Marvel Movie thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue May 24, 2016 12:03 pm

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:It just means that anything can take a back seat to animation.

BvS has done better at the box office than Days of Future Past. I doubt Apocalypse will make as much money.


It's funny that you even want to make that comparison.


Agreed. BvS should have been much bigger - only taking a backseat to maybe Star Wars. They blew it!
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12391
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Tue May 24, 2016 11:53 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:It just means that anything can take a back seat to animation.

BvS has done better at the box office than Days of Future Past. I doubt Apocalypse will make as much money.


It's funny that you even want to make that comparison.


Agreed. BvS should have been much bigger - only taking a backseat to maybe Star Wars. They blew it!

It's kinda like having the bases loaded with no outs and grounding into a double play. Sure you scored a run and have a guy on 3rd, but you just killed what could have been a huge inning.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Wed May 25, 2016 12:18 am

Nah. In order to have a base's loaded situation, that means the batters before you would have to get on base first and ride the momentum of solid at-bats. Man of Steel was basically a single that started off the inning, down big. It wasn't the hit that would force the defense into making changes, but it still managed to get you on base on a 0-2 count. Batman V Superman was the next batter up to start the comeback. Instead of chipping away, they brought in their heavy hitter who was ambitious enough to swing for the fence's. It got all the way to the warning track, allowing the first batter to tag and move to second (Batfleck was received well and so was Gadot's Wonder Woman, which moved the DCEU into scoring range if the next batter keeps swinging.) Now they can start chipping away and tinker with the lineup to get back into the game. All it takes is one good at-bat to start a good wave of momentum. The DCEU will be fine. Congrats to Marvel and Avengers 3 for lifting the studio over the 10 billion mark. They are just bunting at this point.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed May 25, 2016 12:56 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:It just means that anything can take a back seat to animation.

BvS has done better at the box office than Days of Future Past. I doubt Apocalypse will make as much money.


It's funny that you even want to make that comparison.


Agreed. BvS should have been much bigger - only taking a backseat to maybe Star Wars. They blew it!


Yeah, they "blew it" by not cannibalizing '78-80 to an even greater degree than Superman Returns did. At least that's what I've seen written on other forums, which is truly mind-boggling.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Wed May 25, 2016 10:58 am

verslibre wrote:Yeah, they "blew it" by not cannibalizing '78-80 to an even greater degree than Superman Returns did. At least that's what I've seen written on other forums, which is truly mind-boggling.


Blah, blah, blah. That is over-analytical CB nerd bullshit. WB/DC and Zach Snyder made a crappy movie. That is as complex as it needs to be.

And, BTW, Civil War has also passed The Dark Night. You see, your quote above could have been like, "Civil War has done better at the box office than The Dark Knight. I doubt Apocalupse will make as much money."

Instead you compare BvS to a second tier franchise. If BvS had not sucked so bad, maybe it would have done well at the box office and you could make more impressive comparisons, instead of these pathetic ones. Also, if BvS was not such a crappy movie, you wouldn't have to worry about Apocolypse outselling iit - which, IMO, has a small possibility of happening.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Wed May 25, 2016 11:02 am

What about you talking about? BvS was AWESOME!
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Wed May 25, 2016 11:11 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Nah. In order to have a base's loaded situation, that means the batters before you would have to get on base first and ride the momentum of solid at-bats. Man of Steel was basically a single that started off the inning, down big. It wasn't the hit that would force the defense into making changes, but it still managed to get you on base on a 0-2 count. Batman V Superman was the next batter up to start the comeback. Instead of chipping away, they brought in their heavy hitter who was ambitious enough to swing for the fence's. It got all the way to the warning track, allowing the first batter to tag and move to second (Batfleck was received well and so was Gadot's Wonder Woman, which moved the DCEU into scoring range if the next batter keeps swinging.) Now they can start chipping away and tinker with the lineup to get back into the game. All it takes is one good at-bat to start a good wave of momentum. The DCEU will be fine. Congrats to Marvel and Avengers 3 for lifting the studio over the 10 billion mark. They are just bunting at this point.


Again, that is so over-analytical.

RWF is right. In the lead up to this movie you and V went 'round and 'round saying how "Batman" and "Superman" alone would sell this movie. Then add a clash between them and the hype escalates. I never disagreed with that per se. My argument was always that nobody could write a great movie in the time allotted, with the given characters and their short history with the audience.

