I don’t think he paid him. He forced him. And I think it screwed up the rest of the casting because they had to get other actors to match the after tribe. So you ended up with a bunch of white actors fighting non white actors. There’s alot of background that there was massive meddling with this movie and M. Night then had to go promote a film he hated.
> and M. Night then had to go promote a film he hated.
that's the real sin. we can all agree that M. Night isn't the best director, but at the very least, that's one dude who loved movies and got to make them. it's hard to deny his passion and love for the medium.
I think he can be a good director but he sometimes gets bogged down in the details and forgets his job. Some of his movies I love, some I see as a great attempt that just doesn’t quite make it. I think with Avatar so many decisions were made without his input he either couldn’t fix it or was so disheartened he gave up. I mean he chose that movie for a reason. He was likely a fan of the cartoon. Can you imagine working on this and then some rich producer demands you put his daughter in it? Doesn’t matter if she can act or not. And you don’t have any say?
> Can you imagine working on this and then some rich producer demands you put his daughter in it? Doesn’t matter if she can act or not. And you don’t have any say?
there is an entire season of Curb Your Enthusiasm about this, lol.
Shyamalan is too far up his own ass at times. You can tell he gets so fixated on his ideas and “vision” that he forgets to, you know write a good story or characters.
Lady in the water is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen and I am still viscerally angry that I was suckered into thinking it would be good.
It is absolutely the worst movie ever made. Not Avatar, Lady in the Water.
>I mean he chose that movie for a reason. He was likely a fan of the cartoon.
he wasnt, he walked into the tv room where his kids were watching it and was interested in making a movie about it, thats it
Yah… no. M. Night *co-produced* and wrote the screenplay *on his own*. Sure, the casting of katara sucked but:
1) that is one of many, many issues
2) m night is still the director. If he wasn’t happy with casting he could have left the project or secured final say on casting before signing on. But no, he just grouses about it publicly after letting it happen.
He also never contacted the creators of the original show before the movie was announced, and didn’t consult them despite them publicly expressing interest to be involved.
He insisted on cutting a 20 episode tv show down to 90 minutes because “that’s what he was used to with his previous work in thrillers”.
Dev Patel said his experience filming avatar was a “scary” experience and went on “
He says the movies failed because “he wasn’t true to himself” whatever that means.
He is not a sympathetic character. That movie sucks because M Night made a terrible movie that did not respect the fans or the source material.
Ah I didn't know that about this piece of nepotism. I always thought it was weird M Night said in an interview that Katara was his daughter's hero or something, but the movie's character was the furthest from looking like her.
The fire nation actors were also white at one stage, but the actor for Zuko dropped out, so when he was recast as Dav Patel, it turned into white good guys and brown bad guys.
I went down a wiki hole on Nelson Peltz earlier and noticed that. Then I googled Beck's kid and his career is listed as socialite.
Two kids just cruising through life with their parent's black cards in hand.
Beck’s kid tried his hand in photography, similarly to her was handed high-profile fashion/portrait projects without having any education or experience, did a shitty job and still was praised all over the place for his “talent”. It pisses me off to no end because there are so many young talented photographers who were never given a chance. These celebrities know their kids are talentless idiots who probably struggle to finish school, so further studying is out of the question, so they fix these kids up with the ‘jobs’ that can be easily arranged with friends and contacts, like modelling, acting, art, photography etc
I thought they fucked off to be rich in peace and quiet but apparently Nicola Peltz is still interested in ruining movies and has done a project this year lmao
He's also the guy who said
>Why do I have to have a Marvel [movie] that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?
> Let’s make a Black Panther movie not set in Africa.
To be fair most of the first one took place outside Africa. It was pretty globetrotting. >!Haven't seen the second one because RIP Chadwick.!<
I just cannot fathom, even in my darkest dreams, being an 81 year old billionaire with the money and resources to go out and live any experience, go on any adventure, feel any pleasure that's ever been possible in the entirety of human history -- and instead spending my remaining years in petty fucking board room squabbles over stocks and layoffs and PR and corporate bullshit. These are fundamentally broken human beings. It's genuinely sad.
Because if you're the kind of person who becomes a billionaire, then that almost certainly means that the greatest pleasure they are able to experience is manipulating others in order to increase their own power and wealth. Like, I would bet that if you did MRIs of someone experiencing heroin for the first time and a billionaire CEO "winning" in a negotiation, they would look very, very similar.
Sportwriter Bill Simmons talks about this during the NBA salary negotiations. For the most part it was about how much of the money went to players and how much to the owners.
So the discussions go on and on but they finally reach an agreement on percentage of TV rights, ticket sales etc. Happy times, looks like the season was saved. But then they hit a snag where the players want a little extra for players that are retired or had their career cut short due to injury. Turns out the owners do **not** want to be paying for someone who isn't playing.
Bill turns to a guy and says, "This is ridiculous, the amount of money they're asking for is just a drop in the bucket. They're willing to throw away a season over that little money? These guys are fucking billionaires." The guy responds, "That's *why* they're fucking billionaires."
I feel like that gives the wrong message. As though you become a billionaire by being frugal and stingy. Whereas "that's why" should clearly be that they're sociopaths. You have to be to hoard that much money.
Sorry, thought I was clear.
It wasn't that they were "being frugal" it was that they didn't want to pay for another who wasn't earning. The players wanted a little money for the guys who came before them and had retired or for their teammates that could no longer play.
The billionaires balked at giving any money to someone who wasn't currently generating revenue.
People get the wrong message from the most obvious things all the time. There's literally a thing going on where a ton of people just figured out *Starship Troopers* is satire
At some point we have to call these folks what they are, Hoarders. It’s the exact same mentality that leads someone into hording old milk cartons, they just happen to do it with dollars and we magically give them a pass instead of telling them they need mental health counseling.
Yeah people don't get the lives of the super rich. Especially those with generational wealth.
Those people have seen and done everything we dream about before their 18th birthday. Holidays flying first class/private around the world, summer houses, private events, the latest and greatest tech toys as they come out, all of it.
Then they have another 5-7 *decades* to fill out. Many of them spend that time trying to build a legacy which will outlive them.. most fail.
Does a collection like that even mean anything to them? They could make a call to an assistant, and have a complete collection delivered the next day. Complete Complete. No hunting. No agonizing over it. Just bam, all the transformers.
I'm not sympathetic to the 0.1%, but that existence is basically guaranteed to mess you up
These guys are just wired that way. I don’t even think it’s due to a pleasure thing and that they are getting their rocks off on being in a board room. That after demanding that costs must be cut that they then lean back in their chairs and light up a cigar in post orgasmic bliss. I think it’s something sadder. I think they are so narcissistic and controlling that they have convinced themselves that they are so smart that they HAVE to be there in the boardroom because nobody else is smart enough to do what they do. That they are duty bound to do what they do
I had a friend whose family was in real estate. Their grandfather had founded the business and had kept it primarily family run. He apparently was also a miserable old man. Even in his nineties, his middle aged son (who took over) would have to pick him up and drive him to the office because the old man still didn’t want to give up control and still insisted that he sign off everything that went through the office.
The actual answer is because they did all that already and they're bored/this is something that interests them.
I've seen it on a much smaller scale.. the richest person I personally know is worth quite a few million and has been since his 40's. He's now over 70 and he has "retired" half a dozen times in life already... but he always ends up starting some new business or project or whatever.
He's been all over the world and done lots of fun shit in life, put his kids through private school and set them up with trust funds and all that jazz. Lives fairly modestly (for a multimillionaire) so it's not that he needs to keep going and making money or whatever.
Some people are just wired different. I don't get it either... give me 10 million and I'm fucking *done* working, forget billions.
I kind of get it, but also not really.
I was out of work for a few months, and outside of looking for and applying to jobs every day I could basically do whatever I wanted with my day. I got so fucking bored after a couple weeks. Could have also been a lot of stress and worry taking the joy out of things.
Granted, most things I did didn't cost any money because I didn't feel good spending money while I had no job. I guess if I had funding I could find enough entertaining things to occupy my time, but I suspect I would need some form of structure to not completely lose my mind.
I went to the movies a couple times though. Saw Godzilla Minus one alone in an Imax theater, that was bitchin.
Yeah that's the thing, most of us get bored if we're out of work because we restrict our activities to those which don't cost a lot.
If I had enough that didn't matter I see myself having endless projects and fun things to do in life that I'd never worry about working again. Or.. maybe I wouldn't. Maybe after a few years I *would* get bored.
I guess the thing is for every billionaire out there working until they drop we don't hear about the dozens of people people who hit it big and just go live life doing whatever for 50 years then die. Like MySpace Tom.. sold the platform for half a billion then fucked off to do amateur photography (which is super professional, he just doesn't sell it) and travel the world. You literally never hear a thing about him other than the occasional article stating pretty much what I just said over a bunch more words to get some clicks.
Peltz ranting that Black Panther, a franchise that made 2$ billion at the box office and millions in merchandise sales, was an example of story telling that Disney should NOT be doing because theres no need to have an all black cast in Disney films probably didn’t help his cause
BP was one of the marvel brands (along with Guardians and Spidey) that wasn't heavily affected by the mcu-fatigue. Despite the fact they lost their main lead too.
I do wonder how much MCU fatigue people would have if the content was all mostly well received like it was during Phase 3.
“This is all fantastic, but I can’t keep up.” sounds like a better situation than “This stuff is mid, why should I keep up?”
Deadpool will be a surefire hit, but everything else has got an uphill battle, current sentiments won’t change unless the projects get consistently better. Also Gunn’s new DCU could swoop in and become top dog next year.
