|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 16, 2023 20:12:37 GMT
Should they release less of them and focus more on quality not quantity?
Who needs a bunch of lame Marvel films when they could focus on making only a few that are good?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 16, 2023 23:30:39 GMT
I don't think that's really the problem, they released 10 movies in under 3 years from from Doctor Strange to Endgame and they were all good with Ant-Man 2 and Captain Marvel just being a somewhat weaker.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 17, 2023 16:52:28 GMT
After Endgame they didn't have a solid plan to follow on and have been producing as much content as they can to see what sticks, and for the most part it has proven to be an ineffective strategy that has done more bad than good for the brand. They had a vision for Phases Four and Five before Endgame but their co-architect James Gunn was let go per request of Alan Horn and between the time of that and his eventual rehiring for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, the holiday special, and the I Am Groot animated shorts Warner Bros. snatched him up for DC.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 17, 2023 18:40:37 GMT
Phase 4 was better than most of Phases 1 and 2, but the whole thing about D+ and its shows being important to understand movies...well really, that understandably made a lot of audience goers mad because it's expensive enough going to movies and they don't want to have to sub to a Streaming service on top of that.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 17, 2023 18:58:24 GMT
There's a limit to everything and Marvel put its eggs in one basket. As Steve Ditko said about adding Spider-man to the Marvel universe "short term gain for a long term loss."
The more diverse you make a fantasy story, the more watered down it becomes. If they had just done Captain America or Iron Man movies--they could have focused on that alone and did the best job they could. Instead they had 5 things going at once--all inter-connected--and it just ruins the cinematic experience. It becomes like a soap opera. And that's without the wokeness--cranking up the wokeness just made things worse.
When people think of superhero-they usually think of a white guy--but they don't want to show that so--there are just killing it.
And even the actors involved regretted--Elizabeth Olson said it--it's not worth it committing to so many films in advance--before it is even written.
Marvel would have been best served as a tv series with rotating characters--so one week it is Iron man, the next it is Ghost Rider, the next week its the Hulk..etc.
That would have preserved interest better--they turned it into New Cherry Coke basically. Stories aren't like soft drinks--you need to generate suspense and excitement.
Brie Larsen doesn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 17, 2023 20:02:39 GMT
Phase 4 was better than most of Phases 1 and 2, but the whole thing about D+ and its shows being important to understand movies...well really, that understandably made a lot of audience goers mad because it's expensive enough going to movies and they don't want to have to sub to a Streaming service on top of that. Well, Spider-Man: No Way Home maybe, but everything else? Black Widow had its bright spots but on the whole it was a movie that needed to be made sooner than later, the tone is uneven in some places, the action isn't anything to really write home about, and the handling of and eventual twist reveal concerning Taskmaster was quite frankly an ineffective attempt at subverting expectation, and as lovely as Olga Kurylenko is it is not an easy pill to swallow that she was born in the middle of the 1990's. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings for the most part was stylistically fresh and had exciting action, but its storyline wasn't that interesting, and it dragged itself longer than it needed to and hurt the pacing of it all. Eternals was overly long and visually bland; the wrong director was selected, and their vision was definitely wrong for the subject matter. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness had a lot of energy put into it by Sam Raimi, but the storyline was fairly wonky, not a surprise since the screenwriter wasn't given a lot of time to craft it. Thor: Love and Thunder was a bunch of nonsense, there was too much emphasis on humor that any drama and stakes in the story could hardly be felt because almost everything is played for laughs. It "says a lot" (to quote you) when you have people who rather enjoyed the movie take a liking to the idea that the events of the movie are not how it actually played out in the Marvel Cinematic Universe but rather is a lighter version of the events as told by Korg. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever was too long, uninteresting, and depressing. Ironheart and Valentina Allegra de Fontaine's inclusion felt very forced and unnecessary, and outside of one or two sequences Namor was pretty forgettable. On the TV side of things...WandaVision started out interesting but didn't stick to landing. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier had a nice set up but got nonsensical as it carried on and its attempts at political commentary were eyerolling. Loki was generally pretty interesting, but it ultimately hurt the overall verisimilitude of the Marvel Cinematic Universe up to that point. What If...? was a mixed bag; some episodes were good, others pretty lackluster ("Party Thor"...Really?). Hawkeye started out pretty good, but they dropped the ball very hard come the finale. Moon Knight had its bright spots, but in the end, it probably would have been better off as a movie because there was noticeable strain by the filmmakers to stretch the plot out and it showed in places. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law was a misfire, only one episode I would say was enjoyable to watch from start to finish. Ms. Marvel I would say is the only of the series in Phase Four that actually stuck to landing and was consistently good. As far as specials go, both Werewolf by Night and Guardians of the Galaxy's Holiday Special were good, not much else can be said there. The I Am Groot shorts are okay too. Stan Lee made it clear to the staff at Marvel Comics to present each issue of their titles to function as the reader's first book, meaning they didn't necessarily have to read what had come before to understand what was going on and be immersed in the material. (Hence why there were boxes to explain the character's origin and the story so far on the front page) This approach has carried on for decades and is true to an extent today in the comic books, and Marvel Studios applied to Phases One, Two, and Three pretty well (I.E. You didn't have to see Ant-Man to be engaged into the character for Captain America: Civil War) but have since then abandoned it. ^ Of course, I am sure your response to all of this will be one fallacy after another and attempt to bait into an endless trap.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 15:38:32 GMT
There's a limit to everything and Marvel put its eggs in one basket. As Steve Ditko said about adding Spider-man to the Marvel universe "short term gain for a long term loss." The more diverse you make a fantasy story, the more watered down it becomes. If they had just done Captain America or Iron Man movies--they could have focused on that alone and did the best job they could. Instead they had 5 things going at once--all inter-connected--and it just ruins the cinematic experience.It becomes like a soap opera. And that's without the wokeness--cranking up the wokeness just made things worse. When people think of superhero-they usually think of a white guy--but they don't want to show that so--there are just killing it. And even the actors involved regretted--Elizabeth Olson said it--it's not worth it committing to so many films in advance--before it is even written. Marvel would have been best served as a tv series with rotating characters--so one week it is Iron man, the next it is Ghost Rider, the next week its the Hulk..etc. That would have preserved interest better--they turned it into New Cherry Coke basically. Stories aren't like soft drinks--you need to generate suspense and excitement. Brie Larsen doesn't do that. Is that why so many of those movies made over a billion dollars? Because the audience thought Marvel was ruining the cinematic experience?
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 17:01:07 GMT
Most people see movies as past times and quality issues don't matter to them. They chose to see what is available and choose based on those limited choices.
By your logic, Oppenheimer is a great superhero movie because it made money. But isn't a superhero movie. But it must be because it made money. I am addressing the point of quality. Are any of the Marvel films going to be fondly remembered like Robocop? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 18:57:32 GMT
Most people see movies as past times and quality issues don't matter to them. They chose to see what is available and choose based on those limited choices. By your logic, Oppenheimer is a great superhero movie because it made money. But isn't a superhero movie. But it must be because it made money. I am addressing the point of quality. Are any of the Marvel films going to be fondly remembered like Robocop? Probably not. I didn't say it was great because it made money. I didn't express an opinion at all. I pointed out that your commentary (as always) makes absolutely no sense. You said Marvel's approach 'ruined the cinematic experience.' The fact that you personally don't like them is irrelevant. Why did people keep seeing these movies in droves if they thought the movies were ruining the cinematic experience? Seems counterintuitive, no? "I don't like this kind of movie, guess I'll go see it." We can all agree the MCU hasn't been the same since Endgame; if nothing else, the box office results prove they're less popular. So again, why did people keep seeing those movies if they thought it was a lousy experience?
