Board 8 > MCU General 5.5: LokiMantisSpider-Man Edition

(+) Yeah! (+)

UltimaterializerX posted...

No. It isnt. If a movie is good, people will go see it. Covid is a bad faith excuse for people making bad movies.

Spiderman isnt the only example. People went and saw Fast 9 and that Quiet Place 2, right? That stuff isnt for me but those two made bank.

F9 had a significant US drop and came in 100 places lower on the all-time list than its predecessor. The fact is this - COVID did, in fact, have a major impact on filmgoers overall. Big tentpole films aren't suffering as much, but they are still suffering, and ticket sales year-over-year are done significantly. It's important to note that we have far fewer 1 billion dollar films this year, and we're likely ending the year $500m films in the top ten, which is a massive drop from 2019. And this matters for the "original" films - unestablished franchises which can't propel people out of their homes. COVID also has pushed streaming services to release marquee films in simultaneous release or completely via streaming.

You're Ulti-mately missing the big picture if you think that the box office is standing firm. It's not. Movies are going to become appointment or event viewing for the vast public, and the rest of film profits will dwindle in theaters, turning movies into what they've become - bidding wars for content in the streaming world.

I could go on and on, but you're definitely not seeing the actual picture here with your Spider-Man assumptions. It's actually an assumption which proves the dying nature of theatrical releases.

isn't fast 9 a terrible movie? not sure why it's relevant to an "if a movie is good, people will go see it" debate.

F9 rules

it also happened to come out at maybe the most opened up normal time since the pandemic started. When I went to see it they didnt even make you wear masks.

I feel like such a fanservice-heavy Spider-Man movie was always going to be huge unless it was objectively a dumpster fire.

F9 rules for upholding my prediction about how the end of the series will play out.

In short, F9 teases us by giving us a little taste of the crew going to space. F10 will actually be a full blown space adventure movie for the entire crew. At the end of the movie (possibly the post credits) they all go through a wormhole/portal/negative space wedgie to another universe.

Then F11 finishes the series off with a crossover with the Riddick movies.

UltimaterializerX posted...

I actually would like you to go on and on here, because I don't see how a movie doing really well shows that theatres are dead. I think it shows "if you build it they will come" if anything.

And I'm sorry but the massive majority of the public stopped caring about covid a long time ago. The media and the terminally online social media addicts are the only ones who still care.

Spider-Man doing well doesn't demonstrate that movie theaters as a whole are doing well. Ticket sales overall are indicative of the movie industry propping up theaters. For example, no one looks at the Super Bowl and says, "Well, TV ratings are back, baby!" each year. They aren't. They never will be. The constant shift away from cable and network viewing doesn't take a vacation because the Super Bowl pumps in tens of millions of viewers. The same is true of Spider-Man, Avengers, etc. They are the Super Bowl of movie theaters - they exist outside of the actual general viewing figures because they are event and appointment viewing. What is of concern is the drastic drop in Top Ten figures this year, the drastic drop in 100 million dollar movies, the drastic drop in 50 million dollar movies. These are, for lack of a better word, the midcarders that fill out the box office. A healthy box office year can pump out over 60 $50m films. This year is a tiny fraction of that at the domestic box office - what this tells us is that appointment viewing is the ONLY way to get butts in seats, outside of Mick Foley winning the title.

The box office is losing the midrange film. The movies that prop up the artistic or niche films, the movies that promoted what little creativity that studios were willing to trust. As the race in streaming continues to aim towards talent glom and IP banking, we're witnessing less and less gambling for new properties - especially so with big budgets. And that gambling was what would create box office surprises that made it profitable to show movies in the first place. Instead of movie regulars - the subset of people who would go on a weekend just because - you are seeing less and less risk in a public space, and more in the streaming space. But when you spend more time on a streaming service, you're doing the creators a disservice because, suddenly, these really high-priced assets that may be amazing are actually not as profitable. If I increase my viewing habits on Netflix from 20 hours a month to 60 hours a month, I'm still paying the same price. And Netflix then realizes it can pump out cheap crap, make more profit, and blow less on the overhead of a project. And thus we get the three-season shows that end before they get where they're going.

Spider-Man becoming a Super Bowl of the film industry is a dangerous harbinger of how difficult it will be to make bank without a "sure thing" in theaters.

