• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

ANT-MAN & THE WASP QUANTUMANIA directed by Peyton Reed (2023)
11 11

Started by Bosco685,

1,061 posts in this topic

media_junkie

media_junkie

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 11:42 AM, Bosco685 said:

Antman3.thumb.JPG.463f0e30b4b5a170c6b147262bfa7970.JPG

Will be interesting to see how this performs going forward from opening weekend.  I am confident it will gross more than Ant 1, but may only do as well as Ant 2.  Problem is it cost $70 million more than Ant 1 and $40 million more than Ant 2.  With a "B" score and middling (at best) reviews I kind of expect this to drop off a cliff, or at least go down a step hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 11:23 AM, drotto said:

I also strongly feel the general audiences do not like Multiverse stories.  They find them confusing and convoluted, and they clearly lower the over stakes.  The general audience (IMO) has not clue what they were watching with Kang in the end credit scene. So they are immediately disconnected from those scenes. I can not think of a multiverse story that have wide spread and sustained appeal, and all we get now is multiverse.  People do not like it in the DCU, they did not like it in Star Trek, they do not like it here.

It seems the point of the Infinity Saga and the Multiverse Saga is, and will be, how do these things, Infinity Stones and the Multiverse, create a headache for our 616 Universe which our heroes must solve?

With the Infinity Saga, general audiences didn't really know the true threat the Infinity Stones posed to our universe until Avengers Infinity War. Before that, Infinity Stones were either MacGuffins or a transformational power source.

Similarly, with the Multiverse, as far as what we've been told, we don't yet know enough about it. So far, it's either been a source of power (i.e. Chaos energy), a source of monsters, or a way to explore parallel universes, parallel selves, or periods of time. So far the Multiverse isn't so much of a MacGuffin as it is a story setting.

However, some comics readers know that the Multiverse in Marvel Comics leads to a multiversal war (like the 2015 Secret Wars event), where some universes threatened the entire existence of other universes, like our 616 universe. This has already been hinted at in Loki and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness where the concept of incursions is introduced. Right now, the Multiverse is more of a concept still being explored or a story setting, with its true threat still to be revealed. This is kind of how it was during the Infinity Saga. I'm thinking the Multiverse Saga is no different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drotto

drotto

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/20/2023 at 2:58 PM, media_junkie said:

Will be interesting to see how this performs going forward from opening weekend.  I am confident it will gross more than Ant 1, but may only do as well as Ant 2.  Problem is it cost $70 million more than Ant 1 and $40 million more than Ant 2.  With a "B" score and middling (at best) reviews I kind of expect this to drop off a cliff, or at least go down a step hill.

Plus, marketing costs are way up.  The initial films were likely around $75 to $100 million,  with inflation and the Superball ads, this marketing budget is likely upwards of $150 million. So they have roughly $325 to $350 million into this film, which means $650 box office or so is the break even point.

Edited by drotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
drotto

drotto

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/20/2023 at 3:08 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

It seems the point of the Infinity Saga and the Multiverse Saga is, and will be, how do these things, Infinity Stones and the Multiverse, create a headache for our 616 Universe which our heroes must solve?

With the Infinity Saga, general audiences didn't really know the true threat the Infinity Stones posed to our universe until Avengers Infinity War. Before that, Infinity Stones were either MacGuffins or a transformational power source.

Similarly, with the Multiverse, as far as what we've been told, we don't yet know enough about it. So far, it's either been a source of power (i.e. Chaos energy), a source of monsters, or a way to explore parallel universes, parallel selves, or periods of time. So far the Multiverse isn't so much of a MacGuffin as it is a story setting.

However, some comics readers know that the Multiverse in Marvel Comics leads to a multiversal war (like the 2015 Secret Wars event), where some universes threatened the entire existence of other universes, like our 616 universe. This has already been hinted at in Loki and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness where the concept of incursions is introduced. Right now, the Multiverse is more of a concept still being explored or a story setting, with its true threat still to be revealed. This is kind of how it was during the Infinity Saga. I'm thinking the Multiverse Saga is no different.

 

But the Infinity Saga was infinitely easier to understand on the basic general public, popcorn movie level. Stones when brought together are very powerful. Thanos is bad, wants Stones to do bad things. That is all that was needed to enjoy the movie. The multiverse already has many casual fans saying they are confused, and nothing show yet has clarified anything. We already have multiple Kangs, and no clear motive other than I want to rule.

