Thor: Love and Thunder | July 8, 2022 | Directed by Oscar Winner Taika Waititi | Ninth most profitable movie of 2022

[SpiderByte]

4 minutes ago, YourMother said:

So suggesting the possibility of diminishing returns is equivalent to calling them bombs despite no one here is thinking it’d bomb or underperform. I think you got it the other way around. People aren’t saying the MCU is doomed forever or every film is an underperformer lol.

Nobody on the planet would sanely describe a 950 million dollar sequel to a 670 million dollar first movie as "diminishing returns" but that's all people have said since Multiverse of Madness released.

Edited July 5, 2022 by SpiderByte

[exomassey]

1 minute ago, Macleod said:

 

It has nothing to do with too many characters...it's that they're not COMPELLING enough.

 

But yes, saturation of the brand turns off certain viewers like me to the "must-see event experience" of their film entries.  

I think some of the characters are compelling though like Shang Chi, Makkari, Kate Bishop and Moon Knight but they feel so disconnected from the MCU that I don’t really care and have no idea where they will show up next aside from their inevitable individual sequel movies.

[John Marston]

Shang Chi was elevated because of Tony Leung. Outside of him the movie was standard and filled with bad comic relief and CGI overload 

Edited July 5, 2022 by John Marston

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Nobody on the planet would sanely describe a 950 million dollar sequel to a 670 million dollar first movie as "diminishing returns" but that's all people have said since Multiverse of Madness released.

Again I honestly don’t get how that’s disappointing either. It’s a solid jump. I just think peoples’ expectations got way out of hand. (Thought I think if it was better reviewed, it might have done 5-10% more tops but even then some viewed it as disappointing).

 

When I say diminishing returns I mean more so the jumps not being as much as hoped for or maybe some falling or doing roughly the same as their Phase 3 installments.

[sabrecmc]

I wasn't a huge fan of Ragnorak's humor for EVERYTHING approach, but it was definitely a different take after Thor 2.  I do wish that Taika had toned it down a tad for this, but sounds like it really leans into the buffoonery.  I was already planning to wait for D+, but that kind of cements it. 

[Macleod]

14 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

 

I find takes like that tweet so baffling. A decade of unprecedented cultural hegemony has clearly broken (some) fanboys' brains.

 

11 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Endgame and No Way Home has skewed your damn brains. Peoplesnstandarda for a "bomb" with the MCU are something nobody would apply to any other film 

 

2 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Nobody on the planet would sanely describe a 950 million dollar sequel to a 670 million dollar first movie as "diminishing returns" but that's all people have said since Multiverse of Madness released.

 

See above, SB.  It's all relative.  People get used to big returns, then they are "offended" when they are even 5% lower...

 

The problem is, like I've said...these movies are arguably missing a RDJ, Evans, Loki charisma that was just so special to the first few cycles.  Waititi is great, Hemsworth is great, maybe even Portman is great, here, but it still doesn't add up...and of course in ref. to repeating Ragnarok with the same players...usually LIGHTNING DOESN'T STRIKE TWICE -- pun intended!  😉

 

$130-140 OW 

$750m WW total.  

[Deep Wang]

2 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Sorry, but the film was PAID FOR by SONY, so they had the final say in everything about its release, and likely some creative decisions...and of course paying for getting Maguire and Garfield back.  So you should thank SONY for that.  It's an MCU "hybrid" but had a whole cultural legacy of its own tied to SONY's Spider-Man film series that informed its main success -- I'd wager it wouldn't have really mattered whether Dr. Strange was in this -- the money comes from/goes to Maguire, Garfield, Holland.  

 

Not to be that guy, but of all the SM movies they teamed up for, this was the one that Disney did put money into.  It was a 75/25 financing and revenue split I believe.  

[Macleod]

4 minutes ago, exomassey said:

I think some of the characters are compelling though like Shang Chi, Makkari, Kate Bishop and Moon Knight but they feel so disconnected from the MCU that I don’t really care and have no idea where they will show up next aside from their inevitable individual sequel movies.

 

You're admitting they're not compelling enough.  If they were, you'd care more.  

[harrisonisdead]

16 minutes ago, John Marston said:

yes because critics are known for being so harsh on the MCU

For every critic that dislikes the MCU, there are countless fan sites, youtubers, bloggers, etc who are RT-certified and are seemingly physically incapable of giving a Marvel movie a negative review.

