|
Post by Groovy Rachel on Sept 30, 2019 15:57:43 GMT
You responded to me unproved I guess to defend WW but you haven’t said anything convincing. And you don’t want to listen to criticism. I changed because it was clear you had not made a single point I agreed with so I moved on. If you want to think it’s a better film, more power to you. Most of it doesn’t make much sense, it’s derivative, and she gives up and cries about failing, but if that’s your thing ok. I don't need to convince you, I just said it was the better movie which is how it's generally regarded, I didn't say you had to think that. The movie made plenty of sense, you say Wonder Woman left without knowing what she was doing in order to find someone who she doesn't know exists. Well that's wrong because she did know he existed. You said she hoped to run into Ares after meeting enough people. No, she believed Ares was responsible for the war and so asked to be taken to the war believing that's where she'd find him, if the logic behind it seems strange is because it's supposed to be. For the no mans land scene, no they didn't only show about 12 people. It was a several hundred meter long trench where they then all approached from one point where the enemy was being neutralised. You say the Amazons were the protectors of the world yet were unaware of WW1. This was made clear, they were the protectors until Ares became evil, Zeus then created Themyscira where the Amazons then withdrew away from mankind and trained so to one day defeat Ares. Could she have powered up without Steve dying? No, as is a usual trope for a character to release a latent amount of power upon becoming overcome with emotion, that's like asking "Couldn't Goku have become a Super Saiyan without Krillin dying?" or "Couldn't Starlord have powered up without Ego making him angry?" or "Couldn't Thor have powered up without Hela having to beat him up first?" No because that's part of the plot. Why is she walking around with a sword and nobody asks? They already established it was strange and people were giving her strange looks about it, it was taken away from her because it was weird. So it does make sense but you're aren't understanding or are missing details about it. It's derivative? It's a superhero movie, there's dozens of them so of course, they all are. She gives up and cries about failure? Yes that's part of what is called a character arc when they then redeem themselves at the end.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 30, 2019 16:11:19 GMT
You responded to me unproved I guess to defend WW but you haven’t said anything convincing. And you don’t want to listen to criticism. I changed because it was clear you had not made a single point I agreed with so I moved on. If you want to think it’s a better film, more power to you. Most of it doesn’t make much sense, it’s derivative, and she gives up and cries about failing, but if that’s your thing ok. I don't need to convince you, I just said it was the better movie which is how it's generally regarded, I didn't say you had to think that. The movie made plenty of sense, you say Wonder Woman left without knowing what she was doing in order to find someone who she doesn't know exists. Well that's wrong because she did know he existed. You said she hoped to run into Ares after meeting enough people. No, she believed Ares was responsible for the war and so asked to be taken to the war believing that's where she'd find him, if the logic behind it seems strange is because it's supposed to be. For the no mans land scene, no they didn't only show about 12 people. It was a several hundred meter long trench where they then all approached from one point where the enemy was being neutralised. You say the Amazons were the protectors of the world yet were unaware of WW1. This was made clear, they were the protectors until Ares became evil, Zeus then created Themyscira where the Amazons then withdrew away from mankind and trained so to one day defeat Ares. Could she have powered up without Steve dying? No, as is a usual trope for a character to release a latent amount of power upon becoming overcome with emotion, that's like asking "Couldn't Goku have become a Super Saiyan without Krillin dying?" or "Couldn't Starlord have powered up without Ego making him angry?" or "Couldn't Thor have powered up without Hela having to beat him up first?" No because that's part of the plot. Why is she walking around with a sword and nobody asks? They already established it was strange and people were giving her strange looks about it, it was taken away from her because it was weird. So it does make sense but you're aren't understanding or are missing details about it. It's derivative? It's a superhero movie, there's dozens of them so of course, they all are. She gives up and cries about failure? Yes that's part of what is called a character arc when they then redeem themselves at the end. Yeah except none of that gets around what doesn’t work about it. I’ll explain in more detail later, but for comparison there aren’t scenes in CM that just don’t add up. There are quite a few that you have to stretch for in WW and I’ll get back to you when I’m on my laptop later
