although now its "only" £12.

To put things in perspective, Disney+ and Netflix can be as low as £5 per month...

 Easy E wrote:
Your right Gorgon, the economy is not that bad in the US. However, people's spending has probably been directed to other area than entertainment spending at the cinema. I think the economy (and post-Covid) spending has been focused more on staples and less on entertainment dollars.

No streaming service has really made a profit either. So, Streaming maybe cannibalizing ticket sales, but I am not convinced there is as much disposable income going into entertainment as their was pre-Covid (as a percent).

I don't know what the difference is between the economy and inflation, but everything costs more and I don't want to spend $60+ to take my family to the movies when I can see something for no extra money by waiting a few weeks on D+.