DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE WEEKEND THREAD | 211 DOM, 233.1 OS, 444.1 WW | Disney does it again!

[wildphantom]

9 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

You may not intend it, but the suggestion that a movie can't be both a good time and cinematically interesting is absurd. These divisions into franchises vs art, "cinephiles" vs "simple people who just want to have a good time", are artificial and unnecessary, there was no problem when massively popular movies (like Back to the Future and Indiana Jones!) were both great entertainment and works of creative personal expression. The backlash to certain particular MCU movies stems from them either removing the latter from the equation or minimizing it beneath endless brand perpetuation.

i definitely didn’t imply that. 
 

what i meant was that the audience that want to have a good time watching Bad Boys 4,  aren’t necessarily going to be flocking to something like Tár. Which is fine. 
 

of course the blockbusters can be works of art. I wasn’t trying to say otherwise. 

[Jaxon5]

3 hours ago, kayumanggi said:

I wonder if there'll ever be an animated movie that can open with 200M.

Zoo2opia is my guess.

 

Shrek 3 adjusts to 197m so I dont think it will take long now

[ZeeSoh]

9 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

You may not intend it, but the suggestion that a movie can't be both a good time and cinematically interesting is absurd. These divisions into franchises vs art, "cinephiles" vs "simple people who just want to have a good time", are artificial and unnecessary, there was no problem when massively popular movies (like Back to the Future and Indiana Jones!) were both great entertainment and works of creative personal expression. The backlash to certain particular MCU movies stems from them either removing the latter from the equation or minimizing it beneath endless brand perpetuation.

I know the context is McU movies so I want to ask a question regarding it.
 

Who determines what is “cinematically interesting” and what is not? Are there any criteria’s? If yes, then who determines them?

 

I can venture that perhaps critical review or audience reviews or both are indicative of “interesting”. If that were so, MCU (at least pre endgame) would largely fit that criteria. 
 

The idea of a interconnected universe and episodic production, while not entirely new, was certainly interesting and well executed. And this board has seen plenty of debate whether directors like Coogler, Gunn, Favreau, etc we’re able to express their creativeness in their movies or not. So I am not gonna re-litigate that. 
 

Wouldn’t then “cinematically interesting” boil down to subjective interpretations just like “good times”? And those decrying  SH movies as not being “cinematically interesting” be imposing their own opinions? Essentially gate keeping what is and what is not cinema and interesting

 

[Sindreee]

4 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

Zoo2opia is my guess.

 

Shrek 3 adjusts to 197m so I dont think it will take long now

Shrek 3, ugh what an abomination that was

[Nero]

45 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Shrek 5 is a easy 2B grosser if it’s actually great 

 

One of the few modern movies / franchises that seems to be widely beloved by older people, millennials, and even Gen Z / Alpha. Maybe it’s due to constant memes. 
 

I’m curious how they can pull this off tho. I suspect it’ll be close to what Deadpool did … very self conscious meta commentary about the current animations and it’s position in it.

2B is crazy. I think it will make a lot of money but 2B isn't easy as it sounds especially considering OS market when NWH couldn't cross it even with insane hype

[ThomasNicole]

25 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

I know the context is McU movies so I want to ask a question regarding it.
 

Who determines what is “cinematically interesting” and what is not? Are there any criteria’s? If yes, then who determines them?

 

I can venture that perhaps critical review or audience reviews or both are indicative of “interesting”. If that were so, MCU (at least pre endgame) would largely fit that criteria. 
 

The idea of a interconnected universe and episodic production, while not entirely new, was certainly interesting and well executed. And this board has seen plenty of debate whether directors like Coogler, Gunn, Favreau, etc we’re able to express their creativeness in their movies or not. So I am not gonna re-litigate that. 
 

Wouldn’t then “cinematically interesting” boil down to subjective interpretations just like “good times”? And those decrying  SH movies as not being “cinematically interesting” be imposing their own opinions? Essentially gate keeping what is and what is not cinema and interesting

 

I don’t think this is the point. I think the point is that everytime someone says “well thankfully most people just want a fun time” to defend these movies, they’re implying that an “art” movie can’t be entertaining or that entertaining movies can’t be more than superficial good time, which isn’t true.

Honestly, despite all the complains, i think SH fans sometimes also downplay the very genre they love in order to defend it. I’ve seen so many fans this past days answering negative opinions over Deadpool on social media with “it’s not supposed to be artistic or have great ideas and script, it’s supposed to be fun”. You can’t make a fun movie that also have artistic goals? I can name a few CBM projects that have both, including on MCU. 

And yet plenty of fans keep acting like criticizing some movie for thinking it’s mostly worried with economical prospects is some sort of absurd, implying that they can’t be a fun product and an art form simultaneously.

 

 

Edited July 28 by ThomasNicole

[Maggie]

Marvel does blockbuster movies. They have conquered the market for blockbuster films.  Some are good, some so and so., just like all blockbusters of  the past. Was Twisters a masterpiece blockbuster? Some would say, no, but i don't see people attacking it like it's not real cinema. WE celebrated Twisters success.

