THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023) 9 9

[ADAMANTIUM]

Well I stepped out with my brother to see Marvels, I thought it was good! The Kahn Ms Marvel is a spirited actress, although I hadn't seen the streaming, and all I know is that

Spoiler

Last I heard kamala Kahn was dead in comics 

I probably didn't get all the references, even with a captain my captain line thrown in.

I thoroughly got through it, very family spirited at times, and had an ending I suppose for closure to past cinema. I didn't leave wanting, I did have questions at the end, but again, I haven't seen most streaming except the 1st 2 episodes of Loki.

It felt like the early days of what I've seen of the MCU. Not a lot of forced or baffoonery. It didn't captivate as an iron man would, but then it's not THAT character so I wasn't expecting it. B or c so-called characters still can play out as interesting. None of the cgi was over the top. But I don't go into all films expecting to have my socks blown off.

True there are Blockbuster movies, but in any genre it's usually the 1st 2 or possible three in a series?

Spoiler

With all mcu trying to connect? Hitting a Blockbuster always seems silly. As does counting it out on day 2

Ya there is the internet, but I'd rather pay 15$ to decide for myself, if I get tired of it then OK, but seems to me it's more energy to read all these reviews to decide? Just go watch a movie and get off my lawn

I say that cause it's in my heart, but I saw like 3 to 4 reviews pop up on my feed this morning at the crack of dawn!! I didn't click on them, just got digust, cause I didn't even due that when they were in the newspaper when I was kid. Just because it is on a computer, it still hits me the same. Even critics on TV as a kid, total spoilers.

Tell me all about the movie, whether you like the movie To decide if I'll go see it? How is that like not seeing anything with fresh eyes? Sheesh, it's not a final exam   shouldn't be that hard to know if you want to see a movie 

[batmiesta]

On 11/10/2023 at 5:31 PM, fantastic_four said:

I still love going out to the movies.  Why don't you guys?  

I still like going to the movies, but it has to be something I want to see, not this Bollocks. 

[CGC Mike]

On 11/10/2023 at 6:31 PM, PopKulture said:

On 11/10/2023 at 6:27 PM, paqart said:

Say that to someone who didn't have their business destroyed in the lockdown.

As has been made clear many times, this isn’t the place to address such things. Keep on point about the movie at hand. We seemed to have been allowed a fairly generous berth these past few days, but a blunt detour like this may sadly lead to us not being able to discuss the opening weekend even - good or bad.  

@PopKulture speaks the truth.  This thread has seen enough about the pandemic and any political hints that may lure people into a political discussion.  I am not singling anyone out. Keep the discussion on topic.   The same goes for any other threads.  I do not like to have to open my toolbox, but I will if a post or string of posts cross the line.  

[jimjum12]

On 11/10/2023 at 12:31 PM, fantastic_four said:

I still love going out to the movies.  Why don't you guys?  

Perhaps they don't have the twins to accompany them ?  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... You said you skip DC television, but for me, Gotham and Pennyworth were a couple of my favorite shows ever.

[Bosco685]

That is quite telling for opening week audiences.

[jimjum12]

I thought the trailer looked very intriguing. I'm sure I'll love it ... I'm not intimidated by strong alpha women. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[TupennyConan]

Rooting for this film's success. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/11/2023 at 4:57 AM, jimjum12 said:

I thought the trailer looked very intriguing. I'm sure I'll love it ... I'm not intimidated by strong alpha women. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Is that the dissatisfier with this movie - powerful women in the lead?

That must be it. Men are so silly.

[jimjum12]

On 11/11/2023 at 5:46 AM, Bosco685 said:

Is that the dissatisfier with this movie - powerful women in the lead?

That must be it. Men are so silly.

It's either that, or this place is a Mecca for people who are unable to like anything. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Bosco685]

On 11/11/2023 at 6:33 AM, jimjum12 said:

It's either that, or this place is a Mecca for people who are unable to like anything. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Definitely it. Meanwhile for our listening pleasure - women with powerful vocals singing about Jesus.

 

[Bosco685]

I didn't know this before now

Quote

Following The Marvels' release in theaters (and the resolution of the Hollywood actors' strike), Loki star Tom Hiddleston finally offered up his thoughts on his wife Zawe Ashton joining the franchise. 

 

Speaking on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, Hiddleston joked about a potential connection between Loki Season 2 and The Marvels (which stars Ashton), "there are connections:" 

 

Fallon (going through Marvel fan theories): "One theory: Is there a secret connection between 'Loki' Season 2 and the film, 'The Marvels'?"

 

Hiddleston: "I mean, there are connections. Some secret, some not so secret... I don't klnow what the fans think the secret connection is...

 

Paramount of these connections is his "other half," who plays the villain Dar-Benn in the film, whom he is "very proud of:"

 

Fallon: "That tells me that there is no connection."