So, what RWF is saying, and I agree with, is: You had icon one, Batman on third base, icon two Superman on second, and the "VS" bit on first....and Zach Snyder up to bat. If he had created a movie as good as Civil War, you may have had a $1.5 billion home run of a movie. Instead, he produced a crappy pop-fly of a movie that ended the game.

The sales that BvS did get are essentially those who bought into the hype or iconic characters. Sure, a few like you and V may have genuinely enjoyed the movie...but to almost everybody the worth of the movie was very far away from what the hype promised.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Wed May 25, 2016 11:13 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:What about you talking about? BvS was AWESOME!


Well, according to V, it's barely compatible to X-Men movies. Doesn't sound too awesome to me, even coming from someone who liked the movie.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu May 26, 2016 2:31 am

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Yeah, they "blew it" by not cannibalizing '78-80 to an even greater degree than Superman Returns did. At least that's what I've seen written on other forums, which is truly mind-boggling.


Blah, blah, blah. That is over-analytical CB nerd bullshit. WB/DC and Zach Snyder made a crappy movie. That is as complex as it needs to be.

And, BTW, Civil War has also passed The Dark Night. You see, your quote above could have been like, "Civil War has done better at the box office than The Dark Knight. I doubt Apocalupse will make as much money."


Now he wants to bring The Dark Knight into the discussion. :lol: Your desperation reeks from a great distance. The Dark Knight wasn't even expected to make a billion dollars, but it did. It did so because it was still in theaters six months after it was released. Why? Because it was so fuckin' popular, it continued to make money. Its domestic take, per Box Office Mojo, is nearly 535 million, and the only other movie to beat that domestic take (but spending a lot more to get there) is Marvel's The Avengers. Per The-Numbers.com, The Dark Knight earned 315 million on home video (not even counting digital rights). Factor in its $185 million budget and marketing and from here, it looks like the studio roughly quadrupled its investment. PROFIT-wise, that's amazing, especially compared to an Avengers movie that didn't want to call itself an Avengers movie, but was promoted like one (and everyone knows better).

The Dark Knight Rises (which I assume is the movie you really were referring to) didn't make as much domestically and on home video, but it made a bit more overseas. Btw, Civil War is nearing, but has not passed, Rises' global take.

You can actually look at a film's daily earnings on BOM. Yeah, the honeymoon is over. Civil War's weekday earnings last week were roughly 30-50% lower by the day than its first week. This week will be even lower. They hit the billion they needed to (because this movie was more expensive to make and promote than they're letting on), but the summer season is here.

Monker wrote:Instead you compare BvS to a second tier franchise. If BvS had not sucked so bad, maybe it would have done well at the box office and you could make more impressive comparisons, instead of these pathetic ones. Also, if BvS was not such a crappy movie, you wouldn't have to worry about Apocolypse outselling iit - which, IMO, has a small possibility of happening.


Forest. Trees. See Monker miss both. The X-franchise is not supposed to be a "second-tier" franchise, considering those characters have been among Marvel's most popular for over three decades. Apocalypse looks like it's aiming even higher than DoFP (which couldn't even get into profit while in theaters) with more (new) characters, greater exhibitions of powers, more Quicksilver, and another extinction scenario. But the problem is (drum roll) Bryan Singer.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu May 26, 2016 9:55 am

So, RWF and Monker...your thoughts on this make-Cap-&-Bucky-a-
couple thing that's top-trending on Twitter? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/8957b80de9f444b7bc7f91ecc8184cb7/glaad-responds-givecaptainamericaaboyfriend
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Thu May 26, 2016 10:48 am

verslibre wrote:So, RWF and Monker...your thoughts on this make-Cap-&-Bucky-a-
couple thing that's top-trending on Twitter? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/8957b80de9f444b7bc7f91ecc8184cb7/glaad-responds-givecaptainamericaaboyfriend

They're trying to pressure the makers of James Bond and Elsa from Frozen to make them gay characters. Just more from the left trying to gay up the country.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri May 27, 2016 12:40 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
verslibre wrote:So, RWF and Monker...your thoughts on this make-Cap-&-Bucky-a-
couple thing that's top-trending on Twitter? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/8957b80de9f444b7bc7f91ecc8184cb7/glaad-responds-givecaptainamericaaboyfriend

They're trying to pressure the makers of James Bond and Elsa from Frozen to make them gay characters. Just more from the left trying to gay up the country.