I hate to say it, but I think you're missing the point here. I dont think anyone is arguing that movie theaters are doing pretty poorly overall and losing a lot of movies to streaming services. If Spiderman had debuted on Disney plus at the same time (or even within a week or two), it wouldn't have performed nearly as well.

The argument seems to be that people are now much more willing to go to the theater if the movie is good enough/ hyped up enough AND there are no other ways to watch it.

Covid accelerated the trends. And you can add Roma into that list as well. I would think that the Irishman is a little different in that you're buying Scorsese, which is similar to the IP grab that's happening across the various platforms.

okay so using this is an overall Disney+ thread for a second, someone should prepare a Book of Boba topic for tonight

Just watched No Way Home. I'll keep spoilers/plot discussion in the other thread but man, that was so good. One of my favourite MCU movies for sure.

UItimaterializer posted...

And I'll unblock you on my main when you stop obsessively marking people on here. "But marking is anonymous! You couldn't possibly know."

Lol

UltimaterializerX posted...

Anyway, I've been watching Daredevil on Netflix. 3 episodes in.

It's really low budget and the lighting they shot this show in is really bad, but the show itself is still REALLY good. Going from PG13 movies to women getting choked out in jail cells and kids getting kidnapped for Russian child traffickers is a huge culture shock. It's also very refreshing to see grounded, yet well choreographed fight scenes. Nothing against Marvel's CGI at all, but now and again you just need to watch the original Rocky, you know?

If you've watched none of the Netflix Marvel series, you really should. Not every season and/or show are stellar but on the whole they're an interesting R rated take on Marvel. Like you said, it's bizarre seeing all the sex, blood, actual violence, language, and drugs when you're used to mass market Disney Marvel.

Try to watch in the release order though as I think that makes more sense than watching all of Daredevil, then Jessica Jones, etc. (With that said there's really not toooo much crossover between the shows, other than The Defenders mini series that's about halfway through.) Pretty sure Daredevil S1 was the first though, so that's good.

I binged them all a year or two back and recall my first impression being similar to yours. It gets much better as it moves forward though. Or maybe I just had my expectations recalibrated... Either way, the production issues kind of faded from my view.

i also still need to watch the netflix stuff. want to get around to at least daredevil and punisher at some point.

TBH you could really just watch DD1, JJ1, and DD2 and those three season gives you the majority of the goodness of the Netflix series (and happens to be release order iirc). There's still a lot of good stuff in there afterwards, don't get me wrong, but it's a lot of content with much more varied quality.

I think a large part of the problem with the Netflix shows (other than IF1) is that the announcement of Disney+ and the reorganization of Marvel Entertainment came at just the right time to derail a lot of stuff and before they were even half done the Netflix side of the partnership decided that they'd fulfill their contracts but they weren't going to push for much more than that. Not that it's a great mindset, but I just don't think they felt it was worth it to give their all once Disney announced their "divorce."

TBH you could really just watch DD1, JJ1, and DD2 and those three season gives you the majority of the goodness of the Netflix series

gotta watch DD3 too. Thats prime Fisk stuff and probably better than season 2

Yes, it is very, very watchable but it's not release order like the others I mentioned.

Bit of a stupid question, but how did Peter Parker never happen on the criminal underworld as depicted by the Netflix series in Homecoming? Seeing how he only dealt with small crimes.

Yes I read the TV Tropes page for the trope "Superman Stays Out of Gotham".

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Bit of a stupid question, but how did Peter Parker never happen on the criminal underworld as depicted by the Netflix series in Homecoming? Seeing how he only dealt with small crimes.

Yes I read the TV Tropes page for the trope "Superman Stays Out of Gotham".

simple real world answer: the Netflix people and the Sony people were not collaborating to make that work

in universe answer: I think Peter was handling like... early evening muggings and other small, visible crime. Hes still a teenager who had to go to school in the morning, he wasnt out doing the sort of late night deep investigating that Matt would get up to.
Peters just webbing up robbers and not looking into it any further. You dont find Fisk unless youre looking for him.

fun fact: when kingpin gets introduced in amazing spider-man #50, spider-man never actually meets him.

Peter was stopping crimes as he came across them, not looking for some grand conspiracy.

That's what I imagined anyways.

