Weekend Thread | RTH pg 197...Mother's Day not kind to CW but very kind to JB and MD CW 42, JB 9,7, MDD 6.1,Hunts 1.48...puts CW at about 178M

[a2k]

The discussions seem to go from "this will be huge with IM, CA, Spidey, Ant-Man and more. It's not a CA movie" to "Wow a CA movie beat BVS".

[holcs]

Pretty damn good number.  It was never going above 200m when the true Avengers sequel, AoU couldn't even manage it.  Huge jump from WS, people can't really be too upset about these numbers, can they?

[a2k]

2 minutes ago, John Marston said:

This is a fine number but I'm laughing at this revisionism of people now going "it's a Captain Americs movie, this is amazing!" When this is a clear Avengers movie and marketed that way 

 

Lol...agree.

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by a2knet

[filmnerdjamie]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

This is a fine number but I'm laughing at this revisionism of people now going "it's a Captain Americs movie, this is amazing!" When this is a clear Avengers movie and marketed that way 

 

Gotta heart fanboy revisionism.

 

Anyone who has seen the marketing, let alone the film, knows this is The Avengers 3 in all but name.

[grey ghost]

7 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

 

Funny how these $200M+ proclamations came out and completely forget (intentional or not) how we heard the same thing a year ago with Age of Ultron.

 

This is a great opening but the fact is the overhype warped realistic expectations, and we honestly hear this every time an MCU film open from advanced reviews/online buzz.

 

I'd say AOU dropped for two major reasons:

 

1) The first made so much a hefty drop was inevitable.

 

2) The buzz wasn't that positive.

 

CW is different. It dropped from AOU because:

 

1) Too many people abandoned ship after AOU.

 

But if legs can take CW above AOU's 460 m, it shows that Marvel repaired the damage to an extent.

 

 

[theultimatebiu]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

This is a fine number but I'm laughing at this revisionism of people now going "it's a Captain Americs movie, this is amazing!" When this is a clear Avengers movie and marketed that way 

 

3 minutes ago, a2knet said:

The discussions seem to go from "this will be huge with IM, CA, Spidey, Ant-Man and more. It's not a CA movie" to "Wow a CA movie beat BVS".

 

 

 

Yep, this was clearly marketed as a Captain America movie.

[grey ghost]

19 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

Ant Man legs? Lol no 

 

Why would the legs be much worse than GotG, Iron Man, The Avengers and Ant-Man?

 

Many people consider CW a top 3 MCU movie.

 

 

[a2k]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

Why would the legs be much worse than GotG, Iron Man, The Avengers and Ant-Man?

 

Many people consider CW a top 3 MCU movie.

 

 

 

Only one of those is a sequel

 

[jb007]

Spin is going on from both sides.

 

This is not a Captain America movie. But at the same time this is not Avengers 3 either.

 

As a quasi Avengers it is doing excellent business. 

[filmnerdjamie]

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

I'd say AOU dropped for two major reasons:

 

1) The first made so much a hefty drop was inevitable.

 

2) The buzz wasn't that positive.

 

CW is different. It dropped from AOU because:

 

1) Too many people abandoned ship after AOU.

 

But if legs can take CW above AOU's 460 m, it shows that Marvel repaired the damage to an extent.

 

Buzz was positive. But it was the typical, overblown, "Holy fuck Marvel has made the greatest movie of all-time... AGAIN!?!" Even heard a lot of Empire Strikes Back comparisons... which a year later we are literally hearing again with this film. *Rolls eyes*

 

Honestly Marvel themselves were saying how Age of Ultron was whatever but how the main narrative (even before it opened) was all about Civil War. They seemed to have learned their lesson there and all the Infinity War talk didn't overshadow this ahead of time.

 

But Civil War dropped because honestly, the main selling point was "Oh my God, NOW THEY'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER!" - a visual hook that we had seen before in both Avengers films. Despite what they were saying, this offered nothing we hadn't seen before from a marketing standpoint. Even though it did look good (and the film itself is good albeit as usual overpraised and overhyped).

[phoeeeel]

It is a Captain America movie and it is not. For some people, the title only stating "Captain America" is good enough. For other people, the title alone is not enough. I think it is not simply because captain and iron man occupy same amount of space on the poster. You can just change "Captain America" to "Iron man" without changing anything else and the poster will work just fine.

[grey ghost]

12 minutes ago, a2knet said:

The discussions seem to go from "this will be huge with IM, CA, Spidey, Ant-Man and more. It's not a CA movie" to "Wow a CA movie beat BVS".

 

Wut?

 

If it was performing like a CA movie we'd be looking at ~100 m OW.

[a2k]

7 minutes ago, theultimatebiu said:

 

 

 

 

Yep, this was clearly marketed as a Captain America movie.

 

 

 

[Rman823]

4 minutes ago, jb007 said:

Spin is going on from both sides.

 

This is not a Captain America movie. But at the same time this is not Avengers 3 either.

 

As a quasi Avengers it is doing excellent business. 

Exactly it's a sequel to both TWS and AOU making it a hybrid Cap/Avenger movie. 

[grey ghost]

2 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

 

Buzz was positive. But it was the typical, overblown, "Holy fuck Marvel has made the greatest movie of all-time... AGAIN!?!" Even heard a lot of Empire Strikes Back comparisons... which a year later we are literally hearing again with this film. *Rolls eyes*

 

Honestly Marvel themselves were saying how Age of Ultron was whatever but how the main narrative (even before it opened) was all about Civil War. They seemed to have learned their lesson there and all the Infinity War talk didn't overshadow this ahead of time.

 

But Civil War dropped because honestly, the main selling point was "Oh my God, NOW THEY'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER!" - a visual hook that we had seen before in both Avengers films. Despite what they were saying, this offered nothing we hadn't seen before from a marketing standpoint. Even though it did look good (and the film itself is good albeit as usual overpraised and overhyped).

 

BvS probably hurt too.

 

How many people took a break from the superhero vs superhero theme after the disappointment of BvS?

[Rman823]

Just now, grey ghost said:

 

BvS probably hurt too.

 

How many people took a break from the superhero vs superhero theme after the disappointment of BvS?

Or the greatness that was Deadpool. 

[grey ghost]

7 minutes ago, a2knet said:

 

Only one of those is a sequel

 

 

Isn't the Avengers kind of a sequel that's the culmination of earlier stories?

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, Rman823 said:

Or the greatness that was Deadpool. 

 

Deadpool took the genre 5 steps forward then BvS took it 10 steps back.

[filmnerdjamie]

5 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

BvS probably hurt too.

 

How many people took a break from the superhero vs superhero theme after the disappointment of BvS?

 

Since this is opening higher than Batman vs Superman, I would say few to none. 

 

Just the simple fact that (domestically speaking), the MCU peaked with The Avengers. 

[Rman823]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

Deadpool took the genre 5 steps forward then BvS took it 10 steps back.

Yeah but Civil War helped bring it back some steps. Hopefully Apocalypse is decent but it still feels like such a nonevent and I'm a huge X-Men fan.