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 30, 2019 16:16:44 GMT
I covered this already. Casual fans will assume it's a part of the same universe from the logo alone. Their ignorance benefits films like Venom. If "Is Captain Marvel Part of the MCU" is a common search, then how is it Fury is drawing the audience in? Clearly his presence wasn't enough of a draw if people are having to google it to find out. That's a bit of a reach. You just said Venom probably did well because of the logo and that movie wasn't part of the MCU so that in itself doesn't make it clear. If you see a trailer for a Marvel movie and then see a character tied to the MCU in that trailer then most people can probably put two and two together. Those who can't go to Google. If this upcoming Eternals movie has a trailer and it only shows the new characters then there will still be a lot of people who won't know it's connected to the same universe. If Thor were to be in the movie and they showed him in the trailer then those who wouldn't already know would then realise "Ah so this must be part of the MCU" and would then be more likely to see it. I knew of a few people personally who have gone to see movies like Avengers and Iron Man and then Doctor Strange came out and had no idea it was part of the same universe until I told them.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 30, 2019 16:22:50 GMT
Because you're using Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer. First of all it's a garbage site. Second of all, it's impossible to rank superhero movies because they're completely different films with different intentions. Is Shazam trying to do the same thing The Dark Knight is trying to do? Does Ant-Man have the same theme as The Winter Soldier? Critics aren't comparing Shazam to Black Panther when they rate it, they're rating it on its own merit based on their expectations of what it was trying to accomplish as a film. Therefore, to go back after the fact and 'rank' BP ahead of TDK or Shazam makes no sense. I agree in principle you can’t just take the raw numbers and act like that’s all there is to it and it’s an apples to apples comparison. However it’s not a garbage site. RT is pretty damn accurate to its stated goal. It’s pretty rare that I ever think they’re way off. The irony of you saying CM is a better film than WW and then touting RT in the same thread. Have you seen CM's RT score? Are you aware of the monkey business surrounding it? RT is a garbage site (even though for my money, CM ended up with the score it deserved). What constitutes a fresh and rotten score seems totally arbitrary and that's assuming the reviewer didn't have an agenda to begin with. The ratings are all over the place, particularly with older films. RT is a slave to the moment and prone to social politics and popular trends more than actual film critique.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 30, 2019 16:26:42 GMT
I agree in principle you can’t just take the raw numbers and act like that’s all there is to it and it’s an apples to apples comparison. However it’s not a garbage site. RT is pretty damn accurate to its stated goal. It’s pretty rare that I ever think they’re way off. The irony of you saying CM is a better film than WW and then touting RT in the same thread. Have you seen CM's RT score? Are you aware of the monkey business surrounding it? RT is a garbage site (even though for my money, CM ended up with the score it deserved). What constitutes a fresh and rotten score seems totally arbitrary and that's assuming the reviewer didn't have an agenda to begin with. The ratings are all over the place, particularly with older films. RT is a slave to the moment and prone to social politics and popular trends more than actual film critique. Oh the audience score is garbage no doubt. Totally agree and yeah I’m aware of the insanity around it. I remember before it was released it had more audience reviews than Infinity War had in a year. Total crock of crap. Audience scores are always garbage. But the critic reviews are usually pretty fair. It’s rare that I see the critic score and read the summary and just think it was miles off.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 30, 2019 16:31:08 GMT
