cedec0

The MCU's strength was based on its source material. They took the best story beats, whose popularity had stood the test of time, and adapted them. Phase 4 changed that approach, focusing on newer, less proven characters and storylines. Adapt popular comics >> profit Adapt less popular comics >> less profit It seems simple to me.

Some are more nonsense than others, and everyone has a different tolerance level for that.

I think that endgame damaged Thor. Everyone saw him become a basement dwelling, out-of-shape loser. That image is seared into our minds. Seeing your favorite character turned into a joke hurts. This is probably the reason for the lack of excitement.

When Captain America picked up Thor's Hammer in Endgame, that was it for me. It retconned a central plotline of Thor Ragnarok (Ie: the lighting was in Thor and the hammer was only a tool to focus it). I checked out because I don't like watching downward spirals. MCU's central selling point was it was it's tight cohesive world-building across multiple films. You could count on what you saw in one to matter in the future. It took until Endgame for the general public to realize how awesome this. It will take everyone a few years to realize that it's now gone. The problem isn't that they're adding identity politics, but that they are forcing it in at terrible cost. The hammer retcon was obviously to enable female Thor.

Coronavirus is probably going to cause a recession, and during recession people try to pinch pennies. Pirating content is one way to save money. Well, yes. I see what you are saying. I just don't see releasing major movies to streaming as a viable replacement to theaters during non-corona times. I believe that there is a significant and growing percentage of the population (especially younger people) that pirate everything but still pay money to go to the theater because they can't stand poor quality cam versions of movies. For these people, releasing movies on stream is giving it away for free.

I keep hearing about Studios releasing directly to streaming, and I am skeptical for one central reason: piracy. If a movie opens in theaters, the alternatives are: (pirating VS paying) free crappy cam + poor sound VS costly full theater experience If a movie opens on streaming, the alternatives are: (pirating VS paying) free HQ home experience VS costly HQ home experience Releasing a movie on streaming will allow pirating high quality versions of the movie on day 1. I think releasing movies on stream would turn a lot of people to piracy, especially is we a have a corona related recession.

When she was young, my mother once took a bite out of a cockroach. It was in a yogurt container, and she sunk her teeth into it before she realized what it was. The company gave her a year's supply of yogurt coupons as compensation which her brother was really happy about (my mother, being slightly traumatized, didn't eat any). Anyway, I wouldn't recommend eating a cockroach, but if you feel you have to, go ahead.

Perhaps, but I would argue giving bad boys for life 0.5/5 is pretty political. I also feel, (this may be bias on my part) that someone who judges movies from this perspective is likely to dock his score of sonic for it just being a normal movie (not pushing agenda). For example, I haven't heard sonic having any LGBTQ representation. That is the type of thing that might impact some reviews. Heck there is a site out there (Mediaversity Reviews) that judges movies 3/4 on political correctness. This type of thinking impacting reviews makes it harder to gauge a movies actual quality (Also, Disney's influence over critics is also somewhat of a problem, at least in opinion).

50% score might technically be negative, but it would probably be good for Sonic. joker got 68% on RT, so that shows you how meaningless that score really is. Personally, RT score only matters to me if it is really low (under 30%). As long as Sonic does better than 30%, I think it will do fine at the box office. --------- On another note, There is one english language review for Sonic that is out: Slant Magazine: 1.5/5 https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review-sonic-the-hedgehog-doesnt-rock-even-after-a-new-paintjob/ That didn't seem very good until I realized that this same reviewer gave Bad boys for life 0.5/5 : https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review-bad-boys-for-life-is-a-half-speed-echo-of-michael-bays-toxic-formula/ So sonic is three times better than bad boys for life! Seriously though, I wish reviewers wouldn't let politics influence their reviews so much. It ends up making them pretty meaningless. ----------- Edit: That review also makes me think they were right to lift the embargo late. Not sure reviews will be fair.

I say over 50%. Of the two reviews already on imdb, one has it at 50%, and the other 3/5 stars. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3794354/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt Also, the dozen or so reviews out on youtube are pretty positive (there was only one who outright didn't like it). One youtuber put it nicely. 3/5 for general audience. 4/5 for sonic fans. 4.5/5 for kids.

