Sckathian
-
Posts
400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Sckathian
-
-
12 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:
Look at Homecoming. Given that Iron Man is 100% CGI, you don't need RDJ to be on set very many days for his presence to be felt.
If they are coming back then it needs to be like NWH - they can't be cameos as that burns so much good will.
-
10 minutes ago, YM! said:
Mysterio (you can even say he’s still alive or some shit),
"Stranges spell left a universe where Mysterio had to survive" - job done. But agree a group could be fun.
-
I think Doom/Magneto will be introduced as characters (hope to god it’s not another credits tease) even if they are not the villains up front.
Kang I just think is not an interesting concept. They can change this all easily, few watched Ant Man and Loki is it’s own wee universe anyway.
I think we need a Loki style fun villain for the next Avengers (fuck it make it Loki!) which brings together the new Avengers. Can be anyone but if am honest they need to start making new villains in these films so maybe they can think of an original concept.
But I think the multiverse saga should be killed. Gives us a simple fun comic book movie to act as a soft reboot. I think you could even introduce the X-Men in a new Avengers film.
I agree they should ditch the two parter concept. They need to be laying building blocks again.
Getting into fan writing there but I guess my point is there are LOTS of options. But just continuing ‘as is’ is not going to work. The good news is we are seeing Marvel Spotlight (I wonder if DP3 might fall under this marketing?) so they are probably bringing back an alt universe for much of the TV shows.
-
Interesting thought. The films which have done well post endgame have all dealt with what post end game is.
Strange and Guardians both deal with this and its a major plot element to both. Maybe the error was treating Endgame as its own 'phase' and this a new 'phase' which really just ignored what went before.
-
1 hour ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
There are plenty of male directors who behave badly but continue to get blockbusters. Bryan Singer for one had meltdowns on set and didn't show up some days. He was a mess and the only reason that his career is over is because of the sexual abuse allegations. Thank goodness but if he were a woman his career would have been over after Superman Returns. Female directors aren't owed blockbuster movies but neither are white male directors and yet Hollywood treats them like they are. I agree with you about Andy, I don't believe he'll end up directing that Batman movie.
Whedon is a good example. He was only dropped because Ultron was a fucking mess (the actual edit saves it but its a fucking mess in what he envisioned) but he then gets Justice League despite being a total creep. Thankfully people had enough of his nonsense at this point but you still had your lead lady getting a tit joke enforced upon her.
-
2 minutes ago, YM! said:
Think a lot of it comes from the fix it in post mentality. Do think having experienced directors would help a lot who know how to use VFX and practical effects, even if that means having to compromise on a story detail or two or a slightly more divisive story.
Part of it I think is they distrust directors. Which is super unhealthy. But then they do stuff like Strange 2 or Guardians and it works. Why they then have this massive group of films which get very inexperienced directors is beyond me, I think the model must be to use the ‘premier’ films to bump up the ‘basic’ films but that’s obviously collapsing.
Hopefully the decision to tie TV with show runners filters to film to tie to creative directors. They really really need all their franchises ran by hopefully the same director for 2/3 films.
-
To do a sub-200M blockbuster you are going to need cuts and decisions. Spider-man is a good comparison as the first two films whilst lengthy are literally mostly Toby going about his day and dealing with silly shit but then you have some minor action throughout and two big scenes.
Spdiey one it’s the fair, and then the finale. Spidey two it’s the clock tower/train and then the finale. Spidey three might have a similar structure but I honestly can’t remember most of that film, seems more action heavy due to multiple baddies.
Helps Raimi can keep a tight budget
Personally I think Guardians is the target. Practical/VFX but that’s still hitting 200M easily. Personally I think if the MCU downsizes it will be the Star Wars path, TV.
-
I don’t think it’s obvious this will hurt Decosta’s direction career. A breakout hit would have been massive but from her interview she’s just taking this as an experience to work on a big film. The concept is Marvels fault and ultimately they take away creative agency from the director so I doubt it matters.
She won’t be getting another superhero gig due to the attachment of Marvels though.
-
56 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
No? I’m saying that I seriously doubt the reason for this movie’s poor tracking is because people don’t see it as a sequel to CM.
Avengers had a list of A list actors who had all appeared in a series of films (though let’s be honest RDJ is the pull that exploded the franchise) - The Marvels has characters a lot of people don’t even know of and actors they would call TV actors (mainly because only TV hires them…)
-
1
-
-
I’ve probably made too much about the title. The issue is the concept that led to that title. It’s a team up with an A list character with a C list and Z list. That’s where the mistake began. This probably all feds back to Disney plus but Lao Disney I think have lost focus of what made MCU successful in the first place.
