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

[Migs20242]

Post Endgame (I only ranked movies and two Marvel series)

A+

NWH

GoTG vol 3

Wandavision

Loki 

 

A-

Shang Chi

B

Dr Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

 

D
Thor: Love and Thunder

Eternals
 

F

Ant-man: Quantumania

Black Widow

 

 

*never seen The Marvels, but will watch Deadpool and Wolverine tomorrow night.

Edited July 28 by Migs20242

[OncomingStorm93]

I’ll give the Romulus marketing team this, “leaking” a VHS quality sequence from the film through a techblog is clever viral marketing.

 

That said, I’m done engaging on this topic because I think the quality of our respective arguments speak for themselves and there’s nothing more to add. 
 

Anyway, still hoping and expecting D&W’s OW to check in at $210m tmrw, matching my lock.

[ZeeSoh]

3 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

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.

 

I can't speak for all SH fans online and around the world, but I have been on this board since the beginning and on its predecessor for years (albeit as a non participant) so I know the type of posters here and the general discourse surrounding SH movies.

 

Again and again over the years we have seen disparaging remarks and sentiments around SH movies on these boards. Such creative criticism such as "braindead", "factory produced", "movies intended for children" (implying that these movies appeal only to those of lesser intellect), and many more (one movie connoisseur in this very thread succinctly characterized them as cancer). One particular phrase used repeatedly by detractors, which alone would be enough to dismantle your entire argument, is "theme park movies". As if being entertaining is inherently a bad thing and automatically dooms a movie to lack artistic merit. Another favourite line of attack is whinging about the BO collection of these movies whilst paradoxically bemoaning the state of movie theatres and their perpetual bankruptcies. People whine and whine about these movies being committee made but many big directors who have worked on these movies (Waititi, Coogler, Raimi, Gunn, Reed, Zhao, DaCosta) have commended the amount of creative freedom they had. But I guess the directive geniuses on here knows more than them. I can go on and on but I hope you got my point. 

 

Faced with such disingenuous and cynical lines of attack, I do not find it hard to believe that some fans resort to using their financial success and entertainment value as a defense. Because these (BO numbers and audience/critic metrics) are hard numbers not open to prejudiced opinions. Art and artistic merit is by its very nature subjective and thus open to endless debate. Why then would fans not resort to the former in response to the latter?

 

As such I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that it is somehow the fault of SH fans for downplaying the artistic side of these movies. We can agree to disagree about SH fans in general but when it comes to this board I will not cede an inch (hehe).

 

Apologies for the long rant, hopefully will be my last word in this thing.

 

[Firepower]

1 minute ago, ZeeSoh said:

People whine and whine about these movies being committee made but many big directors who have worked on these movies (Waititi, Coogler, Raimi, Gunn, Reed, Zhao, DaCosta) have commended the amount of creative freedom they had.

Didn't DaCosta say Feige pretty much directed The Marvels and she didn't have much to do with it? Also Raimi had even less creative freedom on Doc Strange 2, a lot less, than he had on Spider-Man 3, the movie was reshot to death and then trimmed to 2 hours to get more showtimes.

[ZattMurdock]

9 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Didn't DaCosta say Feige pretty much directed The Marvels and she didn't have much to do with it? Also Raimi had even less creative freedom on Doc Strange 2, a lot less, than he had on Spider-Man 3, the movie was reshot to death and then trimmed to 2 hours to get more showtimes.

She didn’t. Neither is that what Raimi said. In fact it’s obvious that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is much more of a true Sam Raimi film than anything he did for Sony or for decades if we are going there. 

[ZeeSoh]

8 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Didn't DaCosta say Feige pretty much directed The Marvels and she didn't have much to do with it? Also Raimi had even less creative freedom on Doc Strange 2, a lot less, than he had on Spider-Man 3, the movie was reshot to death and then trimmed to 2 hours to get more showtimes.

You can google Raimi and Dacosta's own words (the rolling stone article for instance). Although in case of DaCosta she made 2 very contradictory statements. So I guess one can pick and choose which one suits one's bias. 

[Walt Disney]

10 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

 

I can't speak for all SH fans online and around the world, but I have been on this board since the beginning and on its predecessor for years (albeit as a non participant) so I know the type of posters here and the general discourse surrounding SH movies.

 

Again and again over the years we have seen disparaging remarks and sentiments around SH movies on these boards. Such creative criticism such as "braindead", "factory produced", "movies intended for children" (implying that these movies appeal only to those of lesser intellect), and many more (one movie connoisseur in this very thread succinctly characterized them as cancer). One particular phrase used repeatedly by detractors, which alone would be enough to dismantle your entire argument, is "theme park movies". As if being entertaining is inherently a bad thing and automatically dooms a movie to lack artistic merit. Another favourite line of attack is whinging about the BO collection of these movies whilst paradoxically bemoaning the state of movie theatres and their perpetual bankruptcies. People whine and whine about these movies being committee made but many big directors who have worked on these movies (Waititi, Coogler, Raimi, Gunn, Reed, Zhao, DaCosta) have commended the amount of creative freedom they had. But I guess the directive geniuses on here knows more than them. I can go on and on but I hope you got my point. 