 

Hiddleston: "Well, my other half is in 'The Marvels,' and I'm very proud of her. So there ya go. And that's out this weekend."

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Bosco685

[Nick Furious]

On 11/11/2023 at 4:46 AM, Bosco685 said:

Is that the dissatisfier with this movie - powerful women in the lead?

That must be it. Men are so silly.

If I learned anything from streaming Barbie last night with my wife and daughter, it's that the Patriarchy is real.  And thank goodness for that because, if the movie is to be believed, it's a whole lot more fun and exciting than the stale boring sameness of the Matriarchy.  

Another thing I learned is don't be resistant to letting old ideas get re-imagined.  Because sometimes you get something really great in the re-imagining.  

Edited November 11, 2023 by Nick Furious

[Buzzetta]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:15 PM, paqart said:

This is irrelevant to the main point, which is the damage Disney is doing to itself by committing to the type of themes we've been seeing in recent years. I don't like the new Disney. Apparently, neither do others on this board. You may have an opposite opinion. However, that doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if your opinion is objectively correct and everyone else is wrong. That would be like telling someone that their necktie is tied wrong while their hair is on fire. In that situation, no one should care about the necktie.

Disney was a brand beloved by hundreds of millions. Before long, it may be a brand beloved by a million or less. Those fans may be very happy with the new Disney, but Disney's shareholders (who once included my mother-in-law) probably won't appreciate sacrificing the value of their stock on the altar of the latest demand from non-shareholders. This is particularly the case when the people demanding that Disney change their products viscerally despise the values of the largest portion of Disney's customer base. That fact alone would be enough to convince any reasonable CEO to either do the opposite of what is demanded, or to ignore the request.

Everyone likes to imagine they are in the majority, but either one side is wrong, or neither is the majority because they are exactly equal. There are ways to determine which is which. The easiest measure for any publicly traded company is to look at its revenue. If it's falling, try to determine the cause. In this situation, one thing you don't want to do is ignore your customers when they frequently complain publicly about changes to your product.

My favorite comic books are all Disney properties. My favorite one thousand or so comic books all feature Donald Duck. That likely won't change because each story has intrinsic merit that will not vanish over time. The value of the Disney logo, however, could vanish very quickly, and is already happening. Unfortunately, their purchase of Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars has already tainted all three of those brands.

My point was not irrelevant.  It was irrelevant to YOU because it does not fit your narrative.   To be honest, I will probably not be seeing The Marvels in the theater.  It does not look like a strong movie worth the price of admission and time spent in the theater the same way I did not see Transformers in the theater.  Now, will I watch it when it hits Disney+ in a few months?  I will definitely check it out after I watch the series, Ms. Marvel.  In no way will I stay away from a movie because of some fear of being "emasculated."

You come here running your mouth spouting off the dangers of emasculation because a comic book character was gifted by the powers that be to have a stronger power set than a male.  You know that these are imaginary powers?  Oh no, the powered being has to rescue the male character and the roles switched places between the traditional damsel in distress who played a bumbling oaf and now a male plays that role.   All of a sudden you feel your "little paqart" is small.   Don't worry, a quite a few people across all areas and backgrounds revealed in the last thread and the last time you ran your mouth that they think you are a "big paqart".

The problem is that your beliefs are your brand.  I have gone through some of your writings, your missives, your comments here and elsewhere.  You have to support and build that brand dontchya?  See this is what some would call, your gimmick, and you have successfully blurred the lines between performing your little gimmick and living it.   Now, how the brand started is up for debate.  I am sure it was born into some form of your actual belief system, but again I will go back to what I said earlier, "She said, 'No", it's probably been many years since.  It's time to move on."

Now, @VintageComics I saw earlier you said you were disappointed in how I speak to this guy.  I am sorry if I have made you uncomfortable, as that was not my intent.  I think there is a part of you though, that knows I am curbing my comments and I would have a much stronger voice to him in person, if he was ever worth my limited personal free time. 

 

@jsilverjanet  See what you started  ? 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Buzzetta

[paperheart]

Cinemascore; tied with Eternals & A-M:Q as MCU worst

[Buzzetta]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:45 AM, paperheart said:

Cinemascore; tied with Eternals & A-M:Q as MCU worst

Eternals was  to me... forgettable characters as far as I was concerned... Even the tag at the end was not so much a big reveal of a character but the actor that would play him.  

I found Ant Man... actually enjoyable.  The SFX were muddy and distracting at points, but I find Paul Rudd amusing.  I would sit down and watch a movie that he is in based on Rudd so I may have given it a bump above others just for that. 

[Straw-Man]

with over 200 reviews in, looks like it'll end barely "fresh" on rt; i'd have lost that bet.