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 19:25:45 GMT
We can all agree the MCU hasn't been the same since Endgame; if nothing else, the box office results prove they're less popular. So again, why did people keep seeing those movies if they thought it was a lousy experience? Because globally-the films are seen as a kind of entertainment noise and they don't have other choices if they want to get out to see something.
Oppenheimer was not a movie anyone wanted. They made it because the ownership decided to make it and since there was limited choices--people who wanted to-went to see it. It's like a supermarket where they replace all beverages with pepsi. You may not like it-but if you want a drnk you buy it since there are no other options. That is how the movie business works.
There are lots of drink possibilities besides Pepsi, but if it is a choice between that and cough syrup...
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 20:02:55 GMT
We can all agree the MCU hasn't been the same since Endgame; if nothing else, the box office results prove they're less popular. So again, why did people keep seeing those movies if they thought it was a lousy experience? Because globally-the films are seen as a kind of entertainment noise and they don't have other choices if they want to get out to see something.
Oppenheimer was not a movie anyone wanted. They made it because the ownership decided to make it and since there was limited choices--people who wanted to-went to see it. It's like a supermarket where they replace all beverages with pepsi. You may not like it-but if you want a drnk you buy it since there are no other options. That is how the movie business works.
There are lots of drink possibilities besides Pepsi, but if it is a choice between that and cough syrup...
Ah, people go see movies they don't want to see. Sure, why not. Let's get back to this: Clearly people didn't think it ruined the cinematic experience if they kept going to see those movies. If you're speaking for yourself, fair enough. But I don't think the studio should've done what you wanted instead of what was making them billions of dollars because people enjoyed the product. In this very conversation you're comparing Oppenheimer to a superhero movie and then saying there are no choices. There are other movies in the theater, they should all be making $1B if people will just watch whatever comes out.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 20:39:41 GMT
Clearly people didn't think it ruined the cinematic experience if they kept going to see those movies. If you're speaking for yourself, fair enough. But I don't think the studio should've done what you wanted instead of what was making them billions of dollars because people enjoyed the product.
I am going to hold your hand and try to explain. In a simple language.
I think MCU are garbage yes.
I agree with Scorsese and Stephen Dorff about it (he has the most street cred because Blade was the first Marvel movie of the modern era and it has aged well, all things considered).
The MCU movies age badly because they were designed from day 1 to be part of a series and they never designed them to be standalone. If you think these were the best superhero films that could ever have been made, it shows your lack of experience and imagination. They never had time to do a better job because they were always running according to a time slot for release 3 years in advance. And they had so many characters to shoehorn into it.
And superhero movies, like mafia movies, were never meant to be appreciated equally by all audiences. They were always niche market. The reason they make a billion dollars is because the movies are shown around the globe--so if 10% of Malaysia goes to see it--that is added to the 15% in the middle east that watched it--and that is added to the 50% in Europe that watched it etc. They are using the whole world to make the boast that the film is widely popular--but if they only stuck to one market--the results would most likely be not impressive. Or, if people have few options to see a movie--they may choose it because they have nothng else to see.
Some people will watch anything.
Oppenheimer and Barbie are also examples of movies where they will add 15% of watchers in Malaysia to 15% in the Middle East etc and then claim it is a big hit.
This is like when Transformers came out and people said "man, what a terrible written movie" and they defended it by saying it made a lot of money. The Phantom Menace also made a lot of money and is still regarded as poor.
I am talking about quality and longevity--you are just taking about short term box office. The MCU movies will age badly because they were not made for superhero action movie fans-they were made for the globe-and mainstream audiences have already forgotten about them. Only the fans will be left to appreciate them and guarantee that as time goes on, the flaws with them will get more and more obvious. But no doubt Robocop will still be widely appreciated and that film was a sleeper hit--it didn't make a fraction of the money that Black Panther claimed to--but who wants to talk about that? People talk about the quality of Robocop-not its box office.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 21:15:07 GMT
Clearly people didn't think it ruined the cinematic experience if they kept going to see those movies. If you're speaking for yourself, fair enough. But I don't think the studio should've done what you wanted instead of what was making them billions of dollars because people enjoyed the product.