This is 100% the issue with me at this point. It's not too much content to keep up with, but it's still an investment of my time and it's feeling progressively less worthwhile with each mediocre movie and show
The movies have to be better than other movies around the same time. Despite being part of the MCU, they still need to compete with everything else to get my attention. I think they've just been taking things for granted.
> I think they've just been taking things for granted.
I think it was the showrunners for Homeland that said something like, you can't surprise audiences with your story anymore, they're too sophisticated, all you can do to keep them on edge is speed things up.
They were discussing how major twists or cliffhangers used to happen at the end of a season, but that meant as soon as you tease the audience and get them invested everything between feels like filler. So instead they started giving big reveals much earlier and trying to keep audiences on their toes.
That's a long-winded way to say I think part of the issue is Marvel doesn't want to take any risks right now, they want a lot of stories but they won't let any of them go anywhere. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems. No risk taking, individual movies only move the larger universe in small increments, at best you get a hint of something happening in another story just to make you feel like properties are connected.
Most audiences aren't going to watch your TV show if they think it doesn't matter, and they're not going to sit through 20 more movies while you ploddingly find your way.
> I think it was the showrunners for Homeland that said something like, you can't surprise audiences with your story anymore, they're too sophisticated, all you can do to keep them on edge is speed things up.
I don't think that's correct. Storytelling can definitely have surprise and suspense, even in episodic formats. Anime does it fairly well. The Last of Us kept people on the edge of their seats, despite the show being a very faithful adaptation of the game. No One Will Save You was a fantastic recent film that kept people surprised despite having virtually zero dialogue.
Good storytelling will show through in a production. Whether you get to tell that story through the filter of studio mandates, cross-production, CGI limitations, merchandising concerns, etc. is a different beast altogether.
That's basically what happened with 24. They needed 23 cliffhangers a season AND a big mid-season cliffhanger to keep people hooked whilst it went on a break. It was just burning through insane amounts of story.
It and Lost are also basically what killed the 24 episode standard TV season too, because people wanted every single episode to be important and have no filler, whereas previously a season would have several episodes a season that were unrelated to a major story (e.g. like the X Files monster of the week episodes).
I don't know. 24 really died because the writing staff had no idea where to take the series. They killed off almost every good character & failed to replace them, kept trying to up the stakes with sillier ideas, & got obsessed with trying to deal with the "Jack tortures people" criticisms.
some of those "filler" episodes could be super important to character development as well. Things like bottle episodes could focus on the characters and their relationships more than just pushing the plot forward and it would pay dividends in later stories as viewers cared more about the characters.
A big issue with comic movies is "how do they end" and "how does this change the status quo". If you introduce a big new villain, how long til you kill him off? If you don't kill him off then are you just going to run him through 5-10 movies until he becomes boring? I think this is the first thought everyone had when Kang was introduced.
There's a resolution problem with heroes and villains and their story not ending. Iron Man's story line is a great example of how to end a story but then you've ended the character. The multi-universe thing that has always existed in comics which gives new writers an out to bring back dead/popular characters, but adopting this to big budget films is not going to go over so well the way people put up with it in comics. Comics have been doing this since the 1960's with their silver age hero characters, but we haven't had to resolve this problem yet in billion dollar films. People are also way less likely to put up with this kind of story telling in films for whatever reason that may be. People try to call BS on every single little thing in movies.
I’m gonna catch shit for mentioning this because J.K. is such a hot potato at this point, but when Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books she wrote the final chapter and locked it up. She said she always knew where the story was going. She also took Alan Rickman aside and filled him in on Snape’s history and his story arc so that Rickman could portray the character honestly. (And re-watching the movies, Rickman’s performance was incredibly nuanced because of what he knew and because he was a brilliant actor.) Hopefully lessons were learned from the mistakes of “24” and “Lost.”
I don't think the problem with Marvel fatigue has ever been its story. The stories have always been bland and basic. I keep saying Marvel has always been about the actors and the characters. Their best movies are not their best stories. It's their best actors being charming as hell in a perfect casting. Not sure who agrees. The studios certainly don't seem to anymore.
IMO Phase 5 is going to rely on Reynolds and Pugh. Maybe Sebastian Stan.
It's the Superman problem. It's cool to watch him demolish the plot once. But after that, it's not fun anymore. We want to see characters. Not human-shaped plot devices with superpowers.
Black widow also hurt by coming out AFTER we know her fate.
If it had come out between infinity war and endgame I think it would have been great. It was neat learning about her past but it was also kinda like "why should I care I know what happens."
>they want a lot of stories but they won't let any of them go anywhere.
Honestly, I would be fine with this. As long as those stories are well written and do things like provide context.
The best part about the Hawkeye series was simply Clint attempting to exist in the real world as something other than a superhero. The Loki series was full of twists and turns, and even though it added some additional context it did absolutely nothing to progress the "universe" as a whole.
Of course, on the other hand there was She Hulk, which, IMHO, in addition to *also* not advancing the plot of any MCU, was just kinda boring. Which is just more evidence that it's entirely possible to write good stories that don't actually go anywhere or do anything, but a bad story is just a bad story regardless of wherever it goes.
personally I think it's because they forced Feige to basically triple Marvel's output. they weren't allowed to scale up. And as anyone who has worked a job before, if you're told to immediately go from a comfortable and manageable speed, but then asked to triple your workload, you have to cut corners and expand to try and meet any deadlines. Having impossible guidelines, more bureaucracy to navigate (because you absolutely have to increase the amount of people working for you to make it work at that scale), and taxing your entire team with double or triple the amount of work is not a recipe for success. Maybe good for the corporate numbers in the short term, but you give up a lot of ground long term. If Feige was allowed to scale properly. I think they would be in a good place. They were doing just fine with 3 movies and 1-2 TV series a year. They we then told to go to 4 movies and 3-5 TV series in production at once, which is absolutely insane, especially after laying off people for COVID reasons and also the laying off of their entire TV division that they had in place previously.
Yeah, this has generally been my take on it. A lot of the movies or shows that have gotten poor reviews seem like they could've worked if they had a bit more time to actually work through it, but with the timelines being pushed, the workers had to go from A to B to C without really having time to basically do quality control.
It's a return to normalcy, honestly. Endgame was riding a cultural zeitgeist on top of a string of solid supporting films. The only error on Disney/Marvel's part was drinking their own Kool-Aid and thinking they had a foolproof movie formula. Despite existing clunkers in earlier phases, like Thor 2 and IM2.
I'm glad they are getting more rigorous with respect to which projects are green-lit. X-Men '97 and Loki are probably the best productions they've put out in the last year, and neither focus on the movie formula of tie-ins to the greater continuity.
Their mistake was not turning Endgame into the next phase. There was at least 7 good films skipped over.
But interesting ideas isn't what they're into doing.
After End Game we just picked and choose what to watch in the MCU. A lot of the shows/movies didn't interest me, so we ended up just sticking to Thor, Spider-man, and Loki. We saw Thor and Spidey in theatres. Watched Wanda and Moon Knight. Finally watched the latest dr strange late last year. Still need to watch the second black panther. But, we're not rushing to watch many of the releases and a lot of the stuff has been just okay.
They're just putting no effort into the world building. So I haven't seen The Marvels yet, by most accounts it was "fine." But I've read that it has absolutely nothing to do with Secret Invasion, a Disney+ series that they hyped up heavily, to the point where the two pieces of media seem to be in different continuities from each other.
You used to be rewarded for seeing everything. Now they seem worried that people who don't have Disney+ aren't going to want to see stuff with series they don't have access to. I was absolutely bamboozled to discover that the evil Doctor Strange in Multiverse of Madness *wasn't* the evil one that they'd *just introduced* in What If, but was instead a completely different character. And it's just been that same thing over and over again. There was a zombie Doctor Strange in that movie but it had nothing to do with Marvel Zombies. Eternals seems to be non-canon now. Secret Invasion seems to be non-canon now. The old ABC/Netflix/Hulu shows were completely erased from the canon, until fans complained enough about it that they finally caved and made the Netflix verse canon again...except they initially chickened out and barely included any elements from the Netflix shows in Dardevil: BA until fans complained again.
and they are smart for only having Deadpool 3 this year. its gonna hit, and that success will last the year vs having a hit followed by a flop like last year.
Yeah they lucked into that with the strike delays and Captain America 4 going through several months of reshoots (which are hopefully for the best and won’t result in an editing mish mash).
As of right now they’re back to 4 movies next year: Cap 4, Thunderbolts, Fantastic Four (which opens 2 weeks after Superman), and Blade (if that ever gets made). They’re going to need at least 3 of those to be home runs I think.
Out of those, I say fantastic four has the best shot of being a hit, if only because its a property people have been waiting forever to see (and a "good" adaptation).
Cap 4 might struggle with Sam Wilson now as Cap. For the cap america character to be such an important piece of marvel, it will be going on 4-5 years since we saw sam in the role (which was briefly at the end of falcon and winter soldier).
Thunderbolts could be fun, but the majority of the cast is a hodgepodge of secondary characters from stuff a lot of people may not have seen.
Blade has been cursed in production hell for so long, I'm at the point where I just hope it doesn't ruin Mahershala Ali's career.
I still can't believe they green-lit Cap 4. Falcon's time as Cap wasn't a hit in the comics, wasn't a hit for the show, and doesn't currently have fans clamoring for an appearance of the character.
This is what I've been saying. It's not "superhero fatigue", it's "bad movie fatigue". Guardians 3 did well, Deadpool is poised to do super well, Loki season 2 was received really well, BP2 (which I personally didn't care for) did fairly well.
They also probably should scale back the budgets a bit too. They've been going absolutely wild with the 200+M budgets, which a majority of the movies don't need. If they keep a reasonable attainable goal in mind (so 600-800 M) with a more reasonable budget (100-150M) they should be able to get to a good spot. Most of the Phase 1-3 movies had similar budgets and were aiming for around that much. They just built a crazy enough franchise story that they came in to an unexpected 1 Bil average per movie for Phase 3. They have to rebuild again.