-
11 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
I don’t know how anyone could look at the marketing and not understand that Carol Danvers is a major character here. That was my point. A title doesn’t make that much of a difference.
How could anyone not look at those posters and not see it’s a team up movie?
The Strange one is super good actually and the comparison I was grasping for. It’s clearly a ‘team up’ (although obviously the twist is it’s not) but it’s two very very popular characters.
Meanwhile it’s someone called Monica no one knows or remembers and Kamala people also don’t know. Played by two tv actors.
I honestly don’t see The Marvels as a sequel but as a spin off and if they hadn’t internally called this CM2 I think most people who follow these things would have seen it as a spin off.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Kon said:
I know the promotion is on the team, but I really doubt people didn't know this movie was a sequel for Captain Marvel. There isn't even plans for a Captain Marvel 2, so people couldn't expect other movie to be the sequel
Most audiences only hear about sequels when the trailer comes out and they go “oh shit their making another one of those, oh it looks good, let’s see that!”
The idea the same audience who made CM2 a billion dollar film are the same audience participating in the MCU big fan meet-ups is just daft. Less than 10% of the audience knows what a phase is.
Am not blaming this all on the name. The name makes sense for a team up movie but they should have made a Captain Marvel 2 where she is the actual lead.
-
7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
People went to TDK despite it not having ‘Batman’ in the title.
It’s advertised as a direct sequel. Not a spin off team up movie. The Dark Knight refers to Batman. That’s obvious. Go look at the poster for TDK and compare it to the Marvels poster.
’The Marvels’ refers to three characters not one. I don’t have a good similar example to throw back to you because it’s just dumb what Disney have done here.
-
5 minutes ago, DInky said:
I don't think people are that stupid.
This isn’t about being stupid. This is about going to the supermarket for Heinz ketchup, looking at an aisle full of ketchup and buying another brand because Heinz Ketchup is now called ‘The Ketchups’ with totally new branding.
This is about brand recognition. Why would you expect audiences to treat this as a sequel when frankly it’s not. It’s a spin off team up movie.
Why would audiences know with is Captain Marvel 2 when that’s only ever been an internal name within Marvel development?
You can see the results in the performance.
-
3
-
-
No one in the general audience is seeing the title, posters and marketing and thinking this is a sequel to Captain Marvel 2.
Whoever decided the name and the team up with a B list (Ms Marvel least has a brand recognisable show) and Z tier Set of TV characters should not be managing a $250m budget simple as that.
This remains the heart of the issue for me. Have to wonder what Brie’s reaction was learning not only was she not the central lead but her character was also out the titles.
Edit: I mean I just looked and even the writer is a tv writer with very minimal credits!
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, ringedmortality said:
Gunn just knows how to work with CGI in a way most directors on these projects don't.
Two aspects to this. Gunn knows how to meld practical and VFX. The whole final act of GOTG3 show this wonderfully (especially if you use Quantamania as a reference point) but Gunn clearly gets a free’r hand than other directors not to mention has the expertise. You can tell he’s using a lot of storyboarding and knows how to film on a sound stage.
I actually think The Marvels looks better than recent MCU fares but that specific shot of flying is bad but so easy to work with - every level of production should know how that scene lighting should work but in the MCU it feels like different teams work on different bits without a leader managing how they do that.
So whilst I dont think The Marvels looks terrible you still see the creaking of the overall machine but I do think they are trying to rectify that. Probably won’t help The Marvels though which is a shame.
I actually want to see this for the direction alone but that’s probably going to be from home.
-
1
-
-
I might be a lone voice but do studios really get about crossing a specific number?
-
2 hours ago, Mojoguy said:
Under Flash feels so unlikely. We are talking about serial abuser Ezra Miller in a soon to be dead DCEU movie here.
More likely the struggles of the Flash were not really linked to these issues. It’s a popcorn movie - the bigger issue was that Flash just ain’t popular and it’s an awkward team up with your Dads Batman. That capped it but at least he did have some fans and Dad still want to see his Batman.
1 hour ago, Blaze Heatnix said:This CGI is very crappy for a 250 million budgeted movie. This is Superman 4 level of shit.
I'm getting Fant4stic vibes from what's happening to this movie.
This is a case of it not being ‘bad CGI’ but bad direction which can’t magically be fixed by a VFX studio. Marvel culturally needs to change its approach to movie making for any of this to change.