I hate this shit. I remember during the Brosnan years, Entertainment Weekly had a piece arguing that Bond should be a woman. And now we see it every 3 months during Craig's run - make Bond gay, make Bond Idris Elba...etc. Howabout just making a great movie? :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12391
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sat May 28, 2016 1:25 am

Maybe a gay Cap movie directed by Bry*n S*ng*r? :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sat May 28, 2016 8:26 am

Just for fun.

If The Russos Directed Every Marvel Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huyVs3QiK1c
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun May 29, 2016 8:45 am

:roll:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/27/why-marvel-doesnt-want-you-to-watch-x-men/

It may be hard to imagine, but back in the 1980s and 1990s that script was flipped. DC Comics saw repeated success with Superman and Batman franchises. Marvel was flailing financially and took an altogether different approach. It shopped various superhero characters to numerous studios hoping that any films released or TV productions developed would boost Marvel properties in other platforms, such as book sales and licensed products.

During this era Marvel hung a price tag on most of its hero creations. This is how an entity like Spider Man came to be owned by Sony Entertainment, and how Fox obtained film rights to the X-Men. After a bout of bankruptcy in the 1990s, the new era of superhero films saw Marvel’s fortunes reverse. The downside was many cash-cow characters had been auctioned off with open-ended agreements. In the case of Fox, as long as the studio produced films it would retain the rights to those characters.

This means these days Marvel seethes over its own characters it cannot develop as it watches a rival fumble the premise just as often as it succeeds. In response, Marvel has resorted to marketing sabotage of its own characters.

They Who Shall Not Be Named

Last summer XM Studio Collectibles was revealing a new line of collectible superhero products. Not mere action figures, these were highly detailed character statuary and dioramas, based on scenes from iconic comic book releases. Following the announcement, just days after showing off a number of whips (unfinished prototypes) to the public, the company made a stark announcement:

Folks, it’s been a sad day for us… due to reasons we aren’t at liberty to disclose, we have been asked to put a hard stop to all X-Men characters for now. Still, we continue to have faith that this isn’t an indefinite red light forever and you can have our promise we will be back to producing these dream pieces once the coast is clear – no matter how long it takes! No Fantastic 4 too . . . same reason.


Disclosure is not required. Marvel did not pull its entire licensing agreement with XM Studio, it axed the production of specific characters. It’s no coincidence those same characters are governed by Fox, right? This is not the first instance of the comics corporation working to make their characters unavailable, hoping they become as unseen as the character Cipher.

Whether in its own realm or with production partnerships, the X-Men are becoming harder to find. Further, the Fantastic Four has seen its comic production brought to an end. Marvel is willing to cut off its Thing to spite Fox.

The elimination of a figurehead brand from the comics division is not the only step taken. Another move noted by fans was the Marvel 75th anniversary magazine cover, which displayed most of the company’s flagship characters—save for the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. More extensive still, on the Marvel items featuring those teams are no longer offered for sale.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun May 29, 2016 9:01 am

Fell asleep intermittently during the first hour of X-Men: Apocalypse. What I saw seemed pretty epic, but also incoherent at times. I really can't judge it having snored through the first 50 minutes. The character arc of Fassbender's Magneto never changes. Without going into spoilers, I felt that Magneto's conflicting allegiances to Xavier and just getting on down with his bad self was tired. I had seen this before. The obligatory Wolverine cameo was not necessary. Somewhat lame. Apocalypse, despite looking like a Power Rangers villain at times, was effective. The new Jean Grey is not hot enough. It's that simple. A friend told me she is from Game of Thrones. Either way, Famke Janssen can rest easy. So did I like it? I can't say. I passed out. But I liked much of what I saw and would be willing to see it again. For whatever it's worth, the opening credits in 3d were pretty cool.

Lastly, bringing back Rose Byrne was a huge mistake. I did not even remember her being in these movies. X-Men: Apocalypse is somewhat continuity heavy. Direct references to First Class and DOFP are all over this (bringing back Byrne's forgettable character is an example of this). I felt like I needed to re-watch them. Consider yourself warned.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12391
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun May 29, 2016 9:27 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Fell asleep intermittently during the first hour of X-Men: Apocalypse. What I saw seemed pretty epic, but also incoherent at times. I really can't judge it having snored through the first 50 minutes.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for that, I LOL'd. I can't remember the last time I fell asleep during a movie in a theater.