[marveldcfox]

The opening in North America is great, but overseas should have been minimum 300M

Edited July 28 by marveldcfox

[thajdikt]

19 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

The opening in North America is great, but overseas should have been minimum 300M

Based on what exactly? Swear you guys are never happy. 

[Brainbug]

18 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

The opening in North America is great, but overseas should have been minimum 300M

 

Nah i think the OS results are really good. Deadpool is not only a Superhero or Marvel movie but also a R-Rated comedy, which is one of the hardest sells for OS audiences as humour is just culturally very different/especially subjective.

[Krissykins]

Not necessarily box office related, but it’s been a while since a soundtrack went top 10 on the overall album chart. 

[grey ghost]

If you want to attack an Avengers movie for being silly and juvenile then that's fair but not Deadpool. Deadpool is supposed to be kind of ridiculous. 

 

I think a fair criticism of Deadpool 3 is the jokes don't always land and the first half is kind of slow pacing wise. Ultimately it's not the best Deadpool movie. The Easter eggs are fun for fans though.

[Cmasterclay]

This would be the real 300m opener.

 

[OncomingStorm93]

2 hours ago, Firepower said:

I can find much better unknowns in my backyard, male cast looks horrendous, worse than CW D-list actors, and female cast looks like it belongs to a different movie, I could've tolerated rehash if the cast was actually solid.

 

Because they already did that? Alien 3 kinda did that, Life did that without xenomorph. Resurrection, while being a horror comedy, also did "a group of characters walking dark corridors and escaping a space ship/station full of aliens". It doesn't work because it was already done before more than once, done better. They should've done Alien: Isolation, it mixed familiar with new and expanded lore in a compelling way, a win-win situation if done right.

 

1: People didn't go to Godzilla Kong for Rebecca Hall and Dan Stevens. And people didn't see Furiosa despite Anya Taylor Joy and Chris Hemsworth. You're putting too much stock in the cast for a sci-fi horror film.

 

2: Poorly received films from 30 years ago is not a strong defense against this kind of soft/spiritual "remake" of the original Alien, which is clearly what this is going for.

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

This would be the real 300m opener.

 

 

 

This would be the real $300m opener.

 

[OncomingStorm93]

1 hour ago, Nero said:

2B is crazy. I think it will make a lot of money but 2B isn't easy as it sounds especially considering OS market when NWH couldn't cross it even with insane hype

NWH would have cleared it easy with China. Not a single person would frame NWH as underperforming with it’s haul.

That said, I don’t see Shrek 5 doing substantial biz in China. I do think 2b-ish WW is on the table. And 200m+ OW domestic is an absolute lock

 

 

[Menor the Destroyer]

29 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Nah i think the OS results are really good. Deadpool is not only a Superhero or Marvel movie but also a R-Rated comedy, which is one of the hardest sells for OS audiences as humour is just culturally very different/especially subjective.

The rating also just hurts a lot more in countries where it's gotten a rating that means a hard ban on under-18 (or some restriction age) from seeing the film, rather than just a softer restriction like the US. 

[TomThomas]

1 hour ago, Maggie said:

Marvel does blockbuster movies. They have conquered the market for blockbuster films. Some are good, some so and so., just like all blockbusters of  the past.

Most blockbusters of the past were standalone, including sequels. And they didn't have this "cinematic universe/multiverse" cancer. On top of that the way they were made was very different as well.

 

1 hour ago, Maggie said:

Was Twisters a masterpiece blockbuster? Some would say, no, but i don't see people attacking it like it's not real cinema. WE celebrated Twisters success.

Twisters was shot on film (even though it never felt like it was), wasn't done in previz by commitee, standalone movie and not part of some shared universe.

[keysersoze123]

1 hour ago, Brainbug said:

 

Nah i think the OS results are really good. Deadpool is not only a Superhero or Marvel movie but also a R-Rated comedy, which is one of the hardest sells for OS audiences as humour is just culturally very different/especially subjective.

I disagree on people seeing it as a comedy. its big because its a MCU team up movie with tons of cameo. its made for fans. 

 

That said its OS performance is great. No 2 words about that. Few markets have under performed (China/korea) but that has been the norm for MCU off late. Europe is solid but not spectacular and that is normal for SH movie not  named Avengers or Spider-man as well. 

[Firepower]

54 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

1: People didn't go to Godzilla Kong for Rebecca Hall and Dan Stevens. And people didn't see Furiosa despite Anya Taylor Joy and Chris Hemsworth. You're putting too much stock in the cast for a sci-fi horror film.

 

2: Poorly received films from 30 years ago is not a strong defense against this kind of soft/spiritual "remake" of the original Alien, which is clearly what this is going for.

1. Truly great monster movies have good human characters and solid stories, Godzilla Kong is a disposable cartoonish CGI fest, it's not a good example of anything. Cast is incredibly important, especially in a sci-fi horror film, if your replace cast in Alien (1979) with Romulus cast, you get 4-5/10 movie instead of all time classic. Sigourney was the star of the franchise, iconic character, Oscar nominated perfomance in Aliens, supporting actors/characters and their lines in both Alien and Aliens are still remembered to this day.

 

2. What's the point of spiritual "remake" with bad actors?

Edited July 28 by Firepower