OncomingStorm93
-
Posts
1,955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by OncomingStorm93
-
-
10 minutes ago, Verrows said:
I don't know about anyone else but this is a trend I'm seeing, anecdotally and online. People aren't digging all the younger characters, who presumably represent the future of the MCU. That's an issue for Marvel if true.
I've enjoyed some of them in isolation - like Kate Bishop in Hawkeye - but when I picture all these next gen characters teaming up against a big bad I'm just not buying it. Like, not at all. Marvel needs to put these characters through the ringer before I take them seriously in any way (at least a character like Yelena Belova HAS been through the ringer and, shocker, I really like her character).
I think part of the issue is that the "next generation" kiddos are supplanting established characters, instead of covering new ground. It's Young Hawkeye. Young Black Widow. Young Ant-Wasp now.
I want new characters who can have identities that don't rely on established "legacy" characters. Hand-me-downs just aren't as fresh as entirely unique characters.
I have no issue with that casting decisions themselves. Florence Pugh and (especially) Hailee Steinfeld were ace castings at the time, and both executed their parts flawlessly. I look forward to seeing more of both characters. Just let them evolve apart from their "legacy" predecessors, and stop relying on this method of introducing the Young Avengers (which is clearly the goal)
-
4
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Eric the Conqueror said:
My goal when I become 60+ is to be as fit and buff as Stephen Lang. His arms are just 😍
If he were half his age, he'd be a prime Wolverine candidate...
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Hatebox said:
Ageism is fine when it comes to Indy. He's not an interesting character; he's an action hero archetype that works because the audience wants to be him. And no-one wants to be 80.
No one wants to be 80, but everyone (or at least most people should) wants to be as spry and adventurous at 80 as Indy/Ford appears to be.
-
3
-
-
IMO, not best to judge the VFX based on a compressed/sub-1080p/not proper frame rate/not even fullscreen Twitter spot.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:
Multiple credible sources, including a cast member, says it's happening. Maybe not for a while like how Strange 1 and 2 were 6 years apart but it does sound like it's happening.
Patton Oswalt? The comedian who did a post-credits V.O. only thing?
Yeah... try again.
-
9 minutes ago, eddyxx said:
I’d be getting into spoilers if I respond to this lol. Who knows maybe the rumor was fake that I read but most of the leaks last year have proven to be true.
I haven't seen any Blade related leaks or plot rumors, all I know is that there were like four different scriptwriters attached last year, the original director dropped out, Ali wanted more creative say, and Yann Demange was brought in as the new director. Which IMO is an excellent choice.
-
2 minutes ago, TheFlatLannister said:
The MCU isn't "dying" or becoming less popular...Their recent movies just aren't good enough and fans/GA will opt for Disney+ instead of paying to see it in theaters
If the MCU fixes their quality issue, then it will equate to stronger box office numbers
If the recent projects were all getting excellent reviews and unperforming, then the MCU would have been in trouble.
I think that's a bigger "if" than most people recognize.
"if" they're unable to regain their quality/quantity balance, and theatrical revenues continue to lag, at what point do you acknowledge the MCU is becoming less popular? Another year? Two years? Wait until Kang Dynasty to make that analysis?
Now FWIW, I do think that NWH's 1.9b and MoM's $955m grosses are unqualified successes. Even though it didn't hit $1b like many thought was a lock, that's still something like a 40% increase over the first Strange, and in any world that's a huge success.
I do think L&T and WF underperformed though, and by all apperances Quantumania will as well.
I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for Guardians Vol 3 to fail to improve on Vol 2, even with the "finale factor". If that happens, if G3 can't outdo G2's $390m domestic/$863m WW, then the MCU really is in for a reckoning, The reasons I think GV3 may underperform are due to (much like Quantumania) the film taking a darker tone than the first two films, a less colorful visual palate, the lack of franchise freshness (the characters have been in 3 other films since GV2) and some other small things like making animal abuse apparently a center point of the film (if I'm a parent, do I want to bring my kids to a film where a racoon getting needled is prominent in the trailers?)
-
Just now, eddyxx said:
Oh I agree it doesn’t have to be a street level hero that they experiment with. Horror characters work too. Look at the conjuring franchise making big profits on low budgets. Blade shouldn’t cost anymore than 100m and should’ve been infused with some actual horror and mature serious themes but it’s probably going to be another cgi laden pg13 quipfest.
From what I can gleam, don't expect Mahershala Ali to stick around if that's the case.
-
2 minutes ago, eddyxx said:
Marvel really need to experiment with lower budgets. They have all the street level heroes right there in their pantheon and are refusing to use them despite the fact that Joker and Deadpool have clearly shown you can make big bucks appealing to a more adult audience. People who grew up with the MCU are now adults, they can handle more mature themes in these movies!
Seconded. Give me more stuff in the vein of "Werewolf by Night". I think that kind of experimental, lower-budget content is the secret sauce toward maintaining the MCU. I know that's not street-level, but it does show that Marvel doesn't need to keep getting louder and expensive for the sake of quality. You just need a good vision. No amount of $$$ can substitute for a great creative vision.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, SpiderByte said:
Nah, my guess it's the rumored Avengers team that's gonna show up in Cap 4. Based on the rumors around that movie, my guess the team is gonna be Captain America, She-Hulk, an Eternals character (maybe Black Knight?), Shang-Chi and Kate Bishop.
Keep guessing. Eventually you'll get more plausible.
-
Just now, SpiderByte said:
If we're talking hypotheticals based on no evidence they could also be awards contenders like Black Panther for all we know. Why do you think Quantumania reviews will affect The Marvels anymore than it would Indiana Jones? They're completely unrelated projects.