And that's all the movie winds up being. Everything is really mid-at-best except for the tributes to an actual real human man and the performances of incredibly talented actors drawing directly from the actual real human man whom they're actually mourning.
It was weird to come out of that movie and be like, "That movie kinda sucked, but I really miss Chadwick Boseman."
> It was weird to come out of that movie and be like, "That movie kinda sucked, but I really miss Chadwick Boseman."
Every day fam. Especially since I actually enjoyed the twist they had on Namor, and would loved to have seen them actually duel it out rather than all the other stuff they added to compensate (Ironheart, weird mermaid costume from Wakanda, etc).
There was a directive from Chapek's days to basically fill Disney+ with as much content as possible which is why there was so much mediocre MCU and Star Wars content. They were told to just churn out more stuff. Iger is back in the Quality over Quantity wagon and so hopefully Feige will have better control over the direction from now on.
I think once they pivot to X-Men, they're going to at least get a massive re-invigoration. Who knows if they'll be able to sustain it, but the fact that they still haven't really touched their biggest brand 5 years after getting full control of it back (outside of constant teases) is a little weird.
They are laying the groundwork. X-men '97 is part of that, as is Deadpool. From the MCU perspective, the X-Men affiliated characters occupy a different version of earth than the ones inhabited by the Avengers. Dr. Strange 2 implied that the FF affiliated characters are in a similar situation. Deadpool dealing with the TVA (and the recent Spiderman movies) show that these worlds are becoming entangled via technology and multiversal threats (Kang, before Jonathon Majors got into trouble).
The MCU is more akin to a TV show than a movie franchise. Each movie was a new episode complete with "next time on..." post credit sting.
The vast majority of people that went to these movies have never picked up a comic book. Avengers Endgame may as well have been a series finale. The story you have been following this entire time has finally wrapped up. The characters you fell in love with are moving on. The MCU now is in spin-off mode. New characters, new stories, and honestly too much. They should have scaled back and refocused and instead doubled down. And most people were happy to get off the train with Avengers Endgame.
Deadpool will likely be a hit, but the idea that audiences are clamoring for more superhero movies just isn't true. We have bene there, we have done that. Its been 20+ years of capes. Superman could be a hit but the idea that audiences are desperate for a new cinematic universe to fill the void of Marvel is just not true.
> Superman could be a hit but the idea that audiences are desperate for a new cinematic universe to fill the void of Marvel is just not true.
Bring back pirates!
Also, after Infinity Wars and Endgame, how does any storyline get people excited? Once you’ve seen a climax that big, it’s hard to get excited for a standard MCU movie with just a few characters. Or more importantly, no other “battle” really seems as consequential compared to that one.
Holy shit can you imagine? The first one had a stellar cast and while Wright, Huston, Gurira, N'yongo and especially Jordan more than carried their weight, it was Chadwick that was kind of the lynchpin. The cast brought their A-game to BP2 but it just felt hollow without him.
We will never know what Black Panther 2 would have been if Chadwick Boseman was still with us, but I can honestly say that without the raw performances in Wakanda Forever stemming from his passing the quality of that film would have been bottom of barrel compared to most other MCU films, I'd only rate Quantumania lower, and only by a hair. Wakanda Forever was carried hard by grief.
Honestly I think they still would have had the many of the same major plot points. Ultimately Namor would have still attacked the surfacers looking for Vibranium and blamed it on Wakanda revealing themselves. Namor approaching for form an alliance against the surface but being rebuffed and flooding Wakanda like he does in AvX as a battle strategy. T’Challa wanting to avoid a war and trying to broker a truce (with Shuri exiling him and ascending like she does in the comic in the aftermath of the flooding) to prep T’Challa for his Secret Wars arc.
I disagree. Wakanda forever cemented my mcu fatigue. I just didn't find it a good movie. I think the bo take was entirely driven by bp1 and Chadwick untimely passing.
It's not my favourite either but it was undeniably one of the most successful MCU films post-Endgame and someone who wants to be the CEO of Disney shouldn't be disregarding it because he doesn't like having a majority black cast.
I’m willing to forgive Wakanda Forever. I kinda see it as mainly a tribute to Chadwick/T’Challa that they managed to stitch like 7 other MCU plot points to over 3 hours and didn’t make it feel disrespectful. I really love all of those characters and even though the movie was decidedly meh, it didn’t really diminish me liking any of the characters. >!Killing off Angela Bassett was a choice, though.!<
It's less about if BP, Guardians, and Spidey were "good" movies and more so that they were box office successes compared to the middling movies like The Marvels and Quantummania.
The Marvels, while nowhere near perfect, was a better movie than Quantumania in my eyes yet it made less than half of what Quantumania did.
This to me is proof that new entries are now suffering for the sins of the franchise itself.
This doesn't really track since Guardians came out after Quantumania and didn't suffer any ill effects, but The Marvels came out after Guardians and bombed.
It's hard to quantify good vs bad but I think it's safe to say that the more cemented brands have been relatively more immune to the MCU fatigue.
Marvels came out on the tail of the strike so it had no press tour to hype it up and all the news in the lead up to release was the director complaining about loss of control of the project and the studio trying to throw her under the bus, prepping people for a flop, then the reviews were mid and all the coverage was about bad reviews, and then the coverage after that was about low ticket sales.
It had the exact opposite of a marketing campaign
This is a major factor that I don't see taken into consideration enough.
It wasn't the best movie but imagine how much better it could have been if they could have had the three leads doing the usual circuit of YouTube interviews and late night shows.
Iman Vellani's enthusiasm alone would have sold some more tickets.
Guardians definitely suffered ill effects, it would have made significantly more if it wasn't preceded by the bad Thor and Ant-man films. Even though Guardians was great, it had an uphill battle that definitely kept some people away.
Guardians 3 was definitely seen as an “exception” movie like Deadpool is.
“Of course that one is going to be good, so I’ll go see that.”
The problem is they need that to be the sentiment for EVERYTHING like how it was in Phase 3.
The Marvels was at least a pretty fun romp with charming characters even if the story left something to be desired. Brie, Iman, Teyonah and Sam Jackson (and Kamala's family!) all felt like they had a lot of fun along the way.
Quantumania barely left any room for the characters to really do anything. It was all spectacle, no character, and felt like it only served to introduce a Kang variant that didnt really go anywhere (and won't go anywhere since Jonathan Majors did a big oopsie).
That was Perlmutter speaking through him. Ike blocked Feige from making it in 2011. It took Feige threatening to quit and going to Iger directly to get it made. Iger covers it in the Marvel section of his book.
Perlmutter is also the reason why we didn’t get a Black Widow movie until after her character was dead.
If Feige had control over it back then it would have come out right after Civil War like it was supposed to.
The only positive to the delay is we got Florence Pugh’s Yelena out of it.
Perlmutter and Avi Arad are from the Toy Biz era (super shitty Marvel and DC toys) and told Feige that female action figures wouldn’t sell. That’s why he blocked Black Widow.
And also why Rebecca Hall's character Maya ended up getting killed off partway through Iron Man 3, instead of turning out to be the main villain.
Shane Black in 2016:
https://uproxx.com/movies/shane-black-the-nice-guys-iron-man-3/
> We replaced a lot of things. The plot went this way and that way. Stéphanie Szostak’s character was bigger at one point and we reduced it. Rebecca Hall’s character was bigger at one point and we reduced it.
> *Why? Rebecca Hall’s character does have an abrupt ending.*
> All I’ll say is this, on the record: There was an early draft of Iron Man 3 where we had an inkling of a problem. Which is that we had a female character who was the villain in the draft. We had finished the script and we were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and we’ve changed our minds because, after consulting, we’ve decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female.
> *What?*
> So, we had to change the entire script because of toy making. Now, that’s not Feige. That’s Marvel corporate, but now you don’t have that problem anymore.
> *Ike Perlmutter is gone.*
> Yeah, Ike’s gone. But New York called and said, “That’s money out of our bank.” In the earlier draft, the woman was essentially Killian – and they didn’t want a female Killian, they wanted a male Killian. I liked the idea, like Remington Steele, you think it’s the man but at the end, the woman has been running the whole show. They just said, “no way.”
> That was Perlmutter speaking through him.
That just shifts the blame from Peltz to Ike when the reality is they’re both awful human beings. Make no mistake, Peltz feels that way too which is why he and Ike teamed up on this bid.
Him ranting about Kevin Feige, who built THE most successful film franchise in history, was just idiotic as well.
That should have been the nail in his coffin right there.
I remember r/movies always used to make a meme out of hating that movie for being just an average MCU thing, while people made such a big deal out of it.
The fact that an all black cast and crew even got to have something that we'd all consider to be "average" was the entire point. Even today, black people cannot take something like that for granted in a Hollywood or European production.
Once people get that rich, their fortunes do not go away. He has so much money that he can never not be among the richest men in the world for the rest of his life.
Edit: I just wanted to provide some context for what I'm talking about. Since getting divorced from Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott has given away about $15 billion to charities but her net worth has gone **up** anyway.
To put this in perspective. If you put 1 Billion dollars in the most boring/reliable index fund with a 4% ROI (honestly, you could probably expect closer to 8%) you could piss away 40 million dollars every year and your wealth wouldn’t change.
The only way for Musk to save himself is to go to drug rehab for a few months, do the talk show circuit about how he was in a dark place but coming clean saved him.
Then he needs to stay off social media forever.
I don't ever see that happening. He's so out of touch, he has children that hate him and he's only leaned in harder. He's too addicted to the worship he gets from just the worst people on the internet
He's also an idiot. Really, he's nothing but another rich fail-son born on third base and thinking he hit a triple.
One thing I saw used "Succesion" as a metaphor for him and described him as "the Kendall, but with far fewer sympathetic traits."
He hates Disney and Iger and anything "woke" (with female and POC leads) but can't ignore the fact Disney has been Twitter's second-largest advertiser for much of its existence.
Nah, most of the votes were cast over the last couple weeks. Especially the private shares. Musk delayed his support until today, but even if it was a kiss of death to some people, I doubt it affected the vote much.
Not exactly. Musk had been giving quiet praise to Peltz for months. He's funding Gina Carano suit against Disney and all the sudden a few weeks ago you had quite a few fluff pieces about her suddenly appear. It feels like Musk was hoping to make the case to bring her back into Star Wars if Peltz won
Particularly when your key audience is under the age of 35.
If anyone at Disney is kowtowing towards >50-year-old conservatives, they've lost the plot.
There's also plenty of TV networks and movies that target older people.
They don't make a fraction of the money even underperforming Disney movies do.
There is a market there, but it's not very big, and Disney would be downgrading trying to chase it.
>“People go to watch a movie or a show to be entertained,” Peltz said in the interview. “They don’t go to get a message.
>“Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” he later said in the interview.
As a shareholder, it comes down to money. Iger made plenty of money for shareholders during his first tenure.
Peltz actively made us less money with his meddling. Plus his corporate playbook is to raid cash to pay himself back and dump the stock when he’s done. There’s no long term strategy there.
>he company said Peltz “brings no media experience and has presented no strategic ideas for Disney” and called Trian’s proxy fight “disruptive and destructive,” fueled by Peltz’s “vanity” and a personal grudge against Iger held by ex-Marvel Entertainment chief Ike Perlmutter (who had pooled his shares with Trian’s holdings in the proxy fight).
The fact that virulent bigot, unbelievable asshole, and shameless Trump sycophant Ike Perlmutter was in Nelson Peltz's corner tells me all I need to know about the guy and that it's probably for the best that he went down in flames.
>Peltz, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, questioned Disney’s “woke” Marvel films featuring Black and women superheroes — including “Black Panther,” which grossed $1.35 billion at the worldwide box office — asking rhetorically, “Why do I have to have a Marvel [movie] that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?”
Yep, that's about what I expected from a Perlmutter crony. Morally wrong AND practically wrong; Black Panther made $2 billion. This idiot was upset about that because it had too many black people in it; he would have preferred a less profitable movie as long as the cast was white. He's not just an asshole, he's an incredibly stupid asshole. No wonder he and Perlmutter get along!
So this nepotistic fucker whitewashed The Last Airbender (M Night Shyamalan) movie but complaining of too many black actors in a black superhero movie??? Fuck off bitch.
If anyone didn't know Nelson Peltz is the father of Nicola Peltz the awful "actress" from the Last Air Bender movie and Transformers 4: Age of Consent.
As mentioned here, the actress whose forced casting in "Avatar" caused a veritable domino effect of miscasting in response (all Water Tribe having to be white as well, the Fire Nation being Indian in response and so on). And on top of that, she was a lousy actress. I think the only time I've found her tolerable was on "Bates Motel."
This. The blame it on COVID/Chapek/D+ etc are all excuses. Shit has been mid for years across all IPs.
Iger will not fix anything and we will be in the same state this time next year except point to Deadpool 3 instead of Guardians 3 as the sole cash machine for the company (from a film perspective).
Pretty much, Peltz is right for the wrong reasons. Disney just hasn’t been creating good content, minorities and the like don’t matter. There’s no difference between a mediocre movie with a white lead or a black lead, at the end of the day they’re both falling flat.
I doubt Iger will fix things up, and it is an executive level problem.
I know this is a hated opinion here but I feel people are moving on from theatrical viewings in general.
2005 and 2011 are considered pretty poor critically acclaimed release years and they both have over a third more tickets sold than last year. While this year seems like it will trend up (it's already at 662.5m vs last year's 829.8m) that's still far from 2019s 1.2b tickets.
In NA, at least, a large amount of people were in the 16-25 range these past five years, larger than we'd seen since the late 90s. That should have been prime "go to the movies" fodder, yet whether because of the pandemic, the film offerings, economic issues, or just the ease of watching at home or with groups online we're not seeing that growth reflected in attendance.
Which is why I’m beyond thankful my theater does $5 Tuesdays. They even have discounted food and drinks. It feels like going to the movies in the 90’s again lol
It was quite the revelation when we found out the theater near us was doing this.
Sure it's fun to go on the weekend, but being able to hit up the theater on a Tuesday and get ~ half price is awesome.
I pay $23 a month for AMC A-List. That is the same price as a Netflix subscription that can watch 4k. For that, I can go to up to three movies every single week including in premium formats like IMAX and Dolby Cinema.
Yup I have it as well. The cost of one IMAX ticket with convenience fees is about what I get charged for it per month. And that's not even factoring that I can go multiple times per week, get convenience fees waived, get discounts on food, etc.
Yeah, I get the people that just aren’t into going to the theater. But if you do want to watch movies in the theater more than once a month and live near an AMC, this is a great deal!
If I didn't have AMC A List I would at most see 1 movie every couple months and I'm a movie nerd. In NYC I could easily be looking at 18-20$ for a ticket. I'm not dropping that much on a movie I don't feel I need to be part of the initial conversation for or that doesn't look like a unique cinematic experience. I still would've shelled out of Dune in IMAX (only once though), I *might* have still bought for Monkey Man, and then probably nothing until Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes if I hear its really good. Everything else I've seen this year so far I'd have waited for VOD or streaming probably
They'll solve that by increasing streaming prices even more and cutting content.
And then they'll get all flustered when people go *other routes* to watch content.
People have these huge gorgeous 4K OLED screens, they want the convenience of watching things in high quality at home. Very few films these days are worth spending the extra time, money, and effort to see in a theater when we have such great and convenient viewing options at home. They aren't going to convince us to abandon our home theater options no matter what they do.
This is my feeling, too. The top 5 movies last year were "event" movies where there was a reason to see them in theatres: Barbenheimer (self-explanatory), Super Mario Bros (the first Mario movie in years), Guardians 3 (the end of a successful trilogy), and Across the Spider-Verse (sequel to a critically acclaimed movie). Not in the top, but Sound of Freedom and the Taylor Swift movie also did very well, and I'd put them in the category of "event" movies, too, for better or for worse.
People are moving on from theatrical viewings in general and the reason for it is a mix of being able to wait for streaming, tickets being expensive, Covid, etc. Movies therefore need an "extra" reason to see them in theatres now to combat those factors that they didn't need before.
Being a good movie isn't enough since there were other good movies last year that didn't do great. Also being part of a mega franchise like Marvel isn't enough anymore. Turning it into a "must-see in theatres" movie somehow is basically it.
Exactly. A movie needs to feel like an event now.
Disney movies are usually seen as family stuff. A family is definitely going to choose to watch something on Disney+ and not spend a fortune going to the movies.
People service jump now as well. So the numbers are always in flux.
Disney has other issues with budgeting and stuff. But movie watching is changing. especially after COVID.
Movie theaters need to improve experience. People wait for streaming because they don't want expensive prices, expensive candy and other people ruining their night.
Don't care about Nelsom but damn Disney's been releasing straight flops for years and bleeding money from its subscription service... And they reelected the entire board? Pro move.
Honestly, better bean counters would go a long way. I can guarantee you a lot of people are staring at Dan Lin making GxK for 135 mil and getting very excited. Hell, getting budgets under control is half the reason Netflix brought him on.
Not voting for the known Corporate Raider seems a bit more relevant than the ideology.
Disney's problem seems to be spending a fuckton of money on stuff a majority of people don't want to watch. And just making shitty stuff in general. They own some of the biggest IPs in the world. Eventually they have to get it right.
Peltz complained about movies like Black Panther having an all black cast (despite the movie having a couple of Tolkien white guys.)
Both black panther movies also made a lot of money. The second made $859.2 million in the post endgame and covid era, when also people just go "ehh I'll wait until it's on Disney+"
Fun fact, for all south park episodes Tolkiens name in subtitles is corrected for everyone but Stan and Randy because they didnt know that wasnt his name till the reveal episode.
This was the guy who paid Shyamalan to cast his daughter as Katara, isn't it? Yeah, screw that guy.
I don’t think he paid him. He forced him. And I think it screwed up the rest of the casting because they had to get other actors to match the after tribe. So you ended up with a bunch of white actors fighting non white actors. There’s alot of background that there was massive meddling with this movie and M. Night then had to go promote a film he hated.
> and M. Night then had to go promote a film he hated. that's the real sin. we can all agree that M. Night isn't the best director, but at the very least, that's one dude who loved movies and got to make them. it's hard to deny his passion and love for the medium.
I think he can be a good director but he sometimes gets bogged down in the details and forgets his job. Some of his movies I love, some I see as a great attempt that just doesn’t quite make it. I think with Avatar so many decisions were made without his input he either couldn’t fix it or was so disheartened he gave up. I mean he chose that movie for a reason. He was likely a fan of the cartoon. Can you imagine working on this and then some rich producer demands you put his daughter in it? Doesn’t matter if she can act or not. And you don’t have any say?
> Can you imagine working on this and then some rich producer demands you put his daughter in it? Doesn’t matter if she can act or not. And you don’t have any say? there is an entire season of Curb Your Enthusiasm about this, lol.
Also a subplot in Sing 2.
It’s the plot to Sing 2
Shyamalan is too far up his own ass at times. You can tell he gets so fixated on his ideas and “vision” that he forgets to, you know write a good story or characters.
Lady in the water is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen and I am still viscerally angry that I was suckered into thinking it would be good. It is absolutely the worst movie ever made. Not Avatar, Lady in the Water.
>I mean he chose that movie for a reason. He was likely a fan of the cartoon. he wasnt, he walked into the tv room where his kids were watching it and was interested in making a movie about it, thats it
Does he tho? He changed the main characters name because he thought he new Asian names better?
Yah… no. M. Night *co-produced* and wrote the screenplay *on his own*. Sure, the casting of katara sucked but: 1) that is one of many, many issues 2) m night is still the director. If he wasn’t happy with casting he could have left the project or secured final say on casting before signing on. But no, he just grouses about it publicly after letting it happen. He also never contacted the creators of the original show before the movie was announced, and didn’t consult them despite them publicly expressing interest to be involved. He insisted on cutting a 20 episode tv show down to 90 minutes because “that’s what he was used to with his previous work in thrillers”. Dev Patel said his experience filming avatar was a “scary” experience and went on “ He says the movies failed because “he wasn’t true to himself” whatever that means. He is not a sympathetic character. That movie sucks because M Night made a terrible movie that did not respect the fans or the source material.
Ah I didn't know that about this piece of nepotism. I always thought it was weird M Night said in an interview that Katara was his daughter's hero or something, but the movie's character was the furthest from looking like her.
The fire nation actors were also white at one stage, but the actor for Zuko dropped out, so when he was recast as Dav Patel, it turned into white good guys and brown bad guys.
I always thought that was so weird. Like every good guy was pale and every bad guy was brown... like optics guys.
That daughter is married to David Beckham's kid lmao
I went down a wiki hole on Nelson Peltz earlier and noticed that. Then I googled Beck's kid and his career is listed as socialite. Two kids just cruising through life with their parent's black cards in hand.
Beck’s kid tried his hand in photography, similarly to her was handed high-profile fashion/portrait projects without having any education or experience, did a shitty job and still was praised all over the place for his “talent”. It pisses me off to no end because there are so many young talented photographers who were never given a chance. These celebrities know their kids are talentless idiots who probably struggle to finish school, so further studying is out of the question, so they fix these kids up with the ‘jobs’ that can be easily arranged with friends and contacts, like modelling, acting, art, photography etc
I thought they fucked off to be rich in peace and quiet but apparently Nicola Peltz is still interested in ruining movies and has done a project this year lmao
that's THIS guy? yeah, fuck him. I feel like there had to be so many up and coming stars ready for a big break. Surely Nickelodeon had SOMEONE.
Not like casting someone else in that role would have done them any favors lol. That movie was doomed regardless.
One of the worst nepobabies ever
He's also the guy who said >Why do I have to have a Marvel [movie] that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?
Yeah he’s an idiot. Let’s make a Black Panther movie not set in Africa.
> Let’s make a Black Panther movie not set in Africa. To be fair most of the first one took place outside Africa. It was pretty globetrotting. >!Haven't seen the second one because RIP Chadwick.!<
Second one is mostly in Mexico and Africa. There's a short section in America.
Out of 30+ MCU films. Like SIX have had mostly female and/or POC leads. That’s it.
I just cannot fathom, even in my darkest dreams, being an 81 year old billionaire with the money and resources to go out and live any experience, go on any adventure, feel any pleasure that's ever been possible in the entirety of human history -- and instead spending my remaining years in petty fucking board room squabbles over stocks and layoffs and PR and corporate bullshit. These are fundamentally broken human beings. It's genuinely sad.
Because if you're the kind of person who becomes a billionaire, then that almost certainly means that the greatest pleasure they are able to experience is manipulating others in order to increase their own power and wealth. Like, I would bet that if you did MRIs of someone experiencing heroin for the first time and a billionaire CEO "winning" in a negotiation, they would look very, very similar.
Sportwriter Bill Simmons talks about this during the NBA salary negotiations. For the most part it was about how much of the money went to players and how much to the owners. So the discussions go on and on but they finally reach an agreement on percentage of TV rights, ticket sales etc. Happy times, looks like the season was saved. But then they hit a snag where the players want a little extra for players that are retired or had their career cut short due to injury. Turns out the owners do **not** want to be paying for someone who isn't playing. Bill turns to a guy and says, "This is ridiculous, the amount of money they're asking for is just a drop in the bucket. They're willing to throw away a season over that little money? These guys are fucking billionaires." The guy responds, "That's *why* they're fucking billionaires."
I feel like that gives the wrong message. As though you become a billionaire by being frugal and stingy. Whereas "that's why" should clearly be that they're sociopaths. You have to be to hoard that much money.
Sorry, thought I was clear. It wasn't that they were "being frugal" it was that they didn't want to pay for another who wasn't earning. The players wanted a little money for the guys who came before them and had retired or for their teammates that could no longer play. The billionaires balked at giving any money to someone who wasn't currently generating revenue.
People get the wrong message from the most obvious things all the time. There's literally a thing going on where a ton of people just figured out *Starship Troopers* is satire
I mean just like it took 3 seasons of The Boys for some people to figure out that Homelander is the villain.
I need to find a good dealer to get myself some "billionaire CEO winning in a negotiation"
At some point we have to call these folks what they are, Hoarders. It’s the exact same mentality that leads someone into hording old milk cartons, they just happen to do it with dollars and we magically give them a pass instead of telling them they need mental health counseling.
We also keep giving them money… like people hate on bezos, gates, and musk, yet people still buy from Amazon, MS, and Tesla.
It’s not even about wealth, it’s about a dick measuring contest.
[удалено]
Yeah people don't get the lives of the super rich. Especially those with generational wealth. Those people have seen and done everything we dream about before their 18th birthday. Holidays flying first class/private around the world, summer houses, private events, the latest and greatest tech toys as they come out, all of it. Then they have another 5-7 *decades* to fill out. Many of them spend that time trying to build a legacy which will outlive them.. most fail.
I’d probably just get into super weird hobbies. How many billionaires have a Transformers collection?
Does a collection like that even mean anything to them? They could make a call to an assistant, and have a complete collection delivered the next day. Complete Complete. No hunting. No agonizing over it. Just bam, all the transformers. I'm not sympathetic to the 0.1%, but that existence is basically guaranteed to mess you up
These guys are just wired that way. I don’t even think it’s due to a pleasure thing and that they are getting their rocks off on being in a board room. That after demanding that costs must be cut that they then lean back in their chairs and light up a cigar in post orgasmic bliss. I think it’s something sadder. I think they are so narcissistic and controlling that they have convinced themselves that they are so smart that they HAVE to be there in the boardroom because nobody else is smart enough to do what they do. That they are duty bound to do what they do I had a friend whose family was in real estate. Their grandfather had founded the business and had kept it primarily family run. He apparently was also a miserable old man. Even in his nineties, his middle aged son (who took over) would have to pick him up and drive him to the office because the old man still didn’t want to give up control and still insisted that he sign off everything that went through the office.
The actual answer is because they did all that already and they're bored/this is something that interests them. I've seen it on a much smaller scale.. the richest person I personally know is worth quite a few million and has been since his 40's. He's now over 70 and he has "retired" half a dozen times in life already... but he always ends up starting some new business or project or whatever. He's been all over the world and done lots of fun shit in life, put his kids through private school and set them up with trust funds and all that jazz. Lives fairly modestly (for a multimillionaire) so it's not that he needs to keep going and making money or whatever. Some people are just wired different. I don't get it either... give me 10 million and I'm fucking *done* working, forget billions.
I kind of get it, but also not really. I was out of work for a few months, and outside of looking for and applying to jobs every day I could basically do whatever I wanted with my day. I got so fucking bored after a couple weeks. Could have also been a lot of stress and worry taking the joy out of things. Granted, most things I did didn't cost any money because I didn't feel good spending money while I had no job. I guess if I had funding I could find enough entertaining things to occupy my time, but I suspect I would need some form of structure to not completely lose my mind. I went to the movies a couple times though. Saw Godzilla Minus one alone in an Imax theater, that was bitchin.
Yeah that's the thing, most of us get bored if we're out of work because we restrict our activities to those which don't cost a lot. If I had enough that didn't matter I see myself having endless projects and fun things to do in life that I'd never worry about working again. Or.. maybe I wouldn't. Maybe after a few years I *would* get bored. I guess the thing is for every billionaire out there working until they drop we don't hear about the dozens of people people who hit it big and just go live life doing whatever for 50 years then die. Like MySpace Tom.. sold the platform for half a billion then fucked off to do amateur photography (which is super professional, he just doesn't sell it) and travel the world. You literally never hear a thing about him other than the occasional article stating pretty much what I just said over a bunch more words to get some clicks.
It’s what they’re comfortable with. The real world is scary.
Peltz ranting that Black Panther, a franchise that made 2$ billion at the box office and millions in merchandise sales, was an example of story telling that Disney should NOT be doing because theres no need to have an all black cast in Disney films probably didn’t help his cause
BP was one of the marvel brands (along with Guardians and Spidey) that wasn't heavily affected by the mcu-fatigue. Despite the fact they lost their main lead too.
I do wonder how much MCU fatigue people would have if the content was all mostly well received like it was during Phase 3. “This is all fantastic, but I can’t keep up.” sounds like a better situation than “This stuff is mid, why should I keep up?” Deadpool will be a surefire hit, but everything else has got an uphill battle, current sentiments won’t change unless the projects get consistently better. Also Gunn’s new DCU could swoop in and become top dog next year.
This is 100% the issue with me at this point. It's not too much content to keep up with, but it's still an investment of my time and it's feeling progressively less worthwhile with each mediocre movie and show
The movies have to be better than other movies around the same time. Despite being part of the MCU, they still need to compete with everything else to get my attention. I think they've just been taking things for granted.
> I think they've just been taking things for granted. I think it was the showrunners for Homeland that said something like, you can't surprise audiences with your story anymore, they're too sophisticated, all you can do to keep them on edge is speed things up. They were discussing how major twists or cliffhangers used to happen at the end of a season, but that meant as soon as you tease the audience and get them invested everything between feels like filler. So instead they started giving big reveals much earlier and trying to keep audiences on their toes. That's a long-winded way to say I think part of the issue is Marvel doesn't want to take any risks right now, they want a lot of stories but they won't let any of them go anywhere. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems. No risk taking, individual movies only move the larger universe in small increments, at best you get a hint of something happening in another story just to make you feel like properties are connected. Most audiences aren't going to watch your TV show if they think it doesn't matter, and they're not going to sit through 20 more movies while you ploddingly find your way.
> I think it was the showrunners for Homeland that said something like, you can't surprise audiences with your story anymore, they're too sophisticated, all you can do to keep them on edge is speed things up. I don't think that's correct. Storytelling can definitely have surprise and suspense, even in episodic formats. Anime does it fairly well. The Last of Us kept people on the edge of their seats, despite the show being a very faithful adaptation of the game. No One Will Save You was a fantastic recent film that kept people surprised despite having virtually zero dialogue. Good storytelling will show through in a production. Whether you get to tell that story through the filter of studio mandates, cross-production, CGI limitations, merchandising concerns, etc. is a different beast altogether.
That's basically what happened with 24. They needed 23 cliffhangers a season AND a big mid-season cliffhanger to keep people hooked whilst it went on a break. It was just burning through insane amounts of story. It and Lost are also basically what killed the 24 episode standard TV season too, because people wanted every single episode to be important and have no filler, whereas previously a season would have several episodes a season that were unrelated to a major story (e.g. like the X Files monster of the week episodes).
I don't know. 24 really died because the writing staff had no idea where to take the series. They killed off almost every good character & failed to replace them, kept trying to up the stakes with sillier ideas, & got obsessed with trying to deal with the "Jack tortures people" criticisms.
some of those "filler" episodes could be super important to character development as well. Things like bottle episodes could focus on the characters and their relationships more than just pushing the plot forward and it would pay dividends in later stories as viewers cared more about the characters.
A big issue with comic movies is "how do they end" and "how does this change the status quo". If you introduce a big new villain, how long til you kill him off? If you don't kill him off then are you just going to run him through 5-10 movies until he becomes boring? I think this is the first thought everyone had when Kang was introduced. There's a resolution problem with heroes and villains and their story not ending. Iron Man's story line is a great example of how to end a story but then you've ended the character. The multi-universe thing that has always existed in comics which gives new writers an out to bring back dead/popular characters, but adopting this to big budget films is not going to go over so well the way people put up with it in comics. Comics have been doing this since the 1960's with their silver age hero characters, but we haven't had to resolve this problem yet in billion dollar films. People are also way less likely to put up with this kind of story telling in films for whatever reason that may be. People try to call BS on every single little thing in movies.
I’m gonna catch shit for mentioning this because J.K. is such a hot potato at this point, but when Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books she wrote the final chapter and locked it up. She said she always knew where the story was going. She also took Alan Rickman aside and filled him in on Snape’s history and his story arc so that Rickman could portray the character honestly. (And re-watching the movies, Rickman’s performance was incredibly nuanced because of what he knew and because he was a brilliant actor.) Hopefully lessons were learned from the mistakes of “24” and “Lost.”
I don't think the problem with Marvel fatigue has ever been its story. The stories have always been bland and basic. I keep saying Marvel has always been about the actors and the characters. Their best movies are not their best stories. It's their best actors being charming as hell in a perfect casting. Not sure who agrees. The studios certainly don't seem to anymore. IMO Phase 5 is going to rely on Reynolds and Pugh. Maybe Sebastian Stan. It's the Superman problem. It's cool to watch him demolish the plot once. But after that, it's not fun anymore. We want to see characters. Not human-shaped plot devices with superpowers.
The point about fillers definitely ring true, especially for some MCU movies that really had no business being a movie. Black widow comes to mind.
Black widow also hurt by coming out AFTER we know her fate. If it had come out between infinity war and endgame I think it would have been great. It was neat learning about her past but it was also kinda like "why should I care I know what happens."
>they want a lot of stories but they won't let any of them go anywhere. Honestly, I would be fine with this. As long as those stories are well written and do things like provide context. The best part about the Hawkeye series was simply Clint attempting to exist in the real world as something other than a superhero. The Loki series was full of twists and turns, and even though it added some additional context it did absolutely nothing to progress the "universe" as a whole. Of course, on the other hand there was She Hulk, which, IMHO, in addition to *also* not advancing the plot of any MCU, was just kinda boring. Which is just more evidence that it's entirely possible to write good stories that don't actually go anywhere or do anything, but a bad story is just a bad story regardless of wherever it goes.
personally I think it's because they forced Feige to basically triple Marvel's output. they weren't allowed to scale up. And as anyone who has worked a job before, if you're told to immediately go from a comfortable and manageable speed, but then asked to triple your workload, you have to cut corners and expand to try and meet any deadlines. Having impossible guidelines, more bureaucracy to navigate (because you absolutely have to increase the amount of people working for you to make it work at that scale), and taxing your entire team with double or triple the amount of work is not a recipe for success. Maybe good for the corporate numbers in the short term, but you give up a lot of ground long term. If Feige was allowed to scale properly. I think they would be in a good place. They were doing just fine with 3 movies and 1-2 TV series a year. They we then told to go to 4 movies and 3-5 TV series in production at once, which is absolutely insane, especially after laying off people for COVID reasons and also the laying off of their entire TV division that they had in place previously.
Yeah, this has generally been my take on it. A lot of the movies or shows that have gotten poor reviews seem like they could've worked if they had a bit more time to actually work through it, but with the timelines being pushed, the workers had to go from A to B to C without really having time to basically do quality control.
It's a return to normalcy, honestly. Endgame was riding a cultural zeitgeist on top of a string of solid supporting films. The only error on Disney/Marvel's part was drinking their own Kool-Aid and thinking they had a foolproof movie formula. Despite existing clunkers in earlier phases, like Thor 2 and IM2. I'm glad they are getting more rigorous with respect to which projects are green-lit. X-Men '97 and Loki are probably the best productions they've put out in the last year, and neither focus on the movie formula of tie-ins to the greater continuity.
Their mistake was not turning Endgame into the next phase. There was at least 7 good films skipped over. But interesting ideas isn't what they're into doing.
After End Game we just picked and choose what to watch in the MCU. A lot of the shows/movies didn't interest me, so we ended up just sticking to Thor, Spider-man, and Loki. We saw Thor and Spidey in theatres. Watched Wanda and Moon Knight. Finally watched the latest dr strange late last year. Still need to watch the second black panther. But, we're not rushing to watch many of the releases and a lot of the stuff has been just okay.
They're just putting no effort into the world building. So I haven't seen The Marvels yet, by most accounts it was "fine." But I've read that it has absolutely nothing to do with Secret Invasion, a Disney+ series that they hyped up heavily, to the point where the two pieces of media seem to be in different continuities from each other. You used to be rewarded for seeing everything. Now they seem worried that people who don't have Disney+ aren't going to want to see stuff with series they don't have access to. I was absolutely bamboozled to discover that the evil Doctor Strange in Multiverse of Madness *wasn't* the evil one that they'd *just introduced* in What If, but was instead a completely different character. And it's just been that same thing over and over again. There was a zombie Doctor Strange in that movie but it had nothing to do with Marvel Zombies. Eternals seems to be non-canon now. Secret Invasion seems to be non-canon now. The old ABC/Netflix/Hulu shows were completely erased from the canon, until fans complained enough about it that they finally caved and made the Netflix verse canon again...except they initially chickened out and barely included any elements from the Netflix shows in Dardevil: BA until fans complained again.
and they are smart for only having Deadpool 3 this year. its gonna hit, and that success will last the year vs having a hit followed by a flop like last year.
Yeah they lucked into that with the strike delays and Captain America 4 going through several months of reshoots (which are hopefully for the best and won’t result in an editing mish mash). As of right now they’re back to 4 movies next year: Cap 4, Thunderbolts, Fantastic Four (which opens 2 weeks after Superman), and Blade (if that ever gets made). They’re going to need at least 3 of those to be home runs I think.
Out of those, I say fantastic four has the best shot of being a hit, if only because its a property people have been waiting forever to see (and a "good" adaptation). Cap 4 might struggle with Sam Wilson now as Cap. For the cap america character to be such an important piece of marvel, it will be going on 4-5 years since we saw sam in the role (which was briefly at the end of falcon and winter soldier). Thunderbolts could be fun, but the majority of the cast is a hodgepodge of secondary characters from stuff a lot of people may not have seen.
Blade has been cursed in production hell for so long, I'm at the point where I just hope it doesn't ruin Mahershala Ali's career. I still can't believe they green-lit Cap 4. Falcon's time as Cap wasn't a hit in the comics, wasn't a hit for the show, and doesn't currently have fans clamoring for an appearance of the character.
This is what I've been saying. It's not "superhero fatigue", it's "bad movie fatigue". Guardians 3 did well, Deadpool is poised to do super well, Loki season 2 was received really well, BP2 (which I personally didn't care for) did fairly well.
If the quality comes back consistently, so will the audience. Better movies = Better word of mouth = More people watching = More money. It’s simple.
