Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Menor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

854 profile views
  1. Yeah and this is why a lot of people want Spidey under Feige rather than Sony and don't think Sony will do as good of a job as Feige. We want him to be in the hands of the anomaly guy with the ridiculously high batting average rather than just some average studio with a normal batting average. I'm not saying that Sony is automatically bad, I liked SM1, SM2, ITSV, and TASM, but there's no comparison between their reliability and that of Marvel Studios.
  2. I think Transformers is a good example here of how, yeah, you can make lower quality movies and get money, but it's not nearly as sustainable as the MCU model. Eventually audiences got tired, its appeal got old, and there wasn't anything keeping people invested because the movies hadn't done the work for that.
  3. Captain Marvel's messiness is not comparable to Venom's messiness. Captain Marvel has some issues but nowhere near on the scale that Venom manages. The MCU manages to put out a very consistent, high-floor product under Feige, and nearly always gets basics like acting and characterization right, and that's why reviews are always good. I don't trust Sony to have that level of consistency, because, like you said, the quality of their movies tends to vary greatly depending on the individuals they choose to make them.
  4. He also helped on ASM2 but what I meant was a movie that he had 100% control over would never come out like Venom. Even stuff like Dark World did not suffer from the basic issues that Venom did. And if Rothman thinks that he "polished" the movie, then...I have serious doubts about his judgment.
  5. That's why I find it funny when people use Spiderverse to say that we shouldn't be afraid of what Sony will do with the character, when they made such a messy movie two months earlier. The problem was never that Sony couldn't make good movies, it was that they couldn't consistently make good movies. Feige would never have let a movie come out as unpolished as Venom was.
  6. Only 405 million? Huh. But I guess many international markets were so small back then.
  7. Not even in the same stratosphere as SMH in dialogue, acting (other than Tom Hardy), and plotting. Venom, though I found it somewhat enjoyable, is proof that Sony still struggles with the basics.
  8. Cinemark updated their website. Yay more work for me...
  9. ITSV was given a lot more creative freedom than would likely be given to a live-action film. I don't think it's reflective of what would be done with Peter.
  10. ? Homecoming beat ASM2 OS. It just wasn't a huge increase like DOM.
  11. Aladdin's OW was absolutely affected by the negative buzz. But then the movie got very good WOM and was able to get past that. Solo was also affected by negative buzz and, although it was liked by audiences, it didn't get the very good/excellent WOM it needed to recover from that.
  12. I have seen a lot of people talking about the burning Amazon. The "nobody bats an eye" thing seems to be a criticism of people caring about entertainment than sincerely trying to bring awareness. Idk if it's possible to tell which are casual fans on the internet (although the sheer volume of the trends makes it seem like it's a lot more than just a disgruntled core group). I'm just talking about people who I know irl that watch the MCU movies but don't discuss MCU news or anything like that who have complained about this to me.
  13. The existence and promotion of a non-MCU Spidey will prompt the negative buzz to rise back up. People will forget about it, but then they'll be reminded of it again, and will start shitting on it again.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.