Wait, yes I can. It was the second Pirates movie. I'd worked a long day, and I went to see it and fell asleep during the entire second act. :lol:

Looks like Apocalypse is tracking for around $75 million this weekend. That's not good. Even lower than the already-lowered projection that made the rounds on Thursday. Ouch.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun May 29, 2016 9:31 am

verslibre wrote:Wait, yes I can. It was the second Pirates movie. I'd worked a long day, and I went to see it and fell asleep during the entire second act. :lol:


I had a good rest during the 3rd Pirates! Depp's Alice Looking Glass sequel is going to disappoint, according to box office tracking. I think people are tired of his bullshit.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12391
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Sun May 29, 2016 11:39 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
verslibre wrote:Wait, yes I can. It was the second Pirates movie. I'd worked a long day, and I went to see it and fell asleep during the entire second act. :lol:


I had a good rest during the 3rd Pirates! Depp's Alice Looking Glass sequel is going to disappoint, according to box office tracking. I think people are tired of his bullshit.

Did you fall asleep because it was boring or because of a lack of sleep?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon May 30, 2016 2:12 am

RedWingFan wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
verslibre wrote:Wait, yes I can. It was the second Pirates movie. I'd worked a long day, and I went to see it and fell asleep during the entire second act. :lol:


I had a good rest during the 3rd Pirates! Depp's Alice Looking Glass sequel is going to disappoint, according to box office tracking. I think people are tired of his bullshit.

Did you fall asleep because it was boring or because of a lack of sleep?


Don't remember. Just remember seeing this giant crab creature and zonking out.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12391
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Mon May 30, 2016 3:23 am

"Giant crab" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Mon May 30, 2016 9:44 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I had a good rest during the 3rd Pirates! Depp's Alice Looking Glass sequel is going to disappoint, according to box office tracking. I think people are tired of his bullshit.

Did you fall asleep because it was boring or because of a lack of sleep?


Don't remember. Just remember seeing this giant crab creature and zonking out.

I meant for Apocalypse.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Mon May 30, 2016 1:17 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
verslibre wrote:Wait, yes I can. It was the second Pirates movie. I'd worked a long day, and I went to see it and fell asleep during the entire second act. :lol:


I had a good rest during the 3rd Pirates! Depp's Alice Looking Glass sequel is going to disappoint, according to box office tracking. I think people are tired of his bullshit.



Sounds like you stayed home and slept for the 4th Pirates.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Mon May 30, 2016 1:34 pm

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Yeah, they "blew it" by not cannibalizing '78-80 to an even greater degree than Superman Returns did. At least that's what I've seen written on other forums, which is truly mind-boggling.


Blah, blah, blah. That is over-analytical CB nerd bullshit. WB/DC and Zach Snyder made a crappy movie. That is as complex as it needs to be.

And, BTW, Civil War has also passed The Dark Night. You see, your quote above could have been like, "Civil War has done better at the box office than The Dark Knight. I doubt Apocalupse will make as much money."


Now he wants to bring The Dark Knight into the discussion. :lol: Your desperation reeks from a great distance. The Dark Knight wasn't even expected to make a billion dollars, but it did. It did so because it was still in theaters six months after it was released. Why? Because it was so fuckin' popular, it continued to make money. Its domestic take, per Box Office Mojo, is nearly 535 million, and the only other movie to beat that domestic take (but spending a lot more to get there) is Marvel's The Avengers. Per The-Numbers.com, The Dark Knight earned 315 million on home video (not even counting digital rights). Factor in its $185 million budget and marketing and from here, it looks like the studio roughly quadrupled its investment. PROFIT-wise, that's amazing, especially compared to an Avengers movie that didn't want to call itself an Avengers movie, but was promoted like one (and everyone knows better).

The Dark Knight Rises (which I assume is the movie you really were referring to) didn't make as much domestically and on home video, but it made a bit more overseas. Btw, Civil War is nearing, but has not passed, Rises' global take.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Civil War outsold TDK in worldwide sales. That is a fact. Look it up before you accuse me of being wrong. I would think you would know these simple facts about your favorite movies.