I covered this already. Casual fans will assume it's a part of the same universe from the logo alone. Their ignorance benefits films like Venom. If "Is Captain Marvel Part of the MCU" is a common search, then how is it Fury is drawing the audience in? Clearly his presence wasn't enough of a draw if people are having to google it to find out. That's a bit of a reach. You just said Venom probably did well because of the logo and that movie wasn't part of the MCU so that in itself doesn't make it clear. If you see a trailer for a Marvel movie and then see a character tied to the MCU in that trailer then most people can probably put two and two together. Those who can't go to Google. If this upcoming Eternals movie has a trailer and it only shows the new characters then there will still be a lot of people who won't know it's connected to the same universe. If Thor were to be in the movie and they showed him in the trailer then those who wouldn't already know would then realise "Ah so this must be part of the MCU" and would then be more likely to see it. I knew of a few people personally who have gone to see movies like Avengers and Iron Man and then Doctor Strange came out and had no idea it was part of the same universe until I told them. None of this refutes my claim. I think people went to see Venom because of the logo, having no idea they aren't connected at all. Venom didn't need Nick Fury and neither did CM, they just threw him in there for the people who enjoy the connectivity of the films. It isn't required as a draw. Your comment about Doctor Strange proves my point. Your friends went to see it anyway, Nick Fury wasn't there to tell them they needed to see it, they went because they like Marvel movies or superhero movies and thus Nick Fury wasn't some artificial booster (yup, I went there!). Black Panther made a billion dollars and it didn't have Iron Man, Nick Fury or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 30, 2019 16:32:55 GMT
The irony of you saying CM is a better film than WW and then touting RT in the same thread. Have you seen CM's RT score? Are you aware of the monkey business surrounding it? RT is a garbage site (even though for my money, CM ended up with the score it deserved). What constitutes a fresh and rotten score seems totally arbitrary and that's assuming the reviewer didn't have an agenda to begin with. The ratings are all over the place, particularly with older films. RT is a slave to the moment and prone to social politics and popular trends more than actual film critique. Oh the audience score is garbage no doubt. Totally agree and yeah I’m aware of the insanity around it. I remember before it was released it had more audience reviews than Infinity War had in a year. Total crock of crap. Audience scores are always garbage. But the critic reviews are usually pretty fair. It’s rare that I see the critic score and read the summary and just think it was miles off. CM has a 78% on RT, Wonder Woman has a 93%. You're arguing CM is the better film while saying RT is rarely wrong. Which is it in this case?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 30, 2019 16:42:25 GMT
Black Panther made a billion dollars and it didn't have Iron Man, Nick Fury or anyone else. I feel like we're discussing two different things. I never said Nick Fury was a draw, also my friends actually didn't go to see Doctor Strange because they were unaware of it being part of the MCU. Black Panther was already established as being part of the MCU because he was in Civil War first. Captain Marvel though not the case, so Nick Fury is in the movie, people see the trailers for this new Marvel movie, see Nick Fury in it and then realise "Oh this is a MCU movie" and that causes a large amount of people to go and see it.
|
|
|
Post by Groovy Rachel on Sept 30, 2019 16:51:02 GMT
There are quite a few that you have to stretch for in WW and I’ll get back to you when I’m on my laptop later Well that's not actually true at all but you're probably gonna get back to me and try to explain some of these things, like about the sword and people not questioning it but in the end, this stuff is mere triviality, minor nitpicks that are inconsequential and have no real baring on a movies quality. What truly matters are things like the story, the cinematography, the characters, the score and the action, those are the major factors and they are all better in Wonder Woman, some by a significant amount. People don't care that someone didn't ask why Wonder Woman why she's holding a sword or why they only showed "about 12 people" in the trench because anyone could find something like that in any film, the best films if they wanted to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 30, 2019 17:16:45 GMT
Black Panther made a billion dollars and it didn't have Iron Man, Nick Fury or anyone else. I feel like we're discussing two different things. I never said Nick Fury was a draw, also my friends actually didn't go to see Doctor Strange because they were unaware of it being part of the MCU. Black Panther was already established as being part of the MCU because he was in Civil War first. Captain Marvel though not the case, so Nick Fury is in the movie, people see the trailers for this new Marvel movie, see Nick Fury in it and then realise "Oh this is a MCU movie" and that causes a large amount of people to go and see it. According to you, Black Panther made over a billion because he was established in a previous film, and CM made over a billion due to the appearance of Nick Fury (not the character specifically, but something to provide connective tissue). But Ant-Man had a comparatively modest BO showing despite your point about the marketing leaning on the larger MCU, and the appearance of Falcon. Ant-Man 2 didn't light the BO on fire despite him being featured in Civil War, and his sequel directly followed Infinity War. Maybe BP and CM appealed to an underserved audience. Maybe people thought they were more interesting characters. I don't think their success was based on whether or not people understood they were MCU films.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 30, 2019 17:43:02 GMT