I am going to hold your hand and try to explain. In a simple language.
I think MCU are garbage yes.
I agree with Scorsese and Stephen Dorff about it (he has the most street cred because Blade was the first Marvel movie of the modern era and it has aged well, all things considered).
The MCU movies age badly because they were designed from day 1 to be part of a series and they never designed them to be standalone. If you think these were the best superhero films that could ever have been made, it shows your lack of experience and imagination. They never had time to do a better job because they were always running according to a time slot for release 3 years in advance. And they had so many characters to shoehorn into it.
And superhero movies, like mafia movies, were never meant to be appreciated equally by all audiences. They were always niche market. The reason they make a billion dollars is because the movies are shown around the globe--so if 10% of Malaysia goes to see it--that is added to the 15% in the middle east that watched it--and that is added to the 50% in Europe that watched it etc. They are using the whole world to make the boast that the film is widely popular--but if they only stuck to one market--the results would most likely be not impressive. Or, if people have few options to see a movie--they may choose it because they have nothng else to see.
Some people will watch anything.
Oppenheimer and Barbie are also examples of movies where they will add 15% of watchers in Malaysia to 15% in the Middle East etc and then claim it is a big hit.
This is like when Transformers came out and people said "man, what a terrible written movie" and they defended it by saying it made a lot of money. The Phantom Menace also made a lot of money and is still regarded as poor.
I am talking about quality and longevity--you are just taking about short term box office. The MCU movies will age badly because they were not made for superhero action movie fans-they were made for the globe-and mainstream audiences have already forgotten about them. Only the fans will be left to appreciate them and guarantee that as time goes on, the flaws with them will get more and more obvious. But no doubt Robocop will still be widely appreciated and that film was a sleeper hit--it didn't make a fraction of the money that Black Panther claimed to--but who wants to talk about that? People talk about the quality of Robocop-not its box office.
I'm asking why people went to see 20 movies they didn't think were good. I can assure you, hundreds of other films have been released since 2008. Why did some movies make money while others flopped? Even other superhero movies performed poorly at the box office while MCU films flourished. You said they replaced everything in the store with Pepsi when that isn't remotely true. Your argument about how the MCU should've been presented to audiences was based on the MCU not being focused enough. That is easily disproven by the box office numbers. Audiences didn't seem to mind so many plot threads, they kept going to see films based on numerous title characters, even late in the Infinity Saga. 'Quality' is something else entirely, and is also subjective. Your assessment that it spread itself too thin to be successful is objectively false. The movies were well received by critics and audiences, and sustained profitability for over a decade. And if audiences just ate up anything that the MCU put out, the Ant-Man films would've made a billion dollars. But they didn't, because people chose not to see them. So there goes that argument as well. But by all means keep insisting 'nobody will remember these movies' simply because you don't like them, and comparing family friendly MCU films to R rated dramas and actioners. I don't care if you like Robocop more than the MCU, that wasn't the point I came here to debate. I only needed to point out the silliness of the idea that the MCU 'ruined the cinematic experience' by presenting the audience with more than two characters to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 21:23:57 GMT
I'm asking why people went to see 20 movies they didn't think were good. Why did people see the Star Wars prequels and sequels when the consensus is they suck? I already said--Transformers made a lot of money because if you wanted to see a giant robot movie that summer--you only had one choice. Likewise, if someone wanted to see an adventure film--they only got the choices available.
Why did this summer's tent poles do less than expected? Could be because the ticket prices cost too much or the ideas weren't appealing or we just reached a point where western audiences aren't going to see them anymore.
There's an old saying in Hollywood called Hollywood accounting. That means literally- we aren't honest about finances.