My point is, which you ignore, that is the level of movie Civil War can be compared to....so talk up TDK all you want. It just makes the fact that Civil War is at that same level even more impressive. At the same time, BvS is compared to X-Men...that is sad.

[The X-franchise is not supposed to be a "second-tier" franchise, considering those characters have been among Marvel's most popular for over three decades. Apocalypse looks like it's aiming even higher than DoFP (which couldn't even get into profit while in theaters) with more (new) characters, greater exhibitions of powers, more Quicksilver, and another extinction scenario. But the problem is (drum roll) Bryan Singer.


Correct. Maybe FOX can make a deal with Disney/Marvel so Marvel can actually kick the movies up a notch. It's not Marvel's fault that FOX can't raise the level of those movies. But, the fact remains, The X-Men are a second tier franchise right now...and so is BvS.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Tue May 31, 2016 1:18 am

BvS is not technically its own franchise. You will never see a "Batman V Superman 2." WB has only begun to build their DC franchise, which would be their Justice League franchise or their own connected universe ala the Harry Potter Universe. $870 million isn't second tier in Hollywood in the slightest. If you want to combine what WB is trying to do, 2 divisive movies in their library made over $1.5 billion dollars in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman. That's NOT second tier. With most franchise's likely to bloom like Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman etc, that's not second tier success. The DCEU is still writing their book as a connected universe. 2 movies grossing over 1.5 bil is a good start. Besides, Marvel can't miss right now. Even half assed films like IM3 and AoU can pass the 1 bil threshold not because of quality, but brand recognition. Marvel has some stinkers, but their brand is too strong for people even to notice. Marvel got a good head start, but that doesn't make everything else second tier because quite frankly, I'd question if Cap1, Thor, TDW, IM2 or AoU are even 2nd tier movies. They're mediocre films at best but fans tend to give them a pass just because they're under the Avengers umbrella, just like "Cap 3.".
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue May 31, 2016 1:42 am

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Now he wants to bring The Dark Knight into the discussion. :lol: Your desperation reeks from a great distance. The Dark Knight wasn't even expected to make a billion dollars, but it did. It did so because it was still in theaters six months after it was released. Why? Because it was so fuckin' popular, it continued to make money. Its domestic take, per Box Office Mojo, is nearly 535 million, and the only other movie to beat that domestic take (but spending a lot more to get there) is Marvel's The Avengers. Per The-Numbers.com, The Dark Knight earned 315 million on home video (not even counting digital rights). Factor in its $185 million budget and marketing and from here, it looks like the studio roughly quadrupled its investment. PROFIT-wise, that's amazing, especially compared to an Avengers movie that didn't want to call itself an Avengers movie, but was promoted like one (and everyone knows better).

The Dark Knight Rises (which I assume is the movie you really were referring to) didn't make as much domestically and on home video, but it made a bit more overseas. Btw, Civil War is nearing, but has not passed, Rises' global take.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Civil War outsold TDK in worldwide sales. That is a fact. Look it up before you accuse me of being wrong. I would think you would know these simple facts about your favorite movies.


Blah, blah, blah. First, I commented on both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Those are two different films, and the latter has a worldwide box office gross of 1.085 billion. Civil War, as of this last weekend, has a worldwide take of 1.1 billion. That's 18 million more worldwide. When I wrote that post a few days back, Civil War was still catching up. But you keep on moving those goalposts, baby!

And yeah, I'd expect Avengers: Civil War to make more than a movie starring ONE major superhero. All you're doing is proving to me and everyone that it took 12 heroes — including Spider-Man this time — to beat Batman! Bravo! :lol:

Also, thanks for indirectly admitting that in your Monkerverse, quality cinema is synonymous with ticket sales. So that piece o' shit Avatar is obviously the best fucking film ever made! :lol:

Monker wrote:My point is, which you ignore, that is the level of movie Civil War can be compared to....so talk up TDK all you want. It just makes the fact that Civil War is at that same level even more impressive. At the same time, BvS is compared to X-Men...that is sad.


No, you have no point. You're a glommer, and you have always been one. And I will continue to talk up the Nolan trilogy at will, because you can rest assured Civil War, which is described as "fun," "entertaining," "action-packed," and every associated synonym in Webster's, is still not, and never will be, the critical darling that The Dark Knight is (remember, now I'm talking about the 2008 film, not the 2012 film, so you don't get confused again).

:lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBAMgTC4dw

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:The X-franchise is not supposed to be a "second-tier" franchise, considering those characters have been among Marvel's most popular for over three decades. Apocalypse looks like it's aiming even higher than DoFP (which couldn't even get into profit while in theaters) with more (new) characters, greater exhibitions of powers, more Quicksilver, and another extinction scenario. But the problem is (drum roll) Bryan Singer.


Correct. Maybe FOX can make a deal with Disney/Marvel so Marvel can actually kick the movies up a notch. It's not Marvel's fault that FOX can't raise the level of those movies. But, the fact remains, The X-Men are a second tier franchise right now...and so is BvS.


No, they don't need to go to Marvel. They need to get rid of Kinberg and Singer. Marvel would never allow scenes where Magneto uses ordinary items in a lethal manner without going bloodless. Apocalypse just opened to a disappointing 65 million in spite of riding Civil War's coattails. I smell the return of Matthew Vaughn (if they can talk him into it), whose X-Men: First Class is so fuckin' good, that shit is like Iron Man good. Actually, I like it better. The cast was awesome, the tone was perfect, the acting was on point, especially by McAvoy, Fassbender and Bacon. First Class did the nigh-impossible, which was make me care about the X-franchise again, but then Singer had to come back because Vaughn wanted to do Kingsman. Sending the X-franchise back to Marvel at this stage is almost pointless (like a lot of your banter) beyond the novelty aspect because A) they already did super-simplified version of "Civil War," and B) "Infinity War" is on paper. No mutants, no FF, but they're doing it anyway. They need to hurry up and get Adam Warlock in there (GOTG2). But so far, I'm not impressed by the MCU's Thanos, anyway.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue May 31, 2016 2:08 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:BvS is not technically its own franchise. You will never see a "Batman V Superman 2." WB has only begun to build their DC franchise, which would be their Justice League franchise or their own connected universe ala the Harry Potter Universe. $870 million isn't second tier in Hollywood in the slightest. If you want to combine what WB is trying to do, 2 divisive movies in their library made over $1.5 billion dollars in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman. That's NOT second tier. With most franchise's likely to bloom like Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman etc, that's not second tier success. The DCEU is still writing their book as a connected universe. 2 movies grossing over 1.5 bil is a good start. Besides, Marvel can't miss right now. Even half assed films like IM3 and AoU can pass the 1 bil threshold not because of quality, but brand recognition. Marvel has some stinkers, but their brand is too strong for people even to notice. Marvel got a good head start, but that doesn't make everything else second tier because quite frankly, I'd question if Cap1, Thor, TDW, IM2 or AoU are even 2nd tier movies. They're mediocre films at best but fans tend to give them a pass just because they're under the Avengers umbrella, just like "Cap 3.".


He's just talking shit. Notice he waited a bit for CW to get a few extra million in the coffers so he could post his jubilant "Made more than TDK/R!" remarks. :lol:

The part I bolded in your post is indisputable, especially now. Marvel is a brand, which is why a so-so movie with nice special effects like Ant-Man can also get a piñata (if you haven't seen the movie... :lol: ).

Half-Assed top honors goes to Darcy: The Dark World. :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue May 31, 2016 2:12 am

Shit, Apocalypse made $25 million less than DoFP in its first three days. Yikes!
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:43 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Now he wants to bring The Dark Knight into the discussion. :lol: Your desperation reeks from a great distance. The Dark Knight wasn't even expected to make a billion dollars, but it did. It did so because it was still in theaters six months after it was released. Why? Because it was so fuckin' popular, it continued to make money. Its domestic take, per Box Office Mojo, is nearly 535 million, and the only other movie to beat that domestic take (but spending a lot more to get there) is Marvel's The Avengers. Per The-Numbers.com, The Dark Knight earned 315 million on home video (not even counting digital rights). Factor in its $185 million budget and marketing and from here, it looks like the studio roughly quadrupled its investment. PROFIT-wise, that's amazing, especially compared to an Avengers movie that didn't want to call itself an Avengers movie, but was promoted like one (and everyone knows better).

