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

[theCapraAegagrus]

10 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Overtly not true.

Better critical reviews and better box office than:

• Hulk 1 and 2
• Thor 1 and 2
• Iron Man 2
• Amazing Spider-Man 1 + 2

Better box office (the biggest measure of movie "fans" out there) than most of the overtly non-Avengers films, and the 5th-best box office of the year, ahead of such films as:

• The Rise of Skywalker
• Spider-Man: Far from Home
• Aladdin
• Joker

Here's a hint - if folks don't like a film, it bombs. Because folks tell their friends.

Perfect example of this?

Justice League. It made more than 40% of its entire domestic take in its first three days.

Here's a hint, that has been mentioned dozens of times: She was paged by a dying character who has existed since the franchise began, at the end of the first half of the 2-part finale to a story that was being told over a decade, after the beloved heroes lost. Everywhere in my state was sold out in pre-sale within 2 weeks of being available. Most people did not buy tickets because they wanted to see it so badly. They bought tickets because of the tie-in. The movie's mediocre reviews accurately reflect how mediocre the movie is.

Comparing Captain Marvel to Justice League is accurate. They're both mediocre, with poor direction, and poor writing. One of them has a poorly-acted title character. The other is being salvaged. The latter is Part 4 of a franchise; Not Part 21.

Edited July 29, 2020 by theCapraAegagrus

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Overtly not true.

Better critical reviews and better box office than:

• Hulk 1 and 2
• Thor 1 and 2
• Iron Man 2
• Amazing Spider-Man 1 + 2

Better box office (the biggest measure of movie "fans" out there) than most of the overtly non-Avengers films, and the 5th-best box office of the year, ahead of such films as:

• The Rise of Skywalker
• Spider-Man: Far from Home
• Aladdin
• Joker

Here's a hint - if folks don't like a film, it bombs. Because folks tell their friends.

Perfect example of this?

Justice League. It made more than 40% of its entire domestic take in its first three days.

[Bosco685]

Or...

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Here's a hint, that has been mentioned dozens of times: She was paged by a dying character who has existed since the franchise began, at the end of the first half of the 2-part finale to a story that was being told over a decade, after the beloved heroes lost. Everywhere in my state was sold out in pre-sale within 2 weeks of being available. Most people did not buy tickets because they wanted to see it so badly. They bought tickets because of the tie-in. The movie's mediocre reviews accurately reflect how mediocre the movie is.

Comparing Captain Marvel to Justice League is accurate. They're both mediocre, with poor direction, and poor writing. One of them has a poorly-acted title character. The other is being salvaged. The latter is Part 4 of a franchise; Not Part 21.

You don't know that.

Occam's Razor - the simplest reason is likely the best.

The fact is, Captain Marvel was a blockbuster with excellent fan reception. Maybe not by "comic book fans," but by the public at large.

And every indication given by the studio is they are going to capitalize on that success with a second blockbuster film that is set to be a backdoor Avengers movie in the same way that Captain America: Civil War was.

And yet, the 4-5 negative voices in this thread have to tie themselves into knots to both justify and wish away its unequivocal success.

• "It only did so well because it was marketed as a tie-in to Avengers" (a. you can't prove a negative. b. I think it was sold as a fun galactic adventure, a la Guardians. And would have done just as well post-Endgame. Again, can't prove that either, so it's moot.)
• "The positive critical rating was only because Disney's bought off the critics" ()
• "It only did so well because comic book fans pre-bought tickets for multiple showings before they knew it was ."
• "It only did so well because I hated it, but went back again to see it anyway with different groups of friends."

At the end of the day, the film doesn't need SilverMane, or me, or anyone else to defend its success.

Its success speaks for itself.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

You don't know that.

Occam's Razor - the simplest reason is likely the best.

The fact is, Captain Marvel was a blockbuster with excellent fan reception. Maybe not by "comic book fans," but by the public at large.

And every indication given by the studio is they are going to capitalize on that success with a second blockbuster film that is set to be a backdoor Avengers movie in the same way that Captain America: Civil War was.

And yet, the 4-5 negative voices in this thread have to tie themselves into knots to both justify and wish away its unequivocal success.

• "It only did so well because it was marketed as a tie-in to Avengers" (a. you can't prove a negative. b. I think it was sold as a fun galactic adventure, a la Guardians. And would have done just as well post-Endgame. Again, can't prove that either, so it's moot.)
• "The positive critical rating was only because Disney's bought off the critics" ()
• "It only did so well because comic book fans pre-bought tickets for multiple showings before they knew it was ."
• "It only did so well because I hated it, but went back again to see it anyway with different groups of friends."

At the end of the day, the film doesn't need SilverMane, or me, or anyone else to defend its success.

Its success speaks for itself.