There are two reviews out on imdb, both in German. One has it at 50%, and the other 3/5 stars. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3794354/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Another reason the movie might have unperformed: people, especially those inclined to go see a female lead action movie, don't like seeing men mistreat women. When a movie markets itself as "tackling misogyny", you know what is guaranteed to be in the movie? misogyny. Men mistreating women. From what I have heard about BOP, every single man in the movie mistreats women. I guarantee you this turned off people otherwise excited about the movie.

There are a few exceptions to this which show what the potential could be:

Mandalorian is doing well because it is focusing on the half of the star wars brand that is relatively undamaged: the Western sci-fi side. The other half of the star wars brand, which has been horribly damaged, will be much harder to salvage. To understand the part of star wars that lies in ruins, you have to understand the two elements that turned star wars into a multi-billion dollar franchise. One part was western science fiction, and the other part was Chinese martial arts fiction (referred to as wuxia) Below is a description of elements found in nearly every wuxia novel: (it should seem familiar.) The best way to describe the first six star wars film is a beautiful mixture of Easter martial art fiction and Western sci-fi fiction. Problem is, lucasfilm has been managed by people who think of star wars as "wizards with laser swords". These people didn't understand that star wars was the world's most valuable martial arts franchise, with horrifying results. How do you break a martial arts franchise? Here is how. You have a nobody from nowhere, who has never trained a single day in martial arts, pick up a sword for the first time and defeat one the galaxy's strongest martial artists, who has trained for decades on how use the force and the sword. That is how you turn a martial arts franchise into a joke. How you turn star wars into "wizards with laser swords". In both wuxia and the OT/PT, being force/qi sensative means nothing without training in the martial arts. You don't become a master martial artist without training, period, this is common sense. TFA badly damage the wuxia side of star wars. TLJ finished it off. In TLJ, Rey is able to lift ten times more stuff than Yoda, with essentially zero training. This completely breaks the martial arts side of star wars. Not only can someone with zero training do the same things as martial artists who have trained centuries, they can do it ten times better. Sigh... In the first six movies, the force/jedi were based on chinese martial arts lore (talented individuals gain strength through training). In the last three movies, the force/jedi was based on a bad version of Harry Potter (sense the force, poof >> jedi master). A four billion dollar martial arts franchise was put in the hands of people who think martial artists are wizards... ------------------------------------ EDIT: It should also be clear from this why TROS is bombing in China. They see the corruption of the wuxia side of star wars far clearer there.

AOU had rock solid world building (like the rest of the MCU). As long as the foundations are respected, a movie can be bad without damaging a franchise. Jar Jar binks is an example of something terrible that does nothing to hurt a franchise. He may ruin a movie or two, but has zero long term impact. Bad dialoge and acting hurt the movie they happen in, but have little impact on the franchise brand overall. Edit: TLJ is the opposite of AOU. An entertaining movie that destroys a franchise by breaking the foundations that franchise is built on (the world building). George can't fix it even if he comes back. World building doesn't work that way. Rey being 100 or 1000 times stronger than yoda (going by what she can lift with the force). How do you fix that? Are all force users going to be super jedis from now on? How do you undo the weaponization of hyperspace from the last jedi? ST trilogy turned the force into an ass-pull machine. How do you take the force seriously again after Leia flying through space? All the rules and understanding of star wars have been broken by this ST. ------------------------ The Star Wars movies are the pillars of the star wars universe, and those pillars are broken. A retcon of this ST is the only thing that could fix the star wars brand, and that is impossible. You might be able to reccon a TV series or game, but not a central movie. George wouldn't be able to do anything if he comes back. Disney can put bandage bandages on by doing quality shows like the mandalorian, but the broken world building from ST will plague Star Wars for the rest of time. The people behind the ST considered star wars to be space wizards for kids. Now that is what it has become.

Buying up tickets to make a movie look better does happen: (at least in China) https://www.indiewire.com/2017/06/china-box-office-fraud-mpaa-phony-ticket-sales-film-industry-1201847763/ It all kind of depends of your opinion and trust in Disney to not engage in that type of behavior...

