OncomingStorm93

Amazingly, 135m. How in the hell. Based on the first trailer it looks like it cost 70m. At most, at most, it should have been 100m. I say that as a huge fan of the book series. Read every one the weekend it released throughout the school years. Eager to hear there was going to be a film. Sad to hear it was going to be Disney. Curious with the choice of Branagh as director (he is above this material). Unenthusiastic with the direction it appears they are going. Optimistic the next trailer will be better. Anyway, how long until Disney starts rolling out the live action Pixar remakes?

Nothing went wrong, except for the budget. Made for 125m this would have been a success. If that means you reduce the CGi and some action, so be it.

I can't believe Disney poured 170m into Dumbo. That's astonishing. I don't recall Dumbo being perceived as a classic along the lines of their 90s lineup. Or at least, those who held Dumbo in such prestige have aged out of the main movie-going demographics.

I think Disney made a mistake by grouping Dumbo, Aladdin, and Lion King within essentially a four month span. Too many animated-remakes to keep in mind at once. Dumbo feels offered up as an appetizer, with a side-salad and main entree still to come.

Did you return the slab?

92% at 66 reviews. Captain Marvel was 91% at 68 reviews. IMO this is still on track to settle in the 75%-80% range.

94% at 47 reviews For comparison, Captain Marvel was at: 85% at 35 reviews 91% at 68 85% at 178 81% at 253 79% at 326 78% at 432 We have a long ways to go for Shazam. At this point, I'd expect it to settle in around 80%-85% on RT at the end of the day.

My screening just ended. It was good. Just basically good. Nothing interesting about the film’s direction outside of a dozen jump scares-impact moments that are in David Sandberg’s wheelhouse. Script was very good in all regards except for how it handled the antagonist and the final confrontation. Mark Strong has absolutely nothing to do. The script makes up for that though with a funny second act, which is the higlight of the film. No visual style or memorable action. All the child actors outside of Billy and especially Freddy were baaad at line delivery. I’d say 7/10, probably ends up 75-80% range on RT.

I’m looking forward to catching an early screening of Shazam this afternoon

Better than the first trailer by leaps and bounds. Also clearly Guy Ritchie's visual style in the opening chase. Less so when the special effects kick in. I remain skeptical of Ritchie's ability to develop the characters. Jafar still terribly miscast. It seems Will Smith's comedic elements are more forced than Robin William's natural motor-mouth.

Lion King hasn't needed more marketing. It's the freaking Lion King. First off, it still doesn't release until July. I can assure you that the second trailer will debut with Endgame late next month. The teaser for Lion King is the third most watched trailer of all time, behind Infinity War and Engame's debut trailers. Give me a break.

At this point, what is considered "outlandish" for Detective Pikachu?

So Thor Ragnarok and The Winter Soldier are essentially the same stylistically?

I’m not saying this movie needed a different name. I’m saying it needed to explain the name it had. I’m not saying Danvers needs to be called “Captain Marvel” outright, but as it stands the title of this movie makes 0% sense. I don’t care about future movies that haven’t happened yet. “They’ll explain it later” is not a valid reason. “Part 1 of something to come” is an excuse for bad writing. The ‘conditions for what I see as acceptable’ in regards to the film’s title are, as I have said several times, the title of the film needs to make sense within the context of the film. Not future films. Not other mediums the story was adapted from. THE FILM. So since you want to keep arguing about my apparently unreasonable standards, I will ask again: Can you explain to me the title of this film, within the context of this film? What does “Captain Marvel” mean? I’m waiting...

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Uhh... what? I was inside the theater, and I have no idea why the name is appropriate. So please explain to me, within the context of the film I watched and not the comic it was adapted from, why the title makes sense. Can anyone explain to me why this movie is called what it's called, without having to reference a comic book? Adaptations of other mediums don't get a "get out of jail free" card for not explaining things that are in said other medium. That's lazy writing.

I do not appreciate my criticism being misconstrued by so many. For at least the 5th time, I don't care that the words "Captain Marvel" are never uttered in the film. I care that the title of the film makes 0% sense within the context of the film. Wonder Woman didn't need to be called "Wonder Woman" directly for the title of the film to make sense. Is that really too much to ask for? I guess so...

I am an American male, mid 20s, who has spent significant time living overseas. I fail to see the relevance of that in regards to the title of Captain Marvel making no sense within the context of the film. What are my contradictory points?

I'm not really following you. I think you're suggesting that I should consider other cultural or linguistic interpretations of the title "Captain Marvel" Can you provide your interpretation of the title for me? What does the title "Captain Marvel" mean to you? What is it supposed to mean to me?

I’ve stated at least 3 times already I don’t need her explicitly named in the film. I do expect proper context for the title of the film though. Two completely different topics.

As I have repeated several times now, my issue with the lack of context for the film’s title is representative of the film’s other giant flaws, which I and others have touched on already. She didn’t need to be. Wonder Woman is self explanatory as a title. It’s an adjective followed by a noun. It means a female who accomplishes feats of wonder. What does the “Marvel” in Captain Marvel mean? Does she ‘marvel’ at things with joy and wonder? No. I’m not asking for the film to explicitly call Carol “Captain Marvel”. I’m asking for a rational on the film’s title. But apparently that’s too much to ask for.

If ya’ll are fine with the title of a movie not making even 1% sense within the context of the film, fine. I’m happy for you. I expect more. And with that I’m going to bed.

I love experimental, art house, and foreign cinema. CM is none of those, nore was it trying to be. I’m saying that it failed at what it was trying to be (in some, not all aspects, but very important ones).

Forgive me, I didn’t realize my standards we’re too high for expecting a complete three act structure with rising stakes, developer character arcs, and closure to the story. Along with an explanation of the title of the film I just watched. Thanks for pointing out how I’m expecting too much from my cinema experience.

A film with a whole lot of flaws due to it being an incomplete product. That film also doesn’t vibe with the “part 1” concept and tropes the other poster was suggesting. Being an adaptation of another medium isn’t a “get out of jail free” card when it comes to standing on its own. Adaptations live and die on their own merits. I don’t care if this was an adaptation or not. I’m looking at this as it’s own entity, and in that regard it fails to explain its title. Very simple.