"Someone has a different view than me" is your "4-5 negative voices". The fact is there is a portion of the audience that didn't appreciate Captain Marvel nor the portrayal. Maybe the sequel will resolve that. Time will tell.

Yet you have talked down other films with every certified fan accounting practice - including early on your expert determinations how Joker was going to be a bomb. You know - your negative voice tying yourself in knots over a film to prove how super-savvy your studio account superpower is over others.

Oh - and your "EVEN TRANSFORMERS MOVIES MAKE MONEY - AND THEY SUCK!" Such positive energy there.

[Gatsby77]

54 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 "EVEN TRANSFORMERS MOVIES MAKE MONEY - AND THEY SUCK!"

Yes - I said that, and it's true.

But please -- educate me.

Explain to me how the Transformers films are somehow excellent in ways that my feeble mind just failed to comprehend, especially chapters 3, 4, and 5.

Please use small words, if you can. I went to public school.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Yes - I said that, and it's true.

But please -- educate me.

Explain to me how the Transformers films are somehow excellent in ways that my feeble mind just failed to comprehend, especially chapters 3, 4, and 5.

Please use small words, if you can. I went to public school.

Hey, it's your cherry-picking statistical reference point of choice. You explain it. Like any topic of a film, it has a large fanbase. That's their focus of choice.

Meanwhile, just because people didn't appreciate the MCU's Captain Marvel thus far doesn't make them 'haters'. That's your debating game to have an adversary so if they disliked a film or portrayal then it's a personality problem with the person making the point.

Meanwhile - avoiding your mockery of people with a public school education (classy) - there are many that enjoyed Captain Marvel. Then, there are those that either did not enjoy the film, the current portrayal or a set few not on this forum taking offense to her comments about White men. I don't think anyone I have read making a less-than-positive point has noted that as their sore point. Other than a few of you fine individuals making it out that anyone not appreciating the film are anti-feminist.

You act offended. Yet then carp on other films.Or better yet. How you were going to protect everyone from seeing Batman v Superman because you were so turned off by it, you had to protect fellow board members. Ahhhh - the good old days.

[Gatsby77]

19 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Hey, it's your cherry-picking statistical reference point of choice. You explain it. Like any topic of a film, it has a large fanbase. That's their focus of choice.

Meanwhile, just because people didn't appreciate the MCU's Captain Marvel thus far doesn't make them 'haters'. That's your debating game to have an adversary so if they disliked a film or portrayal then it's a personality problem with the person making the point.

Meanwhile - avoiding your mockery of people with a public school education (classy) - there are many that enjoyed Captain Marvel. Then, there are those that either did not enjoy the film, the current portrayal or a set few not on this forum taking offense to her comments about White men. I don't think anyone I have read making a less-than-positive point has noted that as their sore point. Other than a few of you fine individuals making it out that anyone not appreciating the film are anti-feminist.

You act offended. Yet then carp on other films.Or better yet. How you were going to protect everyone from seeing Batman v Superman because you were so turned off by it, you had to protect fellow board members. Ahhhh - the good old days.

I missed it. Again, reading comprehension's not my strong suit.

But you're saying the Transformers sequels were good?

Or is it that Batman v. Superman was better?

What was it - the anorexic Luthor who menacingly threatens a senator with a jolly rancer?

The inane deus ex Martha?

The ridiculous CGI that turned Doomsday - one of the coolest Superman villains of the last 50 years - into a Toxic Avenger reject?

You're right - it was a far superior film to Captain Marvel, and not at all an affront to life-long Superman (or Batman) fans.

In fact, it was so successful that Ben Affleck signed a 4+ picture deal to reprise his role...

[Bosco685]

55 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I missed it. Again, reading comprehension's not my strong suit.

But you're saying the Transformers sequels were good?

Or is it that Batman v. Superman was better?

What was it - the anorexic Luthor who menacingly threatens a senator with a jolly rancer?

The inane deus ex Martha?

The ridiculous CGI that turned Doomsday - one of the coolest Superman villains of the last 50 years - into a Toxic Avenger reject?

You're right - it was a far superior film to Captain Marvel, and not at all an affront to life-long Superman (or Batman) fans.

In fact, it was so successful that Ben Affleck signed a 4+ picture deal to reprise his role...

Hey, I get you have masculinity jealousy concerns with Affleck. It takes a lot to achieve that level of conditioning.

Meanwhile, his performance was such a contribution it has led to a massive movement that overwhelmingly convinced AT&T and HBO Max to make right the Justice League tampering. Or maybe you didn't hear of the SNYDER CUT. And the spin-offs leading to Aquaman, Wonder Woman and the pending WW84 doesn't sound like too bad an accomplishment.

But hey. All that hate you have inside or assumptions people that disliked the current Captain Marvel film are haters and anti-feminist is super logic. Spot on!