Too much pre-production decisions are being decided in post. I doubt it matters too much to a films success but these rough around the edges do give a D+ vibe and just stop it appearing pristine.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
I was just thinking. Eternals 2 was never happening anyway but Ant-Man & The Wasp Quantumania and potentially The Marvels flopping just will solidify that.
Its basically kill the bloat. I just hope Shang Chi doesnt suffer the COVID curse. It actually did OK.
Marvel will have to control budgets. I could see Avengers move out a bit until they build up again or a mini Avengers before a two parter.
-
9 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
I'm not trying to be mean but I've never been a huge fan of shows with a premise like Loki. I'm not saying that they can't be good but it is my least favorite premise. So yes, it should be obvious to everyone by my comment that I don't watch Doctor Who or Legends of Tomorrow.
These are all shows with very different premises.
1 hour ago, eddyxx said:It looks like what the Daredevil show needs to be. Dunno how they didn’t realize that before retooling it.
i.e. Why did Marvel rewrite the concept of their TV shows when they very good shows to base it on already.
-
2
-
-
52 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:
They cancelled Inhumans, which literally Feige never wanted and was only cancelled because Perlmutter wanted a big push to replace the X-Men across the entire Marvel company. It wasn't canned due to Ant-Man or whatever. The only other cancellation was Runaways and that was in like 2010 when they decided to do Avengers basically.
…am talking about Star Wars. Unless am missing your point are you not equating Marvels struggling to Ashoka’s results and suggesting it would be ridiculous to suggest off Star Wars that Star Wars is failing?
MCU is miles from that disaster. The success they are having is very downsized on the Star Wars end.
-
50 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:
It'd be nice to have literally one, just one, Marvel release not treated as the final referendum on the future of the studio. Even the most cynical people didn't look at Ahsoka and say "oh yes, clearly they're going to shut down Lucasfilm if they don't hard reboot star wars"
I mean they have had to cancel multiple films over the years, have a mess of a slate and on the TV side appear to have declining returns. So yeah uncle Disney will be counting the money.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, SpiderByte said:
Like Christ I genuinely like what I've seen of the movie but it's very hard to stay excited when basically even the press is rooting for a disaster.
This is probably the bigger issue for Marvel right now. There’s just a tone of how people view them. I think it’s down to dumb, arrogant but also greedy senior management decisions trying to milk it.
Anyone who worked in media for a long term - especially Disney - should know about managing your franchise, and not milking the fuck out of it.
If you list the bad stuff it’s not that horrific compared to the good/mediocre. I just think the issue is too much. Loki numbers reflect this, when it came out it was hot and new and OMG MCU on a weekly basis. Now? It’s just another show. Just another film.
And yet inexplicably the fans who want all this content are getting cliffhangers, sequel bait that even now has NO plans in what is supposed to be this well planned hyped universe. I think Disney need a plan for how to keep both groups, retain loosely linked blockbuster films/completely distinct TV and some things more linked. But they need to be distinct of one another or you’ll lose them all.
There is not one problem nor one solution. I still think calling this ‘The Marvels’ and sticking D+ characters in (one who was a side character! And both without multiple series to build them up!) is the biggest mistake (and sign of total arrogance and self pleasing) and a clear executive oversight blunder. Should not have happened.
-
41 minutes ago, Shindaya said:
I told you all, I attended the June 14th screening in Dallas. The movie received middling reviews because it was very "middle-of-the-road".
AND they only invited people who were big marvel fans because the questionaire we had to fill out asked if we had seen a list of movies that were mostly MCU movies with a few DC movies. when I signed up i got approved for the screening, I opened another account and tried to sign up but only clicked "having seen two" of the movies on the list and i was not approved, so they really were only wanting MCU/CBM fans to attend this screening, and the movie didnt really hit much with anyone save for a few moments here and there
Do you think cutting down the time is just to up the pace or are there threads/scenes that were more damaging than beneficial to the film?
The Marvels | November 10, 2023 | Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
I think theres a location issue. They film where its cheapest (tax breaks) but for their VFX its in a really expensive location for reasons I just cant fathom. I get the arguement with Pixar (creatives are there) but why is Marvel VFX primarily based in Burbank?
I know they do outsource as well but their base costs must be substantial - there is also probably a degree of "well it doesnt matter we'll make millions" when it comes to contracts. Are these inexperience writers/directors getting a cheaper contract or something substantial? Are the co-stars in 'The Marvels' getting contracts in line with their star power?
This is why D+ shows cost what they do I think, lots of cash to throw around. I think we'll see more pressure downstream to reduce costs.