 

Faced with such disingenuous and cynical lines of attack, I do not find it hard to believe that some fans resort to using their financial success and entertainment value as a defense. Because these (BO numbers and audience/critic metrics) are hard numbers not open to prejudiced opinions. Art and artistic merit is by its very nature subjective and thus open to endless debate. Why then would fans not resort to the former in response to the latter?

 

As such I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that it is somehow the fault of SH fans for downplaying the artistic side of these movies. We can agree to disagree about SH fans in general but when it comes to this board I will not cede an inch (hehe).

 

Apologies for the long rant, hopefully will be my last word in this thing.

 

This is a really great post. I used to waste time arguing with people, but now I just block them. It’s just not worth the energy anymore. 

 

 

[Firepower]

2 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

She didn't.

https://www.cbr.com/the-marvels-director-admits-she-had-to-give-up-control-to-kevin-feige-its-his-movie/

 

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

In fact it’s obvious that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is much more of a true Sam Raimi film than anything he did for Sony or for decades if we are going there. 

That's absolutely not true, Multiverse of Madness is low tier Raimi at best, there are some scenes from him here and there, and some similar plots points to his Spider-Man trilogy, but not nearly as developed and effective. It's a compromised vision where you can clearly see his scenes (book, zombies) and Kevin Feige's scenes (opening sequences, cameo fest section, America Chavez). His take on Spider-Man wasn't part of the existing movie franchise, so he obviously had a lot more input on it, it's his version and Sony never forced him to trim his movies bare mimum runtime.

[ZattMurdock]

6 minutes ago, Firepower said:

https://www.cbr.com/the-marvels-director-admits-she-had-to-give-up-control-to-kevin-feige-its-his-movie/

 

That's absolutely not true, Multiverse of Madness is low tier Raimi at best, there are some scenes from him here and there, and some similar plots points to his Spider-Man trilogy, but not nearly as developed and effective. It's a compromised vision where you can clearly see his scenes (book, zombies) and Kevin Feige's scenes (opening sequences, cameo fest section, America Chavez). His take on Spider-Man wasn't part of the existing movie franchise, so he obviously had a lot more input on it, it's his version and Sony never forced him to trim his movies bare mimum runtime.

I don’t read clickbait drivel. I read the actual Vanity Fair interview. That’s not what she said.

 

You may dislike DaCosta’s The Marvels or Raimi’s Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, but those are their films, through and through. 

[Eric the Marxist]

17 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

Another favourite line of attack is whinging about the BO collection of these movies whilst paradoxically bemoaning the state of movie theatres and their perpetual bankruptcies.

Just because theaters are in a precarious financial situation doesn't mean we can't be critical about what is popular or what is "keeping them afloat". Although really, in the latter case, the idea that Marvel movies being the only thing that is "saving theaters" is not only untrue, but even if it were true, is a very toxic, objectively bad thing to call out. Like...one movie series keeping an entire industry alive is a horrible thing, but a lot of Marvel fans don't seem to care, at least from my perspective. And really, if anything, it's good to be critical of stuff largely regarded as "popular" or "well-liked" to give new perspectives, even if said criticisms can be hyperbolic. These are just corporate products at the end of the day And that also implies to well-loved art films or what people consider "true cinema". They are corporate products too, so I'm not playing sides here.

 

Plus, if I'm going to be frank, as somebody who feels like I have to walk on eggshells whenever I say anything negative about Marvel in particular, if people were saying the same things about Transformers movies or Jurassic movies or, heaven forbid, DC movies, would you, and some of the other same folks here leap to their defense? Because while Marvel is a big target, it's not the only one, and I don't see anywhere near the same defenses for those franchises when they get targeted. Which I see here and on other social media sites. Like I think both Jurassic World and Deadpool 3 are some of the worst movies to come out in the last few years, but I feel I can dog on Jurassic World all I want and say it's an affront to cinema with nobody caring, but Deadpool is something I feel I got to treat with kid gloves, because saying it's an abomination will have people thinking I am out to get a poor, innocent $30 billion enterprise or that I'm some hater who is jealous of Feige. I don't think that's very fair.

[ThomasNicole]

26 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

 

I can't speak for all SH fans online and around the world, but I have been on this board since the beginning and on its predecessor for years (albeit as a non participant) so I know the type of posters here and the general discourse surrounding SH movies.

 

Again and again over the years we have seen disparaging remarks and sentiments around SH movies on these boards. Such creative criticism such as "braindead", "factory produced", "movies intended for children" (implying that these movies appeal only to those of lesser intellect), and many more (one movie connoisseur in this very thread succinctly characterized them as cancer). One particular phrase used repeatedly by detractors, which alone would be enough to dismantle your entire argument, is "theme park movies". As if being entertaining is inherently a bad thing and automatically dooms a movie to lack artistic merit. Another favourite line of attack is whinging about the BO collection of these movies whilst paradoxically bemoaning the state of movie theatres and their perpetual bankruptcies. People whine and whine about these movies being committee made but many big directors who have worked on these movies (Waititi, Coogler, Raimi, Gunn, Reed, Zhao, DaCosta) have commended the amount of creative freedom they had. But I guess the directive geniuses on here knows more than them. I can go on and on but I hope you got my point. 

 

Faced with such disingenuous and cynical lines of attack, I do not find it hard to believe that some fans resort to using their financial success and entertainment value as a defense. Because these (BO numbers and audience/critic metrics) are hard numbers not open to prejudiced opinions. Art and artistic merit is by its very nature subjective and thus open to endless debate. Why then would fans not resort to the former in response to the latter?

 

As such I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that it is somehow the fault of SH fans for downplaying the artistic side of these movies. We can agree to disagree about SH fans in general but when it comes to this board I will not cede an inch (hehe).

 

Apologies for the long rant, hopefully will be my last word in this thing.

 

I agreed. I said in my post that SH fans also downplay the genre because i know the other side of the coin can be morons assholes. I suspect many people here have this vision that many cinephiles etc are condescending and offensive when they don’t know how to properly argue, which while being generalist, isn’t totally out of reality either. Since i consider myself a cinephile, my goal with the post was just give another pov of your discussion, with a perspective that i don’t see much people talking about, which is when SH fans also act like snobs against other types of movies and just ended up downplay CBM in the process, because they can be art form too and sometimes it feels both cinephiles and SH fans imply that they can’t when they’re fighting, which is insane especially for fans.
 

So i’m not really blaming the fans for not treating the movies they love as art that should be celebrated and criticized seriously like any art, i’m more of saying that in the end both sides are to blame, including on this forum if i’m being honest, even if it’s obviously a lot better than in Twitter. 

I think that’s pretty much it, i don’t disagreed with you. I have a very strong opinion about this movies just when it comes to cultural monopoly, in US the movie is getting maybe half of the screens (which is already too much imo but ok), but where i live it gets 90%, making it impossible for the audience to even have the choice of watching something else, so it’s truly a problem that goes beyond personal feelings toward the movies themselves. But i don’t think this is what we’re discussing so let’s leave at that. 

And no need to apologize, i really like to discuss these things, even if i know some people are probably rolling their eyes scrolling the page haha.

 

 

 

[Menor the Destroyer]

11 minutes ago, Eric Wilson said:

Just because theaters are in a precarious financial situation doesn't mean we can't be critical about what is popular or what is "keeping them afloat". Although really, in the latter case, the idea that Marvel movies being the only thing that is "saving theaters" is not only untrue, but even if it were true, is a very toxic, objectively bad thing to call out. Like...one movie series keeping an entire industry alive is a horrible thing, but a lot of Marvel fans don't seem to care, at least from my perspective. And really, if anything, it's good to be critical of stuff largely regarded as "popular" or "well-liked" to give new perspectives, even if said criticisms can be hyperbolic. These are just corporate products at the end of the day And that also implies to well-loved art films or what people consider "true cinema". They are corporate products too, so I'm not playing sides here.

 

Plus, if I'm going to be frank, as somebody who feels like I have to walk on eggshells whenever I say anything negative about Marvel in particular, if people were saying the same things about Transformers movies or Jurassic movies or, heaven forbid, DC movies, would you, and some of the other same folks here leap to their defense? Because while Marvel is a big target, it's not the only one, and I don't see anywhere near the same defenses for those franchises when they get targeted. Which I see here and on other social media sites. Like I think both Jurassic World and Deadpool 3 are some of the worst movies to come out in the last few years, but I feel I can dog on Jurassic World all I want and say it's an affront to cinema with nobody caring, but Deadpool is something I feel I got to treat with kid gloves, because saying it's an abomination will have people thinking I am out to get a poor, innocent $30 billion enterprise or that I'm some hater who is jealous of Feige. I don't think that's very fair.

 @Brainbug would definitely care but obviously Marvel fans are going to defend the movies that they like over movies that they may or may not. 

 

Can't say I understand the idea that making a ridiculous or hyperbolic criticism is good because it "gives a new perspective" Hyperbolic whining is bad regardless of the target. 

 

And of course the broader point that you calling Jurassic World a terrible movie on isolated occasions isn't the same as the constant complaints about Marvel every time there's a success (or failure), it's inescapable on this and other websites. I don't have any issue with folks trashing movies they clearly hate but it's absurd to expect that fans aren't going to have something to say in response. Discourse goes both ways.

[Ryan C]

4 minutes ago, Eric Wilson said:

Just because theaters are in a precarious financial situation doesn't mean we can't be critical about what is popular or what is "keeping them afloat". Although really, in the latter case, the idea that Marvel movies being the only thing that is "saving theaters" is not only untrue, but even if it were true, is a very toxic, objectively bad thing to call out. Like...one movie series keeping an entire industry alive is a horrible thing, but a lot of Marvel fans don't seem to care, at least from my perspective. And really, if anything, it's good to be critical of stuff largely regarded as "popular" or "well-liked" to give new perspectives, even if said criticisms can be hyperbolic. These are just corporate products at the end of the day And that also implies to well-loved art films or what people consider "true cinema". They are corporate products too, so I'm not playing sides here.

 

Plus, if I'm going to be frank, as somebody who feels like I have to walk on eggshells whenever I say anything negative about Marvel in particular, if people were saying the same things about Transformers movies or Jurassic movies or, heaven forbid, DC movies, would you, and some of the other same folks here leap to their defense? Because while Marvel is a big target, it's not the only one, and I don't see anywhere near the same defenses for those franchises when they get targeted. Which I see here and on other social media sites. Like I think both Jurassic World and Deadpool 3 are some of the worst movies to come out in the last few years, but I feel I can dog on Jurassic World all I want and say it's an affront to cinema with nobody caring, but Deadpool is something I feel I got to treat with kid gloves, because saying it's an abomination will have people thinking I am out to get a poor, innocent $30 billion enterprise or that I'm some hater who is jealous of Feige. I don't think that's very fair.

 

I think there isn't any defense for other franchises like Jurassic World, Transformers, or DC movies (the DCEU stuff) compared to Marvel because a lot of those franchises aren't exactly well-regarded. A lot of people don't like the Jurassic World movies (outside of general audiences), a lot of people hate the Transformers movies, and the DCEU movies usually have a poor track record. 

 

Say what you will about Marvel now, but between 2008-2019 they were able to build a seriously strong reputation for quality films amongst both fans and general audiences, which I guess makes the criticisms against Marvel (especially at the time) seem a bit more shocking compared to something that is already generally disliked. 

 

Also, just to close out this thing, even as a fan of the MCU, I have no problem with people who don't like these movies. I don't expect every single person to enjoy them and that's fine. I'm just tired of people saying "Marvel is not true cinema" because more often than not, it doesn't feel genuine. It just feels like someone saw what Scorsese said and saw it as a way to justify their hatred of Marvel. 

[grey ghost]

I don't see many people bashing Jurassic World on here except maybe to sarcastically troll brain bug.

 

Transformers dares haters to take it seriously. Wearing it's cynical toilet humor on it's sleeve. If anything BOT puts those films on a pedestal.

 

I think alot of phase 4 and 5 deserve to be dragged. I do take issue with the best MCU movies being completely disregarded. Those films deserve to be defended imo.

[Dominic Draper]

4 hours 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. 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.

Deadpool and wolverine can barely even be called a movie. It's a collection of skits and cameos. It's like watching a kid hopped on sugar shove his funko collection in your face. It's one of the most shameless anti art, corporate pandering slop fests ever created.

 

Twisters is nothing special but it might as well be citizen kane next to that.

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

I just found out RDJ got paid 75 million for Endgame. Bro has gotta be getting a record salary for these next two movies.

Edited July 29 by AMC Theaters Enjoyer

[AniNate]

How does a weekend thread that gets to 67 pages manage to be the most boring one of the season?

 

 

Edited July 29 by AniNate

[Ryan C]

Just now, AniNate said:

How does a weekend thread that gets to 67 pages manage to be the most boring one of the season

 

I respectfully disagree, but I'm sure it was for you considering how much you were concerned about Twisters and its second weekend drop. Don't mean that in any condescending way. 

[AniNate]

Just now, Ryan C said:

 

I respectfully disagree, but I'm sure it was for you considering how much you were concerned about Twisters and its second weekend drop. Don't mean that in any condescending way. 

 

It's the same arguments over and over again. How many times do we have to relitigate the cinematic qualities of the MCU?

[wattage]

6 minutes ago, AMC Theaters Enjoyer said:

I just found out RDJ got paid 75 million for Endgame???? Bro has gotta be getting a record salary for these next two movies.

Was that base salary??? Like right from the budget? Or does that include back end participations. Regardless that's insane he's about to get 100 mill off this next movie.