 

Again, the public does not seem to like multiverse stories long term, and it lowers stakes.  Who cares if they kill Kang, when they just showed 1000's more?  Who cares if they kill Tony, when there are potentially thousands more.

Edited by drotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
drotto

drotto

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 3:35 PM, Bosco685 said:

220218_AM3.PNG.e8a42c98aeb2240ad908bfded6e174e1.PNG

 

220220_AM3.PNG.8314db3be6fea2c52768ca8d5fa2ba0b.PNG

How does the audience score jive with Metacritic who has a current fan score of 6.1?  That seems somewhat more in line with the critic scores.  Is it just the over simplification of essentially yes/no on RT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 3:41 PM, drotto said:

How does the audience score jive with Metacritic who has a current fan score of 6.1?  That seems somewhat more in line with the critic scores.  Is it just the over simplification of essentially yes/no on RT?

Time will tell if this is another Rise of Skywalker situation.

ROS_Ratings.PNG.cbe814ccf6c6b931ae443c9185fe9ef9.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fmaz

fmaz

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 10:43 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

No, my logic is solid. Repeated mediocre pizza = makes one sick. Repeated high-quality pizza = still want pizza.

Why would the audience want to pay money to see a movie in theaters that they have on-disc at home, just with character skin swaps?

My last attempt, because after this I am guilty of several sins of fruitless arguing.

If you call it “repeated mediocre” pizza… that means, by definition … that you have felt that all the movies have been mediocre. You have never found them to be of anything other than mediocre quality.  So maybe in the beginning you “tolerated” them?  If that is what you’re saying, fine. You never liked the movies to begin with, so of course you don’t like this one.

But you are the one inserting “mediocre” in there. The early movies were beloved and and highly regarded. So they were high quality pizza, in your example. Many people now are just saying “its gone on long enough” without criticizing the movie itself.

That’s my point. Want to talk about the QUALITY of this particular movie? That is fine. I’m all for that.  People can do that.

But you can’t say you enjoyed the movies in the past and now you don’t anymore simply because they’ve gone on too long — or at least you can’t use that as an argument as to why the stand-alone quality of this movie is objectively bad.

Nor can you game the system by jamming the word “mediocre” in there… which isn’t an accurate representation of all history. It might be of yours, which is fine.  And like I said, if that’s how you’ve always felt, then sure, I see why you don’t like this movie. But then if this movie was out three years ago you wouldn’t have liked it then either… because mediocre is mediocre.

But if the quality of this movie is akin to the quality of the older movies (and you seem to say it is) then it probably is worthy of being reviewed similarly, as a movie. People might not want to support it with their hard-earned cash. But it doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. It just means there isn’t an appetite for it anymore. 

They didn’t start making bad westerns, you know. People just got tired of them for 50 years. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 6:30 PM, Bo1983 said:

Rotten Tomatoes and CBR are reporting the same number thru Monday who knows??

I posted what was going on the other day when this initially came up. But I think a few of you were in the heat of debating these future-state numbers.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bo1983

Bo1983

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 6:35 PM, Bosco685 said:

I posted what was going on the other day when this initially came up. But I think a few of you were in the heat of debating these future-state numbers.

:cheers:

It’s not my money lol I just like comic movies and I’m happy when they succeed!I thought black Adam was  comic book movie thru and thru!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lpgk

Lpgk

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2023 at 6:23 AM, drotto said:

 

 

I also strongly feel the general audiences do not like Multiverse stories.  They find them confusing and convoluted, and they clearly lower the over stakes.  The general audience (IMO) has not clue what they were watching with Kang in the end credit scene. So they are immediately disconnected from those scenes. I can not think of a multiverse story that have wide spread and sustained appeal, and all we get now is multiverse.  People do not like it in the DCU, they did not like it in Star Trek, they do not like it here.

 You have a good point. If I was to bring a casual movie viewer to this movie, they would have no clue what the end credits mean. Why does Jonathan Majors wear multiple outfits? Why is there a whole arena of them? They have to be careful not to assume the casual public is that well invested in the MCU or you lose them entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
11 11
Go to topic listing