The Dark Knight Rises (which I assume is the movie you really were referring to) didn't make as much domestically and on home video, but it made a bit more overseas. Btw, Civil War is nearing, but has not passed, Rises' global take.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Civil War outsold TDK in worldwide sales. That is a fact. Look it up before you accuse me of being wrong. I would think you would know these simple facts about your favorite movies.


Blah, blah, blah. First, I commented on both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Those are two different films, and the latter has a worldwide box office gross of 1.085 billion. Civil War, as of this last weekend, has a worldwide take of 1.1 billion. That's 18 million more worldwide. When I wrote that post a few days back, Civil War was still catching up. But you keep on moving those goalposts, baby!


How ignorant are you? TDK made 1.04 billion world wide. Civil War passed that in its third week. THAT WAS MY POINT. I was not confusing TDK:R. You are not only moving goal posts, you are not even recognizing when a touchdown was scored.

So, now it seems Civil War passed BOTH TDK and TDK:R. I didn't know that.

And yeah, I'd expect Avengers: Civil War to make more than a movie starring ONE major superhero. All you're doing is proving to me and everyone that it took 12 heroes — including Spider-Man this time — to beat Batman! Bravo! :lol:


Oh, please, the number of superheroes means nothing. BvS proves that. Being a quality and entertaining film is what matter.

Also, thanks for indirectly admitting that in your Monkerverse, quality cinema is synonymous with ticket sales. So that piece o' shit Avatar is obviously the best fucking film ever made! :lol:


Some people think it was. What it was is innovative and pushed technology to a new level. Again, people were entertained by it and wanted to experience that world over and over again.

You're a glommer, and you have always been one.


I'm not the one who compared BvS to X-Men - you guys are. Too bad you can't compare it to a quality film like TDK, or TDK:R.

And I will continue to talk up the Nolan trilogy at will, because you can rest assured Civil War, which is described as "fun," "entertaining," "action-packed," and every associated synonym in Webster's, is still not, and never will be, the critical darling that The Dark Knight is (remember, now I'm talking about the 2008 film, not the 2012 film, so you don't get confused again).


It doesn't matter which film nowadays....since Civil War outsold both of them now.

And, which one of you guys said just a few weeks ago that critics don't matter? I guess they only matter when they have good things to say.

No, they don't need to go to Marvel.
[/quote]

Then don't imply they are Marvel films.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:55 am

verslibre wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:BvS is not technically its own franchise. You will never see a "Batman V Superman 2." WB has only begun to build their DC franchise, which would be their Justice League franchise or their own connected universe ala the Harry Potter Universe. $870 million isn't second tier in Hollywood in the slightest. If you want to combine what WB is trying to do, 2 divisive movies in their library made over $1.5 billion dollars in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman. That's NOT second tier. With most franchise's likely to bloom like Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman etc, that's not second tier success. The DCEU is still writing their book as a connected universe. 2 movies grossing over 1.5 bil is a good start. Besides, Marvel can't miss right now. Even half assed films like IM3 and AoU can pass the 1 bil threshold not because of quality, but brand recognition. Marvel has some stinkers, but their brand is too strong for people even to notice. Marvel got a good head start, but that doesn't make everything else second tier because quite frankly, I'd question if Cap1, Thor, TDW, IM2 or AoU are even 2nd tier movies. They're mediocre films at best but fans tend to give them a pass just because they're under the Avengers umbrella, just like "Cap 3.".


He's just talking shit. Notice he waited a bit for CW to get a few extra million in the coffers so he could post his jubilant "Made more than TDK/R!" remarks. :lol:


I waited a few weeks because I was doing other things. I didn't post it made more than TDK:R....you guys did. Civil War passed TDK in its third week. You two are just ignorant about how much TDK made worldwide. As I said: Civil War sold more than TDK. That is a fact, look it up. And, since you are posting this shit...look up WHEN it passed it , too.

The part I bolded in your post is indisputable, especially now. Marvel is a brand, which is why a so-so movie with nice special effects like Ant-Man can also get a piñata (if you haven't seen the movie... :lol: ).

Half-Assed top honors goes to Darcy: The Dark World. :lol:


Keep on making excuses. You two are acting incredibly jealous. Maybe if WB/DC had built up their brand before they made their POS BvS, then the DCEU would not be in such a bad place. If Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman do not hit big, IMO the DCEU is at risk of coming to an end. WB is not in the business to make movies that barely make a profit or lose money.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests