• 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.

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

Started by paperheart,

3,126 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

Weird how peaceful this area gets when one person is not going from thread to thread pretending there is a conspiracy against a franchise making billions of dollars.

Maybe. Just maybe. They could be causing their own problems. :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
media_junkie

media_junkie

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Now it makes more sense...

hm

Wait... So 'Marvels' - plural. Meaning multiple characters to carry this franchise forward.

:shy:

Said it before and I will say it again, pretty lame for the lead to not get top billing in what was supposed to be her sequel movie.  Spin it how you like about this being a "girl power" movie and these are her buds, whatever, to me it shows a lack of faith in the character (or actress).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, media_junkie said:

Said it before and I will say it again, pretty lame for the lead to not get top billing in what was supposed to be her sequel movie.  Spin it how you like about this being a "girl power" movie and these are her buds, whatever, to me it shows a lack of faith in the character (or actress).

I would say that it's the character. You can't force an audience to adore her (especially when her movie was mediocre, and she wasn't even the best character in it). They wanted everyone to love Cap back in Phase 1, but audiences fell for Tony. Gotta learn from your past, Marvel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
▫️

▫️

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

I would say that it's the character. You can't force an audience to adore her (especially when her movie was mediocre, and she wasn't even the best character in it). They wanted everyone to love Cap back in Phase 1, but audiences fell for Tony. Gotta learn from your past, Marvel.

I would say Marvel did learn from Captain Marvel. That breaking a billion was due to timing and placement before the finale. Everyone was going to watch the movie before Endgame no matter what it was. That was a smart move. A Pepper Potts movie before Endgame would have broke the bank. Now that Captain Marvel has to fend for herself, Marvel is going to give her some help. Again, smart move. They are not taking any chances. If they believed in Brie and thought Captain Marvel could be a flagship property, there would have been a Captain Marvel 2. Followed by The Marvels tv series on Disney+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Oddball said:

I would say Marvel did learn from Captain Marvel. That breaking a billion was due to timing and placement before the finale. Everyone was going to watch the movie before Endgame no matter what it was. That was a smart move. A Pepper Potts movie before Endgame would have broke the bank. Now that Captain Marvel has to fend for herself, Marvel is going to give her some help. Again, smart move. They are not taking any chances. If they believed in Brie and thought Captain Marvel could be a flagship property, there would have been a Captain Marvel 2. Followed by The Marvels tv series on Disney+.

Caveat: Pepper Potts would have had to be paged by Nick Fury. Ant-Man and the Wasp didn't get the same numbers, despite also being sandwiched between the 2 Avengers movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
▫️

▫️

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Caveat: Pepper Potts would have had to be paged by Nick Fury. Ant-Man and the Wasp didn't get the same numbers, despite also being sandwiched between the 2 Avengers movies.

Ant-Man and Wasp may have been a fluke. I mean it was still a success at over 600M but Captain Marvel (to me) was a big name and I was really looking forward to the introduction. And I ended up enjoying Ant-Man more. I forgot about the page as well, yeah, that was a giant pointer saying you better not miss CM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muno42

Muno42

Posted
Posted

The problem is that Captain Marvel is only a big name because Marvel said so. Marvel wanting a "Wonder Woman" does not make it so. The character is fine. I enjoyed the first movie. She is not a top three character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Oddball said:

I would say Marvel did learn from Captain Marvel. That breaking a billion was due to timing and placement before the finale. Everyone was going to watch the movie before Endgame no matter what it was. That was a smart move. A Pepper Potts movie before Endgame would have broke the bank. Now that Captain Marvel has to fend for herself, Marvel is going to give her some help. Again, smart move. They are not taking any chances. If they believed in Brie and thought Captain Marvel could be a flagship property, there would have been a Captain Marvel 2. Followed by The Marvels tv series on Disney+.

Captain Marvel is already a flagship property, as in one of the MCU's feature film franchises. What do you think "Marvel" in The Marvels stands for?

And I'll say it here as I've said it before, Marvel Studios no longer makes movies where the hero does everything by himself. They're all team movies now regardless of who is the main character. Winter Soldier was a team movie. Civil War was a team movie. Ragnarok was a team movie. Captain Marvel was a team movie. And yeah, obviously The Marvels is going to be a team movie. Nice of Marvel (as in Marvel Studios) to finally acknowledge that in a title.

And no, if The Marvels is going to feature Carol Danvers as the main hero, you don't make that a Disney+ show. Carol Danvers is a big-hitter who is saved for the theatrical releases, just like Thor or Dr Strange.

A Pepper Potts movie would not have broke the bank, because everybody knew who Pepper was and she's not a super-hero. We all knew what we were getting with Ant-Man which is one reason his sequel didn't get the big numbers. The other appeal to Captain Marvel, besides its tie-in to Endgame, was she was an unknown hero and everybody wanted to discover who this character was that we saw only a hint of at the end of Infinity War and in the TV commercials. I'm not denying that Captain Marvel wasn't a hugely popular household name super-hero like WOnder Woman before her movie arrived. She was generally unknown. That's part of the genius of Marvel Studios, they've turned super-heros than nobody generally cared about, from Iron Man to the Guardians of the Galaxy to Captain Marvel, into heroes that people adore more than Superman.

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I would say that it's the character. You can't force an audience to adore her (especially when her movie was mediocre, and she wasn't even the best character in it). They wanted everyone to love Cap back in Phase 1, but audiences fell for Tony. Gotta learn from your past, Marvel.

People preferred Tony over Steve in The Avengers because Joss Whedon obviously had a favorite and wrote the movie that way. Tony Stark was the charming hero against the system while Steve Rogers was the unfunny old-fashioned jerk who tries to boss Tony around and who doesn't think God dresses like Thor.

The Russo Bros and the Captain America writers fixed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

People preferred Tony over Steve in The Avengers because Joss Whedon obviously had a favorite and wrote the movie that way. Tony Stark was the charming hero against the system while Steve Rogers was the unfunny old-fashioned jerk who tries to boss Tony around and who doesn't think God dresses like Thor.

The Russo Bros and the Captain America writers fixed that.

Audiences preferred Tony Stark to Steve Rogers long before The Avengers. It's not Joss Whedon's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Audiences preferred Tony Stark to Steve Rogers long before The Avengers. It's not Joss Whedon's doing.

Yes, Iron Man was better received than First Avenger, obviously. But Cap had a chance to make up for his lackluster first movie in The Avengers. He did somewhat, but Joss still wrote Steve to be a sourpuss and gave the better lines and role to Tony Stark. After Winter Soldier, folks(not all but many) started preferring Captain America over Iron Man, especially after Civil War. Cap ended up having better movies. The audiences go with what the filmmakers give us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Yes, Iron Man was better received than First Avenger, obviously. But Cap had a chance to make up for his lackluster first movie in The Avengers. He did somewhat, but Joss still wrote Steve to be a sourpuss and gave the better lines and role to Tony Stark. After Winter Soldier, folks(not all but many) started preferring Captain America over Iron Man, especially after Civil War. Cap ended up having better movies. The audiences go with what the filmmakers give us.

You're crazy (which wouldn't surprise anyone) if you think that Joss Whedon is single-handed responsible for Stark's role in The Avengers.

The bold are lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

How was Ragnarok not a team-up of Thor, Hulk, Loki, and Valkyrie? It even had Dr Strange. It was a Silver Surfer debut short of being a Defenders movie.

It was a Thor movie in which Hulk and Valkyrie really weren't impactful. Loki was as important as he was in the prior 2 installments. Doctor Strange was a nice cameo, but it would be a joke to call him "a part of 'the team' in Ragnarok".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

It was a Thor movie in which Hulk and Valkyrie really weren't impactful. Loki was as important as he was in the prior 2 installments. Doctor Strange was a nice cameo, but it would be a joke to call him "a part of 'the team' in Ragnarok".

100% false.

It was overtly a buddy team-up movie between Hulk and Thor (or, at least Banner and Thor) - and an ingenious way to give us large aspects of the Planet Hulk storyline without having to do a solo (live action) Planet Hulk movie.

And yes - by the end they're an entire team, including the (then-unlikely) Loki team-up and Valkyrie as well.

If you think it was another solo Thor movie (a la Thor or The Dark World), you need to re-watch all three...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
Just now, Gatsby77 said:

100% false.

It was overtly a buddy team-up movie between Hulk and Thor (or, at least Banner and Thor) - and an ingenious way to give us large aspects of the Planet Hulk storyline without having to do a solo (live action) Planet Hulk movie.

And yes - by the end they're an entire team, including the (then-unlikely) Loki team-up and Valkyrie as well.

If you think it was another solo Thor movie (a la Thor or The Dark World), you need to re-watch all three...

(tsk)

Hulk and Valkyrie were just as important as Jane and Darcie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
9 9
Go to topic listing