AMERICA CHAVEZ IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS WEEKEND THREAD | Aka carbonara civil war thread | 187.42M OW

[Water Bottle]

Just now, charlie Jatinder said:

I do think these roles in MCU or Disney on whole looks mostly forced.

 

I hope they do it better.

 

I don't know I feel like Michael Pena naturally fits into the Ant Man movies, or Don Cheadle in the Iron Man movies, or Mackie in the Captain America movies feels normal. Brie Larson does a good job as Captain Marvel. And ScarJo always fit in well as Black Widow.

 

I'll admit a certain character in DS2 could have been introduced and handled better but that'd be true if she was a white male. 

 

Unless you mean the little shoehorned in gay representation in Disney movies. In which case...I don't see how it's forced? They barely take up any screentime and usually people around them don't make a big deal out of it. If that's forced, then maybe that's more you and less Disney. But to me it never feels "forced". It usually just amounts to nothing substantive.

[charlie Jatinder]

6 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

I don't know I feel like Michael Pena naturally fits into the Ant Man movies, or Don Cheadle in the Iron Man movies, or Mackie in the Captain America movies feels normal. Brie Larson does a good job as Captain Marvel. And ScarJo always fit in well as Black Widow.

 

I'll admit a certain character in DS2 could have been introduced and handled better but that'd be true if she was a white male. 

 

Unless you mean the little shoehorned in gay representation in Disney movies. In which case...I don't see how it's forced? They barely take up any screentime and usually people around them don't make a big deal out of it. If that's forced, then maybe that's more you and less Disney. But to me it never feels "forced". It usually just amounts to nothing substantive.

May be forced is not right word. Read forced as in just put there. Also didn't meant like minorities as in race but sexual orientation. 

 

I hope they actually give them something substantive to do, as normal as they would do for any straight people, not just few seconds of screen presence.

 

Like in Star Wars: TRoS, two random people kiss for a second or so. Would have loved if it was Rey who had a girl friend and they kissed 

Edited May 9, 2022 by charlie Jatinder

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

May be forced is not right word. Read forced as in just put there. Also didn't meant like minorities as in race but sexual orientation. 

 

I hope they actually give them something substantive to do, as normal as they would do for any straight people, not just few seconds of screen presence.

 

I see what you mean now. Yes, that would be great.

[Orestes]

43 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

It's all to set up a female Thor which is bad because ????

Women have cooties.

[grim22]

29 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

 

It feels like Disney is making the big deal out of this, more than anything else.

 

How many times now has there been a big news-item about a Disney film having the "first openly gay character" followed by multitudes of think-pieces about how brave they are? Film Twitter/Social Media takes up the cause and (with a straight face) starts talking up Disney as if they are the underdog. Then you see the film and the scene/character in question is seconds long?

 

Quiet a few.

 

No rational human being gives a shit about a gay character being in a Disney film. It's just how cynically put together it is and the Mouse hoping everyone is too up-in-arms defending them to notice how artificial the whole "controversy" is.

 

 

[keysersoze123]

@charlie Jatinder how'z sunday looking. Closer to 40m?

[charlie Jatinder]

I didn't like Jane as Thor when it was announced. When I heard Lady Thor, I thought Valkyrie will be the one or any other female character but Jane.

 

Since Jane doesn't look like someone with physical strength and more of scientist type.

 

Ofc Natalie Portman looked good in that shot, so I can just hope it is some multiversal Jane who is Thor in that reality.

[charlie Jatinder]

2 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

 

I think Eternals was the best one they did.

[OncomingStorm93]

Saw it twice, this time was more able to appreciate Sam Raimi's direction. I was truly surprised how much his personal style was all over the film, I think more than any other MCU director has brought to a MCU project outside of the Gunn/Watiti wing of crazy. It caught me off guard the first time. Especially the editing choices.

[CoolioD1]

the one time i felt there was "forced diversity" and believe me i feel like an asshole for thinking it was in the eternals. why was there a deaf one? like these are perfect specimen robot super beings invented by a god to kill monsters why would he make a deaf one? that didn't make any sense to me. 

[Blankments]

1 minute ago, CoolioD1 said:

the one time i felt there was "forced diversity" and believe me i feel like an asshole for thinking it was in the eternals. why was there a deaf one? like these are perfect specimen robot super beings invented by a god to kill monsters why would he make a deaf one? that didn't make any sense to me. 

but she was hawt

[LVB]

38 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

I didn't like Jane as Thor when it was announced. When I heard Lady Thor, I thought Valkyrie will be the one or any other female character but Jane.