 

David Ehrlich is always pointed at as one of those critics who supposedly just hates the MCU and everything in it, but he just gave Love and Thunder a positive review, and he also loved Endgame, which was pretty much pure fan service. But if someone like Ehrlich likes the movie, the fans will just move on to another boogeyman MCU-hater.

[exomassey]

5 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Sorry, but the film was PAID FOR by SONY, so they had the final say in everything about its release, and likely some creative decisions...and of course paying for getting Maguire and Garfield back.  So you should thank SONY for that.  It's an MCU "hybrid" but had a whole cultural legacy of its own tied to SONY's Spider-Man film series that informed its main success -- I'd wager it wouldn't have really mattered whether Dr. Strange was in this -- the money comes from/goes to Maguire, Garfield, Holland.  

Sorry but you’re talking crap, not calling it an MCU movie is ridiculous.

 

Its set in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. Even if is was funded by Warner Bros or Paramount, it’s an MCU film made with the involvement of Marvel Studios.

[Macleod]

1 minute ago, Deep Wang said:

 

Not to be that guy, but of all the SM movies they teamed up for, this was the one that Disney did put money into.  It was a 75/25 financing and revenue split I believe.  

 

Can we find the paperwork/docs for this?  Was it officially confirmed/available?  Variety or Deadline will suit.  

[WittyUsername]

It’s probably still premature to make any assumptions about the future, but it would be a bit depressing if NWH were to end up being seen as the MCU’s last big hurrah. I’ve never been huge on the MCU, but it left such a big cultural footprint that it would suck for it to be reduced to a shell of its former self. 

[Macleod]

2 minutes ago, exomassey said:

Sorry but you’re talking crap, not calling it an MCU movie is ridiculous.

 

Its set in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. Even if is was funded by Warner Bros or Paramount, it’s an MCU film made with the involvement of Marvel Studios.

 

I maintain my assertion that it doesn't matter whether Dr. Strange or any real MCU elements would have been in this or not -- the three Spideys/multiple villains were enough.  I'll let this go here because this is the THOR thread!  

Edited July 5, 2022 by Macleod

[exomassey]

Just now, Macleod said:

 

You're admitting they're not compelling enough.  If they were, you'd care more.  

I’m admitting I like the characters but I don’t care where the MCU is going because there is no plan and nearly all of the output is mediocre.

 

[BruiseCruise]

How the hell did Thor of all characters get more solo movies than any other phase 1 heroes with potentially more still to come?

 

 

[MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie]

Phase 5 should clearly be built around Yelena, because every line out of her mouth is gold!

 

I think the "Marvel fatigue" has a lot of combination of factors. The sheer saturation of MCU stuff in the last 18 months is probably the biggest.  

 

But it's also the longest the MCU is going to go without an "event" film since Avengers.  They built up the expectation that every 3 years or so (really even more often if you include Civil War in that calculus) a bunch of characters would get together in a culmination of the previous phase, kicking off the next one.

 

But now, what, the MCU is going to go 5 or 6 years before the next big event film?  Even with like 5 times as many characters roaming around?  It does feel like asking a lot of audiences (and critics) to watch that much content and wait so long for a big cathartic payoff.

Edited July 5, 2022 by MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie

[Deep Wang]

3 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Can we find the paperwork/docs for this?  Was it officially confirmed/available?  Variety or Deadline will suit.  

 

https://deadline.com/2019/09/sony-walt-disneys-marvel-team-on-third-spider-man-homecoming-title-with-superhero-to-appear-in-future-marvel-pics-1202746497/

 

First paragraph!

[robertman2]

This thread is tiring lol

[exomassey]

Just now, Macleod said:

 

I maintain my assertion that it doesn't matter whether Dr. Strange would have been in this or not -- the three Spideys were enough.  I'll let this go here because this is the THOR thread!  

Letting it go? You started it lol?

 

It’s part of MCU and Tom Holland has always been MCU Spider-Man. That’s all I’m saying. Saying it’s not an MCU movie is a bit ridiculous.

[John Marston]

NWH is an McU movie but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if putting the other Spidey’s in there was Sony’s idea. I mean it benefits Sony the most. Their back catalog of Spidey movies had a huge increase in addition to adding insane hype for the film