[media_junkie]

On 11/11/2023 at 10:13 AM, Straw-Man said:

with over 200 reviews in, looks like it'll end barely "fresh" on rt; i'd have lost that bet.

Yeah, it took a different trajectory than normal.  Most films when the initial reviews come in that is typically the highest it goes (The Marvels landed at like 55% when it first dropped) and then it goes down from there.  This one started at 55 then went to 61 then back down to 59 then back up to 62.  I'm not saying anything nefarious was done (also not saying it wasn't) but that isn't how a typical movie tracks.  Now on the flip side the "Verified Audience" rating is looking a bit gamed to me.  It started at 85% and has stayed at 85%.  Almost like that one Star Wars movie @Bosco685 posts from time to time.  That will be something to watch over the next few days.

Edited November 11, 2023 by media_junkie

[Nick Furious]

On 11/11/2023 at 8:34 AM, Buzzetta said:

My point was not irrelevant.  It was irrelevant to YOU because it does not fit your narrative.   To be honest, I will probably not be seeing The Marvels in the theater.  It does not look like a strong movie worth the price of admission and time spent in the theater the same way I did not see Transformers in the theater.  Now, will I watch it when it hits Disney+ in a few months?  I will definitely check it out after I watch the series, Ms. Marvel.  In no way will I stay away from a movie because of some fear of being "emasculated."

You come here running your mouth spouting off the dangers of emasculation because a comic book character was gifted by the powers that be to have a stronger power set than a male.  You know that these are imaginary powers?  Oh no, the powered being has to rescue the male character and the roles switched places between the traditional damsel in distress who played a bumbling oaf and now a male plays that role.   All of a sudden you feel your "little paqart" is small.   Don't worry, a quite a few people across all areas and backgrounds revealed in the last thread and the last time you ran your mouth that they think you are a "big paqart".

The problem is that your beliefs are your brand.  I have gone through some of your writings, your missives, your comments here and elsewhere.  You have to support and build that brand dontchya?  See this is what some would call, your gimmick, and you have successfully blurred the lines between performing your little gimmick and living it.   Now, how the brand started is up for debate.  I am sure it was born into some form of your actual belief system, but again I will go back to what I said earlier, "She said, 'No", it's probably been many years since.  It's time to move on."

Now, @VintageComics I saw earlier you said you were disappointed in how I speak to this guy.  I am sorry if I have made you uncomfortable, as that was not my intent.  I think there is a part of you though, that knows I am curbing my comments and I would have a much stronger voice to him in person, if he was ever worth my limited personal free time. 

 

@jsilverjanet  See what you started  ? 

 

[fantastic_four]

On 11/10/2023 at 2:19 PM, Dr. Balls said:

As it sits, Marvels will make zero dollars from me now, and it will make fractions of dollars when it streams two months from now. They could have made $30 from me tomorrow night, but they’re leaving that on the table because they can’t predict how many times I will do that in the future. Welcome to my world, Disney - savor the flavor of the unpredictable customer’s spending habits. 

Pre-pandemic movie theatre chains had it built into their agreements with the studios that those studios would not offer new movies on streaming to compete with theaters.  That got eased a bit during the pandemic, although I think one of the big chains wouldn't budge on it, although I don't recall which one--but I'm sure Bosco would because I think he was posting about that chain here when it happened.

Now I'm not sure what the agreements are like, but my guess is they've gone back to requiring the studios to not offer blockbusters via streaming up front.  They think that what you're proposing will put them completely out of business, and that certainly makes sense to me.  My guess is that the studios think as you do and would prefer to offer both, but I doubt it's solely their decision.

[fantastic_four]

On 11/10/2023 at 10:59 AM, paperheart said:

#fireFeige

So fire the only guy who's ever done what he's done.  The guy Warner Brothers has been searching for their own version of for almost two decades without success.  I had high hopes that Geoff Johns would be that guy, but I was skeptical from the start--with good reason, it turned out.  Creative types like him usually get frustrated with the business aspect of films after a while when they're relatively young like he was, so I wasn't at all surprised when he stepped down.  They never fully gave him control anyway, so I'm still not sure who to blame that on.

So, fire a one of one dude in Feige and replace him with...who?    Ideally it will be a superfan without writing or art creds like Feige has always been.  There was never any danger that Feige would go back to writing or drawing because he didn't have skill at that to even fall back on it like a Geoff Johns did.  That's Kathleen Kennedy's problem--she's a stellar producer, but she is NOT a content curator, nor does she appear to have much of an instinct for how to curate content and Star Wars has suffered for it.  I'm guessing Kennedy has never known who Figrin D'an is, and that's who they need curating their content--a superfan.  Pablo Hidalgo and Dave Filoni are superfans, but both are also writers so they're not ideal candidates.  They're still both the best candidates to have creative control over that content, but neither has really been given that control to date so who knows how they'd do.