Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

8 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

The "High Evolutionary is too mean to animals" reminds me of the "everyone dying in Infinity War will hurt it's box office" takes. I really don't think that'll matter.

 

Okay so I'm not saying there were *no* "everyone dying in Infinity War will hurt it's box office" takes. But there were next to zero and nobody took them seriously. 

 

I know you're trying to play it that some of us are saying "the film passively supports animal cruelty" or something equally self-evidently ludicrous but I'm pretty sure you know we aren't saying that. We're saying that James Gunn has already twice had movies proven to have been too edgelordy for most mainstream tastes. Three times if you include Brightburn, which technically made money due to its minuscule budget and big name paycuts but got a horrid CS and a poor overall box office given its marketing. The two times he has had movies not be too edgelordy for mainstream tastes have been under close oversight. He hasn't had close oversight with this film, and some early critiques of the movie indicate there are multiple lingering scenes of animal cruelty. Some people - lots of them - don't want to watch that, especially not on anthopomorphic or "cutesy" animals like Rocket. It's not about whether it is framed within the movie as good or bad. It's about what sits within the scope of what people want as part of their entertainment. 

 

It also doesn't help when the first shot of the trailer was "Lol, look at this cute little animal get hit in the face!". Very 2000s dudebro humour. 

 

I'm not saying that means it's bad. Nor am I bothered by that sort of thing - I'm someone who rushed out to see Evil Dead Rise first day. What I'm saying is it's the kind of thing that quietly puts people off putting on their family 'to-watch' lists.

[kayumanggi]

 

[SpiderByte]

11 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I know you're trying to play it that some of us are saying "the film passively supports animal cruelty" or something equally self-evidently ludicrous but I'm pretty sure you know we aren't saying that. We're saying that James Gunn has already twice had movies proven to have been too edgelordy for most mainstream tastes.

I'm going to go on a limb and say this PG-13 Marvel film is not like Slither, a horror movie, or Super, a movie that includes a rape scene

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

5 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

I'm going to go on a limb and say this PG-13 Marvel film is not like Slither, a horror movie, or Super, a movie that includes a rape scene

 

 

I was referring to Slither and The Suicide Squad. Both of which were targeted at mainstream audiences and both of which tanked hard.

 

Super was an indy-style movie made for an indy-style budget. It was not targeted at a mainstream audience.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[SpiderByte]

Suicide Squad isn't really edgelord at all. it's an action comedy. The reason it tanked is almost certainly that it was a day and date release on HBO Max.

 

Like Guardians and Suicide Squad aren't like Ari Aster where it has niche appeal

Edited May 1, 2023 by SpiderByte

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

29 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Suicide Squad isn't really edgelord at all. it's an action comedy. The reason it tanked is almost certainly that it was a day and date release on HBO Max.

 

Like Guardians and Suicide Squad aren't like Ari Aster where it has niche appeal

 

It is a film that had an edgelord sensibility; the trailer had jokes about "angels splooging", toilet seat helmets, sharks eating people humorously. The film had an extended sequence in which an innocent camp of good guys were slaughtered by the protagonists for laughs = edgelord. Polka Dots Melting people. Face blown off gunshots. Birds burning inside a cage. It was a movie made for a much narrower band of people than it needs to to be a mainstream hit: it's just that that narrow band of people included all the online dudebros, reviewers and enthusiasts like us so it wasn't immediately obvious and so people looked around trying to justify why it was a flop rather than accepting that it was. Exactly like Scott Pilgrim. 

 

And no matter how many times you keep saying it: TSS tanked far worse than the other movies that released day and date, had a poor CS score for a superhero movie and had horrible legs even compared to other day and date movies. 

 

Of course it's not "Like Ari Aster" hence why I didn't include Super - which never purported to be for a mainstream audience - on the list of failures. It had a different rationale and so can be judged against other elements. Super didn't have a $185m budget.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[SpiderByte]

I don't think you know what Edgelord means

[Torontofan]

The string of sub par marvel movies is really depressing hype for this. 

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

13 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

I don't think you know what Edgelord means

 

I was a teenager from the earl 90s to the early 00s. I followed the Troma films and Gunn's early career. I watched Slither in the cinema (one of the few).

 

I know what Edgelord means. At least in the same way Gunn would understand it.

 

Well received films don't drop 71% in their second week on top of an already disappointing opening and make 47% of their whole takings on opening weekend. Tenet managed 67% and that was released in eons times worse a scenario than TSS was. And wasn't even that well received itself. You have to explain that far beyond the covid and day/date context. 

 

Deadpool was a R-rated superhero movie that had marketing that kept all the hyper violent stuff out of the adverts and had Ryan Reynolds doing viral Bob Ross shenanigans. TSS had splooging angels, execution competitions, pointless swearing and shark men eating people. You can have all those things, of course. But you can't put a $185m price tag on it and then turn around and be surprised nobody has come to your super-awesome movie other than other people who are very similar to you.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[Mr Roark]

Still confident it will open with some good $130M and it will get an A.

Yeah the reception is worse than Volume 2 but critics were softer with Marvel before the pandemic.

[scytheavatar]

16 minutes ago, Mr Roark said:

Still confident it will open with some good $130M and it will get an A.

Yeah the reception is worse than Volume 2 but critics were softer with Marvel before the pandemic.

 

In what galaxy is opening with $130M "good"? With that opening it more or less guarantees the movie will finish below 800M WW.

[Sckathian]

2 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

If (and it remains an if) GOTG gets a B+ CS, then giving Gunn the DC keys to the kingdom following TSS will surely look increasingly extraordinary as a choice.

I mean this ignores a lot. He got two As from a pretty obscure brand already with Guardians. Even Stevie S had a C+ with the A.I. monstrosity. 

 

TSS had a lost against it; I don't think its fair to treat any of the pandemic films as a benchmark. And yes this includes the Cinema Score because it changed who was going to the cinema. 

 

EDIT: Also TSS does have a solid RT verified score so it feels pointless to argue it was somehow poorly received.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Sckathian

[SpiderByte]

9 minutes ago, scytheavatar said:

 

In what galaxy is opening with $130M "good"? With that opening it more or less guarantees the movie will finish below 800M WW.

For pretty much literally any other movie but Marvel this board would be calling 130 OW great.

[Deep Wang]

7 minutes ago, scytheavatar said:

 

In what galaxy is opening with $130M "good"? With that opening it more or less guarantees the movie will finish below 800M WW.

 

 

I think $800m has been toast for a while no matter what it opens to domestically. 

 

[SpiderByte]

Reviews are solid, tracking is up, but if you went by this boards reaction you'd think the movie was going the Shazam route. Yeesh.

[nevermore]

Opening below Vol 2 even with 6 years of inflation is disappointing to say the least.

[grey ghost]

130m is bad compared to peak MCU.

 

But it would be higher than what tracking suggested.

[SpiderByte]

Yeah what could have possibly happened since Guardians 2 that could have changed theatergoing habits industry wide

 

The world may never know

Edited May 1, 2023 by SpiderByte

[Sckathian]

4 minutes ago, nevermore said:

Opening below Vol 2 even with 6 years of inflation is disappointing to say the least.

I would say the 6 years is exactly the problem. 200M mistake firing Gunn.

[Mr Roark]

23 minutes ago, scytheavatar said:

 

In what galaxy is opening with $130M "good"? With that opening it more or less guarantees the movie will finish below 800M WW.

Our galaxy.

 

$800M is the new $1B for the MCU.