I watched the second half of venom and loved it (started about 40 min into the movie). That is how I advise watching the movie btw. As to why the audiences loved that movie, that is easy. It is new and unique. There is no movie out there with anything close to the dynamic of venom and eddie (superpowerful parasite talking in your head). This two individuals in one body thing (with one being very psychopathic) is what sold the movie.

If you kill him in the second movie, fine, but you need to create his replacement. A credible villain needs to exist going into the last movie of your trilogy. Kilo (who has basically lost every fight in all three movies) doesn't work as a main antagonist. Rian's sin was taking out the main "mastermind villain" without providing any kind of alternative. I mean, with snoke dead and most of the new order's fleet destroyed, what was supposed to be the threat for the third movie? Kylo that Rey has already defeated?

If the TLJ was a stand alone movie, not part of any franchise, you could say that it wasn't that bad. However, one of Star Wars main selling point is its in dept world building and its lore. All six of the first movies (regardless of the quality of some) fit together and told a cohesive story. This cohesive storytelling across multiple movies is the MCU's selling point too. Imagine if the next Avengers, directed by Ryan johnson, Captain marvel is unceremoniously killed off and Black panther becomes a loner that drinks green milk. That would definitively "subvert" everyone's expectations. Even if it was a good movie, it would tear the MCU fan base apart just like what happened in Star Wars. In multi-billion dollar franchises, movies need to be more than simply good.

It is not that difficult as long as you have an outline, some time of plan on where you are going, especially with a trilogy. Letting Rian Johnson kill snoke in TLJ is an example of having no plan. Imagine if they killed the emperor in Empire strikes back, what the hell do you do in the next movie?

Thanks for the answer.

Ok, I have two questions for people who have seen knives out. I keep hearing all these good things about the movie, but when I read about the plot, I am slightly horrified on the moral front. Could someone who has seen the movie help explain more how Knives out works, morrally speaking.

Yea, well, might not "kill his carreer", but it didn't help it any. "Knives out" might do well at the box office, but it would have done better without the TLJ... and Rian's behavior since then. I mean, as part of the marketing of knives out, he attacked fans who didn't like TLJ... That doesn't help. For the record, "Knives out" is the type of movie I would normally go see, and I will watch it eventually for free on a plane or something. I just not going to support the box office of someone who keeps going out of his way to throw shade at people who didn't like TLJ (like me).

I am probably one of the people you consider "man-children", which is fine (better than some of the other names going around). I just wanted to add that most people, when they complain about movies being "woke", aren't complaining about diversity or female empowerment. They are complaining about the bait and switch that always seems to come with it. ----------------------------- Examples of "Woke" Bait and switches Wreck it ralph. I watched the sequel on a plane ride and I couldn't finish the movie. They made Ralph, the fun character I wanted to see more of, into the villain of the sequel (because of "Toxic Masculinity"). Lego Movie. On the same plane, I tried watching the lego movie sequel and half way through I realized it is the same thing. They take the male protagonist of the first film and turn him into the villain of the second. I don't watch sequels to see characters that I love turned into bad jokes. Star Wars. I went to see TLJ in theaters based on the promise of the return of Luke Skywalker. What I got was Luke throwing away his light saber and drinking green milk (that scene was absolutely disgusting and unnecessary). Last season of game of thrones. Terminator Dark Fate. Can't say anything here because of spoilers, but it definitely fits the list. ETC... ----------------------------- I have started to think of all this as DFC (diversity-flavered cr@p). That it makes clear that It isn't the diversity that is the problem, it is the stuff that always seems to come with it. If you want to know why "woke" movies are starting to bomb harder and faster at the box office, this is the reason. There is only so many times you can pull off a bait-and-switch before people get wise to you.

Actually, RT critics and audience scores are both 69% for dark fate, and I don't know if that qualifies as "love". I don't trust RT's "verified" audience rating (I always buy tickets as a walk-in. Not going to pay more and use Fandango just to leave a "verified review")