So who knows what is really going on when they claim something does well. I know they claimed Black Panther was wildly popular but I didn't encounter anyone quoting from it and there were no lines outside the theater it was playing at in my neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 22:42:13 GMT
I'm asking why people went to see 20 movies they didn't think were good. Why did people see the Star Wars prequels and sequels when the consensus is they suck? I already said--Transformers made a lot of money because if you wanted to see a giant robot movie that summer--you only had one choice. Likewise, if someone wanted to see an adventure film--they only got the choices available.
Why did this summer's tent poles do less than expected? Could be because the ticket prices cost too much or the ideas weren't appealing or we just reached a point where western audiences aren't going to see them anymore.
There's an old saying in Hollywood called Hollywood accounting. That means literally- we aren't honest about finances.
So who knows what is really going on when they claim something does well. I know they claimed Black Panther was wildly popular but I didn't encounter anyone quoting from it and there were no lines outside the theater it was playing at in my neighborhood.
If they made 20+ Star Wars prequels that were just as shitty over a ten year span, I'm pretty sure you would've seen diminishing returns. Your logic doesn't explain why some comic book movies, or even some MCU movies do better than others. Why didn't Ant-Man make a billion dollars? Was there another Ant-Man movie playing so people had more choices? "Well, I really wanted to watch an Oppenheimer biopic. This Nolan one looks like shit, but what choice do I have?" Now you're degenerating into conspiracy theories. The theater for Black Panther was packed in my area, and I've seen plenty of pop culture references to it. I'm guessing you live in a conservative echo chamber and thus won't be exposed to much Black Panther talk in the first place. Why would a studio lie about the success of one film and not another? Why would Disney pretend Black Panther was a success and not Ant-Man or Doctor Strange? What do they have to gain by only pretending some of their projects are successful? It's fucking crazy. It's funny how you think movies that you don't like that do well at the box office must be part of some kind of conspiracy. Hey, I didn't think there was an audience for a Barbie movie, boy was I wrong. It must be a conspiracy!
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 22:55:53 GMT
Why would a studio lie about the success of one film and not another? Why would Disney pretend Black Panther was a success and not Ant-Man or Doctor Strange?
Because they are crazy. These people don't believe in gender for christ's sake. They promoted Wakanda because they wanted to agitate blacks. The Marvels has no white male leads in it right? Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 18, 2023 23:05:43 GMT
Why would a studio lie about the success of one film and not another? Why would Disney pretend Black Panther was a success and not Ant-Man or Doctor Strange?
Because they are crazy. These people don't believe in gender for christ's sake. They promoted Wakanda because they wanted to agitate blacks. The Marvels has no white male leads in it right? Why do you think that is?
Crazy enough to want to lose billions? Agitate blacks with a movie about black superheroes featuring positive role models? Do you know what agitate means? Are white males not represented in media? Holy shit. Those are rhetorical questions, I don't want you to answer any more than I want you to tell me 'why you think that is.' I'm backing away slowly now, don't hurt anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 18, 2023 23:47:58 GMT
Crazy enough to want to lose billions? Agitate blacks with a movie about black superheroes featuring positive role models? Do you know what agitate means? Are white males not represented in media? Holy shit. Those are rhetorical questions, I don't want you to answer any more than I want you to tell me 'why you think that is.' I'm backing away slowly now, don't hurt anyone.
Remember--you can always change your gender, says Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 20, 2023 13:31:33 GMT
There's a limit to everything and Marvel put its eggs in one basket. As Steve Ditko said about adding Spider-man to the Marvel universe "short term gain for a long term loss." The more diverse you make a fantasy story, the more watered down it becomes. If they had just done Captain America or Iron Man movies--they could have focused on that alone and did the best job they could. Instead they had 5 things going at once--all inter-connected--and it just ruins the cinematic experience. It becomes like a soap opera. And that's without the wokeness--cranking up the wokeness just made things worse.