Honestly, I don't think this Peter was really good at being Spider-Man from what we've seen of him. Like, he did some good, but he's also kind of such a huge fuck up that I think it's totally plausible for a bunch of crime rings to run around him without him having even a clue they existed.

Hawkeye spoilers:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/3/9/AABtbFAACwYH.jpg

Doesn't Peter Parker live in Queens?

Paratroopa1 posted...

Doesn't Peter Parker live in Queens?

And Captain America is from Brooklyn

Oh I guess Ulti blocked me again after his weird, somewhat stalkerish creepy comment. Lol.

Saw Hawkeye episode 2, wasn't as keen on it as the previous one but I dug Hailee Steinfeld's chemistry with Jeremy Renner. Though honestly she works well with everyone, otherwise the episode just felt like busywork.

https://twitter.com/DarthAmin/status/1477318433398132740

Saw Hawkeye episode 3. Really digging the cast of this show so far. And I don't mean to be that guy, but it's nice seeing a heroine who's portrayed as capable but still not able to handle quite everything herself.

UltimaterializerX posted...

Yeah sure lets watch a dude get brained.

If this is the part I'm thinking of that was Balthier's voice actor. Definitely not the leading man in this story.

Also the more I think about it the more I realize the MCU is basically The Dark Knight Trilogy without excising fantastical elements from the comics and being less blatantly grimdark. If that makes any sense.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Also the more I think about it the more I realize the MCU is basically The Dark Knight Trilogy without excising fantastical elements from the comics and being less blatantly grimdark. If that makes any sense.

So its basically The Dark Knight Trilogy if the Dark Knight Trilogy was something completely different. Thanks.

The MCU is basically the Lord of the Rings if the only hobbit was Ant-Man and the orcs were replaced by comic book baddies and it took place in modern times.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Also the more I think about it the more I realize the MCU is basically The Dark Knight Trilogy without excising fantastical elements from the comics and being less blatantly grimdark. If that makes any sense.

The more I think about it the more I realize these are all comic book movies

Thanks for the insight

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Also the more I think about it the more I realize the MCU is basically The Dark Knight Trilogy without excising fantastical elements from the comics and being less blatantly grimdark. If that makes any sense.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/7/1/AAPhobAACxPT.jpg

It makes no sense, if that makes any sense LMS

Yeah I meant more in the way they both try to make superheroes believable in a more realistic context. I wouldn't classify, say, the '80s and '90s Batman films as such.

redrocket posted...

So its basically The Dark Knight Trilogy if the Dark Knight Trilogy was something completely different. Thanks.

I just don't like the idea that the Dark Knight Trilogy worked because of being grimdark. Especially since the DCEU stumbled out of the gate so badly precisely BECAUSE all it did was copy the surface aspects of the Dark Knight Trilogy I mentioned without understanding why they worked there in the first place. Good for the Snyderverse fans though.

Helps that the director of Iron Man himself said the success of Batman Begins inspired the more serious direction of Iron Man in contrast to contemporary Marvel Comics films of the time like Ghost Rider and the Tim Story Fantastic Four films.

It was kind of silly though how they tried to hold onto the MCU being "realistic" though. Remember how throughout Thor they tried really hard to instill the idea that the Asgardians weren't "magic", they were simply using technology so advanced that it just looked like magic? Only later when they became more comfortable with the universe were they like "Oh, yeah, magic totally exists lmao"

Grand Kirby posted...

It was kind of silly though how they tried to hold onto the MCU being "realistic" though. Remember how throughout Thor they tried really hard to instill the idea that the Asgardians weren't "magic", they were simply using technology so advanced that it just looked like magic? Only later when they became more comfortable with the universe were they like "Oh, yeah, magic totally exists lmao"

Both things can still be true.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I just don't like the idea that the Dark Knight Trilogy worked because of being grimdark

"I don't know what Batman is"

Batusi

Waluigi1 posted...

Both things can still be true.

I'm not saying it's a plot hole, it's just kind of dumb how they shied away from the more unrealistic aspects of the Marvel universe early even when it was clearly over the top.

...and then it might be an actual plot hole, because the stuff the Asgardians do was later called magic anyway.

Earlier in the MCU they were pulling from the Ultimate universe origins /depictions of characters pretty heavily. I think downplaying the magical aspect of Asgard was part of that.

now they seem more comfortable just going for the classic comic stuff