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bosco685

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

You don't know that.

Occam's Razor - the simplest reason is likely the best.

The fact is, Captain Marvel was a blockbuster with excellent fan reception. Maybe not by "comic book fans," but by the public at large.

And every indication given by the studio is they are going to capitalize on that success with a second blockbuster film that is set to be a backdoor Avengers movie in the same way that Captain America: Civil War was.

And yet, the 4-5 negative voices in this thread have to tie themselves into knots to both justify and wish away its unequivocal success.

• "It only did so well because it was marketed as a tie-in to Avengers" (a. you can't prove a negative. b. I think it was sold as a fun galactic adventure, a la Guardians. And would have done just as well post-Endgame. Again, can't prove that either, so it's moot.)
• "The positive critical rating was only because Disney's bought off the critics" ()
• "It only did so well because comic book fans pre-bought tickets for multiple showings before they knew it was ."
• "It only did so well because I hated it, but went back again to see it anyway with different groups of friends."

At the end of the day, the film doesn't need SilverMane, or me, or anyone else to defend its success.

Its success speaks for itself.

The reviews speak to it, though. The simple answer is the one that has been repeated. Avengers pager = ticket sales. How did you miss this...?

"Mediocre" is not "excellent".

There is nothing that corroborates this Civil War comparison.

Read anywhere on the internet. Captain Marvel is mediocre. It's not a limited number of people in this thread. It's widespread analyses.

It has financial success from piggybacking on Infinity War. It has mediocre reception from people who watched it. Not "success".

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

The reviews speak to it, though. The simple answer is the one that has been repeated. Avengers pager = ticket sales. How did you miss this...?

"Mediocre" is not "excellent".

There is nothing that corroborates this Civil War comparison.

Read anywhere on the internet. Captain Marvel is mediocre. It's not a limited number of people in this thread. It's widespread analyses.

It has financial success from piggybacking on Infinity War. It has mediocre reception from people who watched it. Not "success".

IMDb's userbase voting on Captain Marvel has 418K contributions.

If you peel off the 10's and 1's as most probably shills (funny how some note 1's are the concern), the result is still middle of the road. 58.39% give it a 5-7 rating.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

IMDb's userbase voting on Captain Marvel has 418K contributions.

If you peel off the 10's and 1's as most probably shills (funny how some note 1's are the concern), the result is still middle of the road. 58.39% give it a 5-7 rating.

As an exercise in "researching information I already know", I visited RT, IMDb, Metacritic, the Voldy boards, etc etc etc yesterday looking to see the overall reception from people outside of this forum. Lo and behold, mediocrity everywhere!

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

As an exercise in "researching information I already know", I visited RT, IMDb, Metacritic, the Voldy boards, etc etc etc yesterday looking to see the overall reception from people outside of this forum. Lo and behold, mediocrity everywhere!

"But...but...I know things. The 10's are real with IMDb. I voted at least 100 times like that with each account I created to post them!"

[Gatsby77]

49 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Read anywhere on the internet. Captain Marvel is mediocre. It's not a limited number of people in this thread. It's widespread analyses.

It has financial success from piggybacking on Infinity War. It has mediocre reception from people who watched it. Not "success".

Except, the internet isn't real life.

In real life, people vote with their dollars - and the sounds of thousands of disgruntled fans spilling a million words of ire on the internet are just that - idle keyboard chatter from a small minority whose sound and fury, in the end, signify nothing.

There's no more truth to Disney's bowing to supposed post-hoc internet fan backlash to this film to change their plans re. Carol Danvers going forward than there was to the incessant "Kathleen Kennedy's getting fired from Star Wars" rumors we've been hearing for literally three years now. (Even moreso now that she's had incredible success with The Mandalorian.)

Sorry, comics nerds, wishing won't make it so.

Well, err...except...we're actually getting a Snyder cut of JLA, so I guess occasionally pigs *do* fly. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Except, the internet isn't real life.

In real life, people vote with their dollars - and the sounds of thousands of disgruntled fans spilling a million words of ire on the internet are just that - idle keyboard chatter from a small minority whose sound and fury, in the end, signify nothing.

There's no more truth to Disney's bowing to supposed post-hoc internet fan backlash to this film to change their plans re. Carol Danvers going forward than there was to the incessant "Kathleen Kennedy's getting fired from Star Wars" rumors we've been hearing for literally three years now. (Even moreso now that she's had incredible success with The Mandalorian.)

Sorry, comics nerds, wishing won't make it so.

Well, err...except...we're actually getting a Snyder cut of JLA, so I guess occasionally pigs *do* fly. 

Disgruntled? It's interesting to read the mental gymnastics you'll go through to demonize proper analysis of mediocrity. "Disappointed" would be more apt.

