• 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

Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
On 2/21/2023 at 1:07 PM, paperheart said:

someone at Box Office Mojo got back in the office after the holiday weekend

image.png.40365f77804b7230dfdeb52d64cdd136.png

What a convenient "mistake" that allowed a few shills, including many in the shill media, to quickly circulate as much misinformation as they could to help make this bomb look better than it is.

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
fett

fett

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

just got back from seeing this and I thought it was pretty good, way better than Eternals IMHO. I do like Rudd as ant-man though and Majors was fantastic as Kang. Marvel has been stellar casting their big bad guys, and he is a worthy successor to Brolin's Thanos. I know opinions on any comic book movie property are going to be spread out now that the shine is off of the industry, but did I mention I thought it was wayyy better than Eternals? :) I only went to see that to get to see how they handled the Celestials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2023 at 4:31 AM, Bo1983 said:

278 million in the first 5 days is good for Kangs first movie!!

40D9B70D-48FA-44E9-BCCD-7A21F2EFB89E.png

Except that it's actually only made 250M.  The "49M" being reported by the numbers is clearly wrong.  And again, mighty funny how the box office reporting on this FLOP are seemingly deliberately wonky and always immediately being pumped by Marvel shills before they are eventually.and quietly "corrected".  

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bo1983

Bo1983

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/22/2023 at 10:05 AM, Jaydogrules said:

Except that it's actually only made 250M.  The "49M" being reported by the numbers is clearly wrong.  And again, mighty funny how the box office reporting on this FLOP are seemingly deliberately wonky and always immediately being pumped by Marvel shills before they are eventually.and quietly "corrected".  

-J.

Who knows who’s right??Disney buys tickets for black panther and Captain marvel in my opinion!

Edited by Bo1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

From comics legend Roy Thomas:

John Cimino and I joined our friend Jim Clark (a retired USAF officer) at an early showing of "Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania."  It wasn't my favorite Marvel movie, but I've got to say that it reinforced my view that "Rotten Tomatoes" and a lot of other Internet sources are just this side of useless when it comes to accessing the quality of a Marvel film... or maybe any other one, as well.  Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Michele Feiffer, and the rest--but especially Rudd--made this "Ant-Man Meets Star Wars" episode a fun romp, even if there was necessarily so much CGI that sometimes it became hard to get your bearings.  But hey--they're a quintet of Earth humans in a sub-atomic universe--this isn't Mayberry or Fernwood, for Crom's sake!

One common complaint seems to be that this "Ant-Man" isn't small-scale and light like the first one.  Well, duh (as they say).  Why should the third "Ant-Man" movie follow the same pattern as the first one or two?  If it had, then these same souls would be complaining that Marvel was just making the same movie over again (remember "Thor:  Dark World"?)!  Why shouldn't Ant-Man, especially in the wake of his crucial role in "Avengers: Endgame" be involved in something bigger--even if it's actually something smaller?  Even Spider-Man started off as just a high school kid bitten by a spider, and a few movies later he's battling Thanos on another world.

The film has flaws, sure... and I agree with the complaint that too much cheap humor is made in recent movies of the heroes' names, like MODOK in this one.  (The only such joke I ever liked was in the first "Ant-Man," when Pym tells Lang his code title will be "Ant-Man" and he asks, "Is it too late to change the name?"--because that's a quite normal reaction for a person to have.  "ANT-man"?  By the way, am I right in thinking that that joke was only in the trailer but didn't make it into the finished film, or did I blink and miss it there?).  But, flaws and all, it's better than most of the Disney+ shows to date ("WandaVision" definitely excepted)... It was just a good solid visual romp, enlivened by several very good actors playing well-delineated characters.

And by the way, for the record, I'll have to disagree with one or two of my fellow comics pros in saying that never, from his first appearance early in THE AVENGERS comicbook till now, have I considered Kang the Conqueror a silly character, or the notion of a villain trying to change history in his/her favor a not-worthwhile approach to a storyline.  Au contraire.

Too bad the MCU probably won't follow my lead back in the late '60s and pit Kang in battle with the Grandmaster.  The comics world got both the Squadron Sinister/Supreme and the Invaders out of that one.

Best wishes,

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bo1983

Bo1983

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2023 at 11:58 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

From comics legend Roy Thomas:

John Cimino and I joined our friend Jim Clark (a retired USAF officer) at an early showing of "Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania."  It wasn't my favorite Marvel movie, but I've got to say that it reinforced my view that "Rotten Tomatoes" and a lot of other Internet sources are just this side of useless when it comes to accessing the quality of a Marvel film... or maybe any other one, as well.  Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Michele Feiffer, and the rest--but especially Rudd--made this "Ant-Man Meets Star Wars" episode a fun romp, even if there was necessarily so much CGI that sometimes it became hard to get your bearings.  But hey--they're a quintet of Earth humans in a sub-atomic universe--this isn't Mayberry or Fernwood, for Crom's sake!

One common complaint seems to be that this "Ant-Man" isn't small-scale and light like the first one.  Well, duh (as they say).  Why should the third "Ant-Man" movie follow the same pattern as the first one or two?  If it had, then these same souls would be complaining that Marvel was just making the same movie over again (remember "Thor:  Dark World"?)!  Why shouldn't Ant-Man, especially in the wake of his crucial role in "Avengers: Endgame" be involved in something bigger--even if it's actually something smaller?  Even Spider-Man started off as just a high school kid bitten by a spider, and a few movies later he's battling Thanos on another world.

The film has flaws, sure... and I agree with the complaint that too much cheap humor is made in recent movies of the heroes' names, like MODOK in this one.  (The only such joke I ever liked was in the first "Ant-Man," when Pym tells Lang his code title will be "Ant-Man" and he asks, "Is it too late to change the name?"--because that's a quite normal reaction for a person to have.  "ANT-man"?  By the way, am I right in thinking that that joke was only in the trailer but didn't make it into the finished film, or did I blink and miss it there?).  But, flaws and all, it's better than most of the Disney+ shows to date ("WandaVision" definitely excepted)... It was just a good solid visual romp, enlivened by several very good actors playing well-delineated characters.

And by the way, for the record, I'll have to disagree with one or two of my fellow comics pros in saying that never, from his first appearance early in THE AVENGERS comicbook till now, have I considered Kang the Conqueror a silly character, or the notion of a villain trying to change history in his/her favor a not-worthwhile approach to a storyline.  Au contraire.

Too bad the MCU probably won't follow my lead back in the late '60s and pit Kang in battle with the Grandmaster.  The comics world got both the Squadron Sinister/Supreme and the Invaders out of that one.

Best wishes,

Roy

I hope we get a live action Hyperion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 2/22/2023 at 11:58 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

From comics legend Roy Thomas:

John Cimino and I joined our friend Jim Clark (a retired USAF officer) at an early showing of "Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania."  It wasn't my favorite Marvel movie, but I've got to say that it reinforced my view that "Rotten Tomatoes" and a lot of other Internet sources are just this side of useless when it comes to accessing the quality of a Marvel film... or maybe any other one, as well.  Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Michele Feiffer, and the rest--but especially Rudd--made this "Ant-Man Meets Star Wars" episode a fun romp, even if there was necessarily so much CGI that sometimes it became hard to get your bearings.  But hey--they're a quintet of Earth humans in a sub-atomic universe--this isn't Mayberry or Fernwood, for Crom's sake!

One common complaint seems to be that this "Ant-Man" isn't small-scale and light like the first one.  Well, duh (as they say).  Why should the third "Ant-Man" movie follow the same pattern as the first one or two?  If it had, then these same souls would be complaining that Marvel was just making the same movie over again (remember "Thor:  Dark World"?)!  Why shouldn't Ant-Man, especially in the wake of his crucial role in "Avengers: Endgame" be involved in something bigger--even if it's actually something smaller?  Even Spider-Man started off as just a high school kid bitten by a spider, and a few movies later he's battling Thanos on another world.

The film has flaws, sure... and I agree with the complaint that too much cheap humor is made in recent movies of the heroes' names, like MODOK in this one.  (The only such joke I ever liked was in the first "Ant-Man," when Pym tells Lang his code title will be "Ant-Man" and he asks, "Is it too late to change the name?"--because that's a quite normal reaction for a person to have.  "ANT-man"?  By the way, am I right in thinking that that joke was only in the trailer but didn't make it into the finished film, or did I blink and miss it there?).  But, flaws and all, it's better than most of the Disney+ shows to date ("WandaVision" definitely excepted)... It was just a good solid visual romp, enlivened by several very good actors playing well-delineated characters.

And by the way, for the record, I'll have to disagree with one or two of my fellow comics pros in saying that never, from his first appearance early in THE AVENGERS comicbook till now, have I considered Kang the Conqueror a silly character, or the notion of a villain trying to change history in his/her favor a not-worthwhile approach to a storyline.  Au contraire.

Too bad the MCU probably won't follow my lead back in the late '60s and pit Kang in battle with the Grandmaster.  The comics world got both the Squadron Sinister/Supreme and the Invaders out of that one.

Best wishes,

Roy

Wait. So when DC or Sony Marvel films get low Rotten Tomatoes ratings you gleefully post these things repeatedly in those threads with, "Sell it to Disney/MCU" but when critics turn on the MCU then it really doesn't matter?

didnt-see-that-one-coming-surprise.gif.2b73d644d6d64c3ef211446fa7e9b527.gif

Edited by Bosco685
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