When people think of superhero-they usually think of a white guy--but they don't want to show that so--there are just killing it. And even the actors involved regretted--Elizabeth Olson said it--it's not worth it committing to so many films in advance--before it is even written. Marvel would have been best served as a tv series with rotating characters--so one week it is Iron man, the next it is Ghost Rider, the next week its the Hulk..etc. That would have preserved interest better--they turned it into New Cherry Coke basically. Stories aren't like soft drinks--you need to generate suspense and excitement. Brie Larsen doesn't do that. Are you going to whine "WOKE" anytime you a see a woman, nonwhite or nonhet in anything?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 20, 2023 13:34:38 GMT
Phase 4 was better than most of Phases 1 and 2, but the whole thing about D+ and its shows being important to understand movies...well really, that understandably made a lot of audience goers mad because it's expensive enough going to movies and they don't want to have to sub to a Streaming service on top of that. Well, Spider-Man: No Way Home maybe, but everything else? Black Widow had its bright spots but on the whole it was a movie that needed to be made sooner than later, the tone is uneven in some places, the action isn't anything to really write home about, and the handling of and eventual twist reveal concerning Taskmaster was quite frankly an ineffective attempt at subverting expectation, and as lovely as Olga Kurylenko is it is not an easy pill to swallow that she was born in the middle of the 1990's. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings for the most part was stylistically fresh and had exciting action, but its storyline wasn't that interesting, and it dragged itself longer than it needed to and hurt the pacing of it all. Eternals was overly long and visually bland; the wrong director was selected, and their vision was definitely wrong for the subject matter. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness had a lot of energy put into it by Sam Raimi, but the storyline was fairly wonky, not a surprise since the screenwriter wasn't given a lot of time to craft it. Thor: Love and Thunder was a bunch of nonsense, there was too much emphasis on humor that any drama and stakes in the story could hardly be felt because almost everything is played for laughs. It "says a lot" (to quote you) when you have people who rather enjoyed the movie take a liking to the idea that the events of the movie are not how it actually played out in the Marvel Cinematic Universe but rather is a lighter version of the events as told by Korg. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever was too long, uninteresting, and depressing. Ironheart and Valentina Allegra de Fontaine's inclusion felt very forced and unnecessary, and outside of one or two sequences Namor was pretty forgettable. On the TV side of things...WandaVision started out interesting but didn't stick to landing. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier had a nice set up but got nonsensical as it carried on and its attempts at political commentary were eyerolling. Loki was generally pretty interesting, but it ultimately hurt the overall verisimilitude of the Marvel Cinematic Universe up to that point. What If...? was a mixed bag; some episodes were good, others pretty lackluster ("Party Thor"...Really?). Hawkeye started out pretty good, but they dropped the ball very hard come the finale. Moon Knight had its bright spots, but in the end, it probably would have been better off as a movie because there was noticeable strain by the filmmakers to stretch the plot out and it showed in places. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law was a misfire, only one episode I would say was enjoyable to watch from start to finish. Ms. Marvel I would say is the only of the series in Phase Four that actually stuck to landing and was consistently good. As far as specials go, both Werewolf by Night and Guardians of the Galaxy's Holiday Special were good, not much else can be said there. The I Am Groot shorts are okay too. Stan Lee made it clear to the staff at Marvel Comics to present each issue of their titles to function as the reader's first book, meaning they didn't necessarily have to read what had come before to understand what was going on and be immersed in the material. (Hence why there were boxes to explain the character's origin and the story so far on the front page) This approach has carried on for decades and is true to an extent today in the comic books, and Marvel Studios applied to Phases One, Two, and Three pretty well (I.E. You didn't have to see Ant-Man to be engaged into the character for Captain America: Civil War) but have since then abandoned it. ^ Of course, I am sure your response to all of this will be one fallacy after another and attempt to bait into an endless trap. Most of it, yes.
No Way Home was poorly written gutless fanservice.
All those movies you brought up were better than Thors 1 and 2, Iron Mans 2 and 3, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man, Incredible Hulk and First Avenger.
And I'm sorry, but after 11-12 years it's going to be pretty hard to make every story a "Viewers first movie". It's inevitable after all this time that we'd experience some Continuity Lock-Out.
|
|