Captain Marvel and the MCU have nothing to do with Kathleen Kennedy.

You have to pay before you see a movie. So $$$$$ does not equate to "voting with your dollars". This is literally why reviews exist.

[Gatsby77]

10 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Disgruntled? It's interesting to read the mental gymnastics you'll go through to demonize proper analysis of mediocrity. "Disappointed" would be more apt.

Captain Marvel and the MCU have nothing to do with Kathleen Kennedy.

You have to pay before you see a movie. So $$$$$ does not equate to "voting with your dollars". This is literally why reviews exist.

Umm...the vast majority of movie-goers don't buy tickets weeks in advance. Not even for highly-touted *event* films.

And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails.

See this Reddit thread for analysis of a film's legs - here defined as omitting the first week entirely -- it's the film's domestic run starting on its second Friday, divided by its second weekend gross.

The results (through 21 MCU films)?

• The average multiplier is 3.26x
• Guardians of the Galaxy had the best multiplier, at 4.72x
• Civil War had the worst, at just 2.54x
• 10 MCU films had a multiplier between 2.54x and 3x
• 5 MCU films had multipliers between 3 and 3.5x
• 5 movies were between 3.5x and 4x
• 1 film was above 4 (Guardians of the Galaxy)

Captain Marvel then falls in the middle, but above average, at 3.38x.

What's that mean?

What you call "mediocre" performance is overtly above average, across all the prior MCU films - meaning that lots of people either went to see it again after the second weekend, or encouraged their friends and family to see it after the second weekend. It did not flame out the way we'd expect if there were a visceral reaction against it (Justice League) or if it simply wasn't rewatchable (Civil War).

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

7 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Umm...the vast majority of movie-goers don't buy tickets weeks in advance. Not even for highly-touted *event* films.

And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails.

See this Reddit thread for analysis of a film's legs - here defined as omitting the first week entirely -- it's the film's domestic run starting on its second Friday, divided by its second weekend gross.

The results (through 21 MCU films)?

• The average multiplier is 3.26x
• Guardians of the Galaxy had the best multiplier, at 4.72x
• Civil War had the worst, at just 2.54x
• 10 MCU films had a multiplier between 2.54x and 3x
• 5 MCU films had multipliers between 3 and 3.5x
• 5 movies were between 3.5x and 4x
• 1 film was above 4 (Guardians of the Galaxy)

Captain Marvel then falls in the middle, but above average, at 3.38x.

What's that mean?

What you call "mediocre" performance is overtly above average, across all the prior MCU films - meaning that lots of people either went to see it again after the second weekend, or encouraged their friends and family to see it after the second weekend. It did not flame out the way we'd expect if there were a visceral reaction against it (Justice League) or if it simply wasn't rewatchable (Civil War).

Everyone buys tickets before seeing a movie. You don't get to watch the movie and then pay.

You keep talking about $$$$$, but the reviews prove that it's mediocre. Money does not equal critical "success".

[Gatsby77]

7 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Everyone buys tickets before seeing a movie. You don't get to watch the movie and then pay.

You keep talking about $$$$$, but the reviews prove that it's mediocre. Money does not equal critical "success".

Hence this sentence: "And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails."

The critical reviews were more than solid - 87% positive.

You're defending the mediocre online fan reviews, but they're not born out by the actual ticket sales.

To the extent that audiences either liked, or didn't like it - they either told their friends to go see it (after they'd already paid for their ticket and seen the film) or they didn't. Positive or negative word-of-mouth by those who had already seen the film.

What the numbers above show is that word-of-mouth was above average for all of the pre-Endgame MCU movies, with overtly better performance after week 1 than at least half of the MCU movies that preceded it.

That just doesn't happen if the bulk of people who saw the film in the first week - or second week - hated it.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Gatsby77

[theCapraAegagrus]

12 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Hence this sentence: "And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails."

The critical reviews were more than solid - 87% positive.

You're defending the mediocre online fan reviews, but they're not born out by the actual ticket sales.

To the extent that audiences either liked, or didn't like it - they either told their friends to go see it (after they'd already paid for their ticket and seen the film) or they didn't. Positive or negative word-of-mouth by those who had already seen the film.

What the numbers above show is that word-of-mouth was above average for all of the pre-Endgame MCU movies, with overtly better performance after week 1 than at least half of the MCU movies that preceded it.

That just doesn't happen if the bulk of people who saw the film in the first week - or second week - hated it.

87% where?

Ticket sales are meaningless when the movie piggybacked on Infinity War's post-credit scene.

I told everyone it's mediocre. They still wanted to see the tie-in. So, your theory is meaningless when it comes to a franchise like this.

Again, you keep using the word "hate", when the highs and lows are the extreme minority for this film. It's textbook mediocrity.

[@therealsilvermane]