Incredibly incorrect. The MCU is at a point where people link all the projects, even if they choose which ones to watch based on different criteria. At my office (a big media company in the middle of LA) yesterday, a couple rows down, a group of people who I'd say resemble Marvel's target demo (this convo was between five creative types, mixed genders and races, in their 25s-40s) complaining about Marvel fatigue (this spun off a convo about the Super Bowl ads). Not any particular character fatigue, but "Marvel fatigue" (a phrase that was used multiple times) in general.
-
My ballpark guess for the Kang Dynasty top-billed players in order. Pure speculation:
Chris Hemsworth
Benedict Cumberbatch
Mark Ruffalo
Brie Larson
Tom Holland
Jonathan Majors
Elizabeth Olsen
Anthony Mackie
Paul Rudd
Letitia Wright
Simu Liu
Benedict Wong
with Chris Pratt
and Harrison Ford
Secret Wars cast would be essentially this group
-
51 minutes ago, John Marston said:
how can they bring back Scarlet Witch as a good guy when she has brutally killed so many innocent people?
Let me tell you the tales of Loki and the Winter Soldier...
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Melissa McCarthy as Ursula is already iconic
She's going to absolutely kill it.
-
4 hours ago, TheFlatLannister said:
No way if falls under $90M, right?
I’m going with 92m OW, 220m Domestic, 685m WW
Respectable off a $200m budget (supposedly) but hardly a “win” given the build-up, the set-up for the next three years, and the way Marvel has been trending critically and commercially as of late.
I would consider a finish > $700m WW to be a success worth celebrating considering these reviews and the established precedent for this character.
Ant-Man was never going to be a $1b+ franchise anyway. Whether or not it was the right franchise to introduce the new “big bad” (Loki was more of a prelude than a formal intro) as opposed to making a film in the vein of the first two Ant-Man films, that’s a different convo. But Kang or no Kang, this franchise has a hard ceiling.
-
I am glad that Michelle Pfeiffer is being frequently cited as maybe the next-strongest performer in this film behind Majors. She was wasted in AM&TW (her character was just a plot device) and I remember some people (including myself) thinking she was phoning this time, based off the trailers.
-
14 minutes ago, TMP said:
ant-man and the wasp quantumania was made for the fans
Fans of what? The Ant-Man series which had been fairly self-contained and tonally unique from the rest of the MCU up to this point? Fans of the cgi-heavy MCU films? Fans of Paul Rudd's easygoing charm (which doesn't appear to be utilized much this time around)?
-
Just now, SpiderByte said:
This is... literally what Marvel did for the two years between Far From Home and Black Widow.
Well, Black Widow was initially supposed to release about 10 months after FFH, with Shang-Chi, Eternals, and two D+ shows also originally planned for the remainder of that two year gap.
-
2 minutes ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:
More like Marvel took their hard-earned reputation for quality/quantity balance and
-
1
-
-
Even the RT blurbs from the most recent positive reviews are abysmal.
"a wild ride that will be more to some tastes than others."
"kind of middle of the road"
"I was slightly underwhelmed about things."
"starts out on a messy note"
"the stakes feel lackluster... trudges along at times"
"the film totally falls apart, crushed under the weight of being asked to do too much"
"the film falters"
"Quantumania doesn't escape feeling like a layover"
I think this % could settle in the mid 40s.
-
2 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:
Ehh I dunno. Unless Marvel totally transformers it and has multiple rottens consecutively I think they should still be okay financially. We're far from a Bumblebee situation there.
The problem is that by the time it is an actual problem, it will be too late to recover from.
And I do think Marvel's trend is already problematic.
-
4 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:
I have never gotten what people who wanted this wanted the studio to do after Endgame. Just shut down and not make movies anymore?
I do think they should have capped their ambitions. Expanding from three films a year in Phase 3 to four a year in Phase 4, while adding on numerous series every year, was primed to backfire creatively, which would eventually hurt the brand commercially.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ronin46 said:
You missed my point. Its just difficult to make a good Marvel movie these days with all the things the movie has to take into account and the time constraints to get it out there. Thinking that a Marvel movie with a character name in the title means they will try "extra hard to make it good" and is some type of guarantee is nonsense.
Yeah buddy, I didn't read your whole post. Just the part I quoted, I saw enough to sneak in a Super Bowl complaint because I'm still ticked off.
I'm pretty sure I agree with you though.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Ronin46 said:
Marvel do not waste 200M budgets, 100M marketing, 5000 people working on it and 5 years of development to make bad movies.
And the NFL doesn't waste $800,000, the botanists of Oklahoma State, and 2 years of development to make a garbage Super Bowl field.
Wait, what forum am I on? Oh yeah... something something QuantuMEHnia
-
3
-
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania | February 17, 2023 | Competing with Eternals on RT, Competing with BvS on box office legs
in Box Office Discussion
Posted · Edited by OncomingStorm93
She-Hulk may be in both, but Tatiana Maslany ain't getting top billing. My list was TOP BILLING. I forgot to put Florence Pugh on that list though.
I don't dispute that characters from Eternals will pop-up in other projects, but wake me up when a formal sequel is announced. And Patton Oswalt is a pretty week anchor for your argument about a sequel being confirmed.
EDIT: Apparently Maslany was surprised by Ruffalo's comments (https://www.cinemablend.com/superheroes/marvel-cinematic-universe/looks-like-mark-ruffalo-may-have-spoiled-where-well-see-tatiana-maslanys-she-hulk-after-the-disney-series) so again, pretty weak sauce you're serving up.