 

Since Jane doesn't look like someone with physical strength and more of scientist type.

 

Ofc Natalie Portman looked good in that shot, so I can just hope it is some multiversal Jane who is Thor in that reality.

 

No. Taika is following the comics.

 

Quote

 

“Suffering from cancer, astrophysicist and Thor’s ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster, visited New Asgard and her life was changed forever. Mysteriously, the broken pieces of Mjolnir, the hammer of the thunder god, transformed her into the Mighty Thor and gifted her the superpowers of Thor, to battle threats internal and external. Wielding Mjolnir herself, she had become a godly protector and a new hero was born!

With the help of Thor, Valkyrie, and the Guardians of the Galaxy, the Mighty Thor was faced by the powerful Gorr, the God Butcher. With divine powers himself, Gorr was driven to rid the universe of gods wherever he found them. Battling cancer in her human form and Gorr in her godly form, Jane Foster was embroiled in an epic struggle with plenty of love and thunder!”

 

 

[John Marston]

5 hours ago, Brainbug the Dinosaur said:

 

An opening can be expected and still be very impressive. Imo, thats very much the case here.

 

No matter how one wants to spin it, this is still the second Doctor Strange movie opening to 190M+ DOM and 450M Worldwide.

 

Its a massive success and its numbers are very impressive.

Yes but again this wasn't simply sold as "Doctor Strange 2". 

[LVB]

13 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

the one time i felt there was "forced diversity" and believe me i feel like an asshole for thinking it was in the eternals. why was there a deaf one? like these are perfect specimen robot super beings invented by a god to kill monsters why would he make a deaf one? that didn't make any sense to me. 

 

Lauren Ridloff implied in an interview that Makkari is deaf because otherwise she would also be affected by her sonic boom.

[ThomasNicole]

30 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

the one time i felt there was "forced diversity" and believe me i feel like an asshole for thinking it was in the eternals. why was there a deaf one? like these are perfect specimen robot super beings invented by a god to kill monsters why would he make a deaf one? that didn't make any sense to me. 

It helps her power, her ears won't be capable to support the high pressure of run too fast and she can feel vibrations because of that, it makes a lot of sense actually, they just should explain a bit better on the movie (it was there but not very explicit) 

 

But beyond the explanation i think it's normal, i mean she is deaf so she can't do a character that isn't deaf, is just a consequence if people want to hire her. 

 

[Factcheck]

8 hours ago, JustLurking said:

 

That's not always the case, i.e. titanic has a 69% on rt and that doesnt line up very well lol. I'd say try to strike a middle ground between imdb, rt and cinemascore rather than relying on one single platform.

We're talking about RT "verified" audience score, there was no verified system when Titanic was released.

[Cooper Legion]

People complaining about other people being disappointed are often much ruder and worse for the forum than people pointing out when numbers are kind of disappointing. Pretty unfortunate.

[ThomasNicole]

The numbers are great, the multi isn't, i don't know why became so angry about that. I mean obviously the OW is excellent and a huge success, no matter how you look at it.

 

Still, despite being way less presale heavy than NWH which should guaranteed a better IM, the movie will ended up frontloaded just like NWH on OW, which is a disappointing aspect.

 

Hard to say why this happened, maybe the decent not great reviews, maybe the meh audience reception (for an MCU flick), maybe the horror elements, maybe all of that? But the fact is the IM is a bit disappointing, almost nobody expected a 5.1-5.2x few days ago.

 

Sometimes here i feel people think two feelings can't co-exist and they can, i can be happy because the movie is massive while i also can acknowledge that maybe with a better reception, the numbers would also be a bit better, which can be disappointing for some and it's fine. 

 

 

[mitchellsilver]

3 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

$185 million OW according to BOM? After the first movie only made $235 million? Fucking hell. Marvel did it again. 

Well its not really a direct sequel to DS and without Wanda and multiverse hype. It definitely wouldn’t have opened that big. 

[EmpireCity]

22 minutes ago, Illuminegion Confirmed said:

People complaining about other people being disappointed are often much ruder and worse for the forum than people pointing out when numbers are kind of disappointing. Pretty unfortunate.

 

No, not at all.  Get over it.