Oh the audience score is garbage no doubt. Totally agree and yeah I’m aware of the insanity around it. I remember before it was released it had more audience reviews than Infinity War had in a year. Total crock of crap. Audience scores are always garbage. But the critic reviews are usually pretty fair. It’s rare that I see the critic score and read the summary and just think it was miles off. CM has a 78% on RT, Wonder Woman has a 93%. You're arguing CM is the better film while saying RT is rarely wrong. Which is it in this case? Its a bit of both actually and I appreciate you asking. So first off, they’re only 15 points away from each other so it’s not a crazy difference. WW is the single most overrated comic book film ever IMO and I’m pretty convinced there was probably an easy 15% who gave it the benefit of the doubt that probably wouldn’t have if it was Captain America 3 for instance. It would be fair for it to be about at the 78 range Captain Marvel is at. That’s the rare issue here. CM is reasonably scored but I would say a tad undervalued. I would have expected a film that good to be more around 82 or something. And I think WW is actually the same amount below the 78 in reality. So 82-74 is what I would have guessed from how they typically rate films.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 30, 2019 17:50:19 GMT
You keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Black Panther or Captain Marvel only made over a billion for those reasons.
Those movies were associated with the MCU brand and so made more money than they otherwise would have if they weren't.
The Ant-man movies were two of the weakest movies and a harder sell. Brand name alone will only do so much but they still would have benefitted to some degree by being associated with the MCU.
And they know that so they usually try to make it clear to people in the marketing that it's part of this brand.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 30, 2019 18:01:25 GMT
You keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Black Panther or Captain Marvel only made over a billion for those reasons. Those movies were associated with the MCU brand and so made more money than they otherwise would have if they weren't. The Ant-man movies were two of the weakest movies and a harder sell. Brand name alone will only do so much but they still would have benefitted to some degree by being associated with the MCU. And they know that so they usually try to make it clear to people in the marketing that it's part of this brand. You didn't mention any other reasons; you said they had the advantage of either being featured in previous films or featuring guest stars to prop up their BO totals. I pointed out that other characters who have done the same haven't had the same results. I think we agree on why they used Fury in CM, but I'd go a degree farther and say they put Fury in CM because they screwed the title character. They waited too long to introduce her and couldn't fit her into the timeline, so they had to make her origin a prequel. On top of that, they decided to give the character amnesia, which made her story even more boring. Fury had to be there to provide any semblance of continuity because they couldn't use other heroes, which is what the audience was accustomed to at that point. We can agree to disagree on how much Fury did to help the box office. It's unquantifiable so there's no point in arguing it.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 30, 2019 18:17:29 GMT
Well maybe I didn't make myself too clear but what I was getting at was that by showcasing to audiences that Nick Fury was in Captain Marvel, it was letting people know that the movie was tied to the MCU and being a part of that brand allowed it to be more successful.
Anything associated with the MCU will do better because of it. It's like Pixar now.
|
|
thenolan
Sophomore
@thenolan
Posts: 778
Likes: 162
|
Post by thenolan on Oct 1, 2019 10:34:44 GMT
Wonder Woman is the better movie, captain marvel may be worse than dark phoenix, so wonder woman wins this one.
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Oct 1, 2019 16:08:50 GMT
Wonder Woman is the better movie, captain marvel may be worse than dark phoenix, so wonder woman wins this one.
|
|