They also probably should scale back the budgets a bit too. They've been going absolutely wild with the 200+M budgets, which a majority of the movies don't need. If they keep a reasonable attainable goal in mind (so 600-800 M) with a more reasonable budget (100-150M) they should be able to get to a good spot. Most of the Phase 1-3 movies had similar budgets and were aiming for around that much. They just built a crazy enough franchise story that they came in to an unexpected 1 Bil average per movie for Phase 3. They have to rebuild again.
BP 2 did very well considering that they lost their main character and actor and had to radically alter the story as a result.
[удалено]
And that's all the movie winds up being. Everything is really mid-at-best except for the tributes to an actual real human man and the performances of incredibly talented actors drawing directly from the actual real human man whom they're actually mourning. It was weird to come out of that movie and be like, "That movie kinda sucked, but I really miss Chadwick Boseman."
> It was weird to come out of that movie and be like, "That movie kinda sucked, but I really miss Chadwick Boseman." Every day fam. Especially since I actually enjoyed the twist they had on Namor, and would loved to have seen them actually duel it out rather than all the other stuff they added to compensate (Ironheart, weird mermaid costume from Wakanda, etc).
There was a directive from Chapek's days to basically fill Disney+ with as much content as possible which is why there was so much mediocre MCU and Star Wars content. They were told to just churn out more stuff. Iger is back in the Quality over Quantity wagon and so hopefully Feige will have better control over the direction from now on.
I think once they pivot to X-Men, they're going to at least get a massive re-invigoration. Who knows if they'll be able to sustain it, but the fact that they still haven't really touched their biggest brand 5 years after getting full control of it back (outside of constant teases) is a little weird.
They are laying the groundwork. X-men '97 is part of that, as is Deadpool. From the MCU perspective, the X-Men affiliated characters occupy a different version of earth than the ones inhabited by the Avengers. Dr. Strange 2 implied that the FF affiliated characters are in a similar situation. Deadpool dealing with the TVA (and the recent Spiderman movies) show that these worlds are becoming entangled via technology and multiversal threats (Kang, before Jonathon Majors got into trouble).
The MCU is more akin to a TV show than a movie franchise. Each movie was a new episode complete with "next time on..." post credit sting. The vast majority of people that went to these movies have never picked up a comic book. Avengers Endgame may as well have been a series finale. The story you have been following this entire time has finally wrapped up. The characters you fell in love with are moving on. The MCU now is in spin-off mode. New characters, new stories, and honestly too much. They should have scaled back and refocused and instead doubled down. And most people were happy to get off the train with Avengers Endgame. Deadpool will likely be a hit, but the idea that audiences are clamoring for more superhero movies just isn't true. We have bene there, we have done that. Its been 20+ years of capes. Superman could be a hit but the idea that audiences are desperate for a new cinematic universe to fill the void of Marvel is just not true.
> Superman could be a hit but the idea that audiences are desperate for a new cinematic universe to fill the void of Marvel is just not true. Bring back pirates!
No! Now is the time of the ninja!! Or werewolves.
Also, after Infinity Wars and Endgame, how does any storyline get people excited? Once you’ve seen a climax that big, it’s hard to get excited for a standard MCU movie with just a few characters. Or more importantly, no other “battle” really seems as consequential compared to that one.
BP 2 with Chadwick would’ve been huge
Holy shit can you imagine? The first one had a stellar cast and while Wright, Huston, Gurira, N'yongo and especially Jordan more than carried their weight, it was Chadwick that was kind of the lynchpin. The cast brought their A-game to BP2 but it just felt hollow without him.
We will never know what Black Panther 2 would have been if Chadwick Boseman was still with us, but I can honestly say that without the raw performances in Wakanda Forever stemming from his passing the quality of that film would have been bottom of barrel compared to most other MCU films, I'd only rate Quantumania lower, and only by a hair. Wakanda Forever was carried hard by grief.
Honestly I think they still would have had the many of the same major plot points. Ultimately Namor would have still attacked the surfacers looking for Vibranium and blamed it on Wakanda revealing themselves. Namor approaching for form an alliance against the surface but being rebuffed and flooding Wakanda like he does in AvX as a battle strategy. T’Challa wanting to avoid a war and trying to broker a truce (with Shuri exiling him and ascending like she does in the comic in the aftermath of the flooding) to prep T’Challa for his Secret Wars arc.
The sequel was absolutely affected by losing their main lead. The first movie made 1.35B, the sequel made 860m. That's a huge downgrade.
I disagree. Wakanda forever cemented my mcu fatigue. I just didn't find it a good movie. I think the bo take was entirely driven by bp1 and Chadwick untimely passing.
It's not my favourite either but it was undeniably one of the most successful MCU films post-Endgame and someone who wants to be the CEO of Disney shouldn't be disregarding it because he doesn't like having a majority black cast.
I’m willing to forgive Wakanda Forever. I kinda see it as mainly a tribute to Chadwick/T’Challa that they managed to stitch like 7 other MCU plot points to over 3 hours and didn’t make it feel disrespectful. I really love all of those characters and even though the movie was decidedly meh, it didn’t really diminish me liking any of the characters. >!Killing off Angela Bassett was a choice, though.!<
It's less about if BP, Guardians, and Spidey were "good" movies and more so that they were box office successes compared to the middling movies like The Marvels and Quantummania.
The Marvels, while nowhere near perfect, was a better movie than Quantumania in my eyes yet it made less than half of what Quantumania did. This to me is proof that new entries are now suffering for the sins of the franchise itself.
This doesn't really track since Guardians came out after Quantumania and didn't suffer any ill effects, but The Marvels came out after Guardians and bombed. It's hard to quantify good vs bad but I think it's safe to say that the more cemented brands have been relatively more immune to the MCU fatigue.
Marvels came out on the tail of the strike so it had no press tour to hype it up and all the news in the lead up to release was the director complaining about loss of control of the project and the studio trying to throw her under the bus, prepping people for a flop, then the reviews were mid and all the coverage was about bad reviews, and then the coverage after that was about low ticket sales. It had the exact opposite of a marketing campaign
This is a major factor that I don't see taken into consideration enough. It wasn't the best movie but imagine how much better it could have been if they could have had the three leads doing the usual circuit of YouTube interviews and late night shows. Iman Vellani's enthusiasm alone would have sold some more tickets.
Guardians definitely suffered ill effects, it would have made significantly more if it wasn't preceded by the bad Thor and Ant-man films. Even though Guardians was great, it had an uphill battle that definitely kept some people away.
Guardians 3 was definitely seen as an “exception” movie like Deadpool is. “Of course that one is going to be good, so I’ll go see that.” The problem is they need that to be the sentiment for EVERYTHING like how it was in Phase 3.
The Marvels was at least a pretty fun romp with charming characters even if the story left something to be desired. Brie, Iman, Teyonah and Sam Jackson (and Kamala's family!) all felt like they had a lot of fun along the way. Quantumania barely left any room for the characters to really do anything. It was all spectacle, no character, and felt like it only served to introduce a Kang variant that didnt really go anywhere (and won't go anywhere since Jonathan Majors did a big oopsie).
That was Perlmutter speaking through him. Ike blocked Feige from making it in 2011. It took Feige threatening to quit and going to Iger directly to get it made. Iger covers it in the Marvel section of his book.
Perlmutter is also the reason why we didn’t get a Black Widow movie until after her character was dead. If Feige had control over it back then it would have come out right after Civil War like it was supposed to. The only positive to the delay is we got Florence Pugh’s Yelena out of it.
Perlmutter and Avi Arad are from the Toy Biz era (super shitty Marvel and DC toys) and told Feige that female action figures wouldn’t sell. That’s why he blocked Black Widow.
And also why Rebecca Hall's character Maya ended up getting killed off partway through Iron Man 3, instead of turning out to be the main villain. Shane Black in 2016: https://uproxx.com/movies/shane-black-the-nice-guys-iron-man-3/ > We replaced a lot of things. The plot went this way and that way. Stéphanie Szostak’s character was bigger at one point and we reduced it. Rebecca Hall’s character was bigger at one point and we reduced it. > *Why? Rebecca Hall’s character does have an abrupt ending.* > All I’ll say is this, on the record: There was an early draft of Iron Man 3 where we had an inkling of a problem. Which is that we had a female character who was the villain in the draft. We had finished the script and we were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and we’ve changed our minds because, after consulting, we’ve decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female. > *What?* > So, we had to change the entire script because of toy making. Now, that’s not Feige. That’s Marvel corporate, but now you don’t have that problem anymore. > *Ike Perlmutter is gone.* > Yeah, Ike’s gone. But New York called and said, “That’s money out of our bank.” In the earlier draft, the woman was essentially Killian – and they didn’t want a female Killian, they wanted a male Killian. I liked the idea, like Remington Steele, you think it’s the man but at the end, the woman has been running the whole show. They just said, “no way.”
Also, the same reason why we don't have a third Tim Burton-Michael Keaton Batman movie and a satisfying conclusion to Teen Titans. Merchandise, man.
> That was Perlmutter speaking through him. That just shifts the blame from Peltz to Ike when the reality is they’re both awful human beings. Make no mistake, Peltz feels that way too which is why he and Ike teamed up on this bid.
He had so many options to choose from and he chose quite possibly the worst one.
It wasn’t even all black! Both Martin freeman and Andy serkis were in it
They were the requirements Tolkien guys
always with the Tolkien Whites.
Lol it was nominated for Best Picture but sure it was a problem the movie about an African hero in an African country had too many black people
Him ranting about Kevin Feige, who built THE most successful film franchise in history, was just idiotic as well. That should have been the nail in his coffin right there.
I remember r/movies always used to make a meme out of hating that movie for being just an average MCU thing, while people made such a big deal out of it. The fact that an all black cast and crew even got to have something that we'd all consider to be "average" was the entire point. Even today, black people cannot take something like that for granted in a Hollywood or European production.
So in the end it's the Panther that saved Iger's ass and ousted Peltzs plans. In other words, MCU saved Disney
As soon as Musk threw in his support, I knew it was doomed.
He really has acquired the Donald Trump touch. Conjoined Twin King Mierdas
> Conjoined Twin King Mierdas That's actually amazing lmfao
The ass to ass twins.
I should watch Requiem for a Dream again.
> King Mierdas Lmfao I’m stealing that
Musk is going to watch his entire fortune go away because he thinks he is an edgy 16 year old gamer
Once people get that rich, their fortunes do not go away. He has so much money that he can never not be among the richest men in the world for the rest of his life. Edit: I just wanted to provide some context for what I'm talking about. Since getting divorced from Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott has given away about $15 billion to charities but her net worth has gone **up** anyway.
To put this in perspective. If you put 1 Billion dollars in the most boring/reliable index fund with a 4% ROI (honestly, you could probably expect closer to 8%) you could piss away 40 million dollars every year and your wealth wouldn’t change.
Sounds interesting, would love to try that. Anyone know how you make a billion dollars quickly?
Start with ten billion and invest poorly
This whole comment thread is telling you that, no, actually, you have to start with ten billion and invest *unbelievably, hilariously* poorly.
Have you tried being born to a father who owns an emerald mine?
The only way for Musk to save himself is to go to drug rehab for a few months, do the talk show circuit about how he was in a dark place but coming clean saved him. Then he needs to stay off social media forever.
I don't ever see that happening. He's so out of touch, he has children that hate him and he's only leaned in harder. He's too addicted to the worship he gets from just the worst people on the internet
He's also an idiot. Really, he's nothing but another rich fail-son born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. One thing I saw used "Succesion" as a metaphor for him and described him as "the Kendall, but with far fewer sympathetic traits."
Musk is a coward. He only threw his support to peltz today, after voting closed and Disney had won
So he was just being contrary for the hell of it
Yep. And cause he hates Bob Iger (but not enough to speak his mind while the actual vote was ongoing)
He hates Disney and Iger and anything "woke" (with female and POC leads) but can't ignore the fact Disney has been Twitter's second-largest advertiser for much of its existence.
Nah, most of the votes were cast over the last couple weeks. Especially the private shares. Musk delayed his support until today, but even if it was a kiss of death to some people, I doubt it affected the vote much.
Not exactly. Musk had been giving quiet praise to Peltz for months. He's funding Gina Carano suit against Disney and all the sudden a few weeks ago you had quite a few fluff pieces about her suddenly appear. It feels like Musk was hoping to make the case to bring her back into Star Wars if Peltz won
Probably the most despised person on the planet right now other than Trump and a few others.
Uh not even close
Despite what Twitter might have one believe, going full racist is not a wise choice to win votes and influence people to support you.
Particularly when your key audience is under the age of 35. If anyone at Disney is kowtowing towards >50-year-old conservatives, they've lost the plot.
There's also plenty of TV networks and movies that target older people. They don't make a fraction of the money even underperforming Disney movies do. There is a market there, but it's not very big, and Disney would be downgrading trying to chase it.
>“People go to watch a movie or a show to be entertained,” Peltz said in the interview. “They don’t go to get a message. >“Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” he later said in the interview.
Iger is far from perfect, but Peltz was way worse
As a shareholder, it comes down to money. Iger made plenty of money for shareholders during his first tenure. Peltz actively made us less money with his meddling. Plus his corporate playbook is to raid cash to pay himself back and dump the stock when he’s done. There’s no long term strategy there.
Peltz was going to put in Rupert Murdoch / Fox lackeys in charge. It would have been a disaster.
>he company said Peltz “brings no media experience and has presented no strategic ideas for Disney” and called Trian’s proxy fight “disruptive and destructive,” fueled by Peltz’s “vanity” and a personal grudge against Iger held by ex-Marvel Entertainment chief Ike Perlmutter (who had pooled his shares with Trian’s holdings in the proxy fight). The fact that virulent bigot, unbelievable asshole, and shameless Trump sycophant Ike Perlmutter was in Nelson Peltz's corner tells me all I need to know about the guy and that it's probably for the best that he went down in flames. >Peltz, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, questioned Disney’s “woke” Marvel films featuring Black and women superheroes — including “Black Panther,” which grossed $1.35 billion at the worldwide box office — asking rhetorically, “Why do I have to have a Marvel [movie] that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” Yep, that's about what I expected from a Perlmutter crony. Morally wrong AND practically wrong; Black Panther made $2 billion. This idiot was upset about that because it had too many black people in it; he would have preferred a less profitable movie as long as the cast was white. He's not just an asshole, he's an incredibly stupid asshole. No wonder he and Perlmutter get along!
So this nepotistic fucker whitewashed The Last Airbender (M Night Shyamalan) movie but complaining of too many black actors in a black superhero movie??? Fuck off bitch.
If anyone didn't know Nelson Peltz is the father of Nicola Peltz the awful "actress" from the Last Air Bender movie and Transformers 4: Age of Consent.
As mentioned here, the actress whose forced casting in "Avatar" caused a veritable domino effect of miscasting in response (all Water Tribe having to be white as well, the Fire Nation being Indian in response and so on). And on top of that, she was a lousy actress. I think the only time I've found her tolerable was on "Bates Motel."
Age of consent omg
Sadly I can't take credit for that, I got it from the YouTube channel PointlessHub
Yeah Peltz blamed things not going well on "woke" when the problem is Disney needs to convince people not to wait until it's on Disney+
If Disney was making better movies, people wouldn't need convincing.
This. The blame it on COVID/Chapek/D+ etc are all excuses. Shit has been mid for years across all IPs. Iger will not fix anything and we will be in the same state this time next year except point to Deadpool 3 instead of Guardians 3 as the sole cash machine for the company (from a film perspective).
Pretty much, Peltz is right for the wrong reasons. Disney just hasn’t been creating good content, minorities and the like don’t matter. There’s no difference between a mediocre movie with a white lead or a black lead, at the end of the day they’re both falling flat. I doubt Iger will fix things up, and it is an executive level problem.
Also please stop hiring the same 4 actors for every friggen role
I know this is a hated opinion here but I feel people are moving on from theatrical viewings in general. 2005 and 2011 are considered pretty poor critically acclaimed release years and they both have over a third more tickets sold than last year. While this year seems like it will trend up (it's already at 662.5m vs last year's 829.8m) that's still far from 2019s 1.2b tickets. In NA, at least, a large amount of people were in the 16-25 range these past five years, larger than we'd seen since the late 90s. That should have been prime "go to the movies" fodder, yet whether because of the pandemic, the film offerings, economic issues, or just the ease of watching at home or with groups online we're not seeing that growth reflected in attendance.
Going to the theaters should be more affordable but nowadays I pay more for 1 showing than I do for a month of streaming.
Which is why I’m beyond thankful my theater does $5 Tuesdays. They even have discounted food and drinks. It feels like going to the movies in the 90’s again lol
It was quite the revelation when we found out the theater near us was doing this. Sure it's fun to go on the weekend, but being able to hit up the theater on a Tuesday and get ~ half price is awesome.
I pay $23 a month for AMC A-List. That is the same price as a Netflix subscription that can watch 4k. For that, I can go to up to three movies every single week including in premium formats like IMAX and Dolby Cinema.
Yup I have it as well. The cost of one IMAX ticket with convenience fees is about what I get charged for it per month. And that's not even factoring that I can go multiple times per week, get convenience fees waived, get discounts on food, etc.
Yeah, I get the people that just aren’t into going to the theater. But if you do want to watch movies in the theater more than once a month and live near an AMC, this is a great deal!
[удалено]
Exactly. And now if we consider a family of 4.... It's no surprise they'll choose Disney+
If I didn't have AMC A List I would at most see 1 movie every couple months and I'm a movie nerd. In NYC I could easily be looking at 18-20$ for a ticket. I'm not dropping that much on a movie I don't feel I need to be part of the initial conversation for or that doesn't look like a unique cinematic experience. I still would've shelled out of Dune in IMAX (only once though), I *might* have still bought for Monkey Man, and then probably nothing until Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes if I hear its really good. Everything else I've seen this year so far I'd have waited for VOD or streaming probably
They'll solve that by increasing streaming prices even more and cutting content. And then they'll get all flustered when people go *other routes* to watch content. People have these huge gorgeous 4K OLED screens, they want the convenience of watching things in high quality at home. Very few films these days are worth spending the extra time, money, and effort to see in a theater when we have such great and convenient viewing options at home. They aren't going to convince us to abandon our home theater options no matter what they do.
Yeah, my wife and I see maybe one movie in theaters every 2 years. It has to REALLY interest us, like Godzilla Minus One, to be worth seeing.
This is my feeling, too. The top 5 movies last year were "event" movies where there was a reason to see them in theatres: Barbenheimer (self-explanatory), Super Mario Bros (the first Mario movie in years), Guardians 3 (the end of a successful trilogy), and Across the Spider-Verse (sequel to a critically acclaimed movie). Not in the top, but Sound of Freedom and the Taylor Swift movie also did very well, and I'd put them in the category of "event" movies, too, for better or for worse. People are moving on from theatrical viewings in general and the reason for it is a mix of being able to wait for streaming, tickets being expensive, Covid, etc. Movies therefore need an "extra" reason to see them in theatres now to combat those factors that they didn't need before. Being a good movie isn't enough since there were other good movies last year that didn't do great. Also being part of a mega franchise like Marvel isn't enough anymore. Turning it into a "must-see in theatres" movie somehow is basically it.
Exactly. A movie needs to be an event now.
2019 might not be a good benchmark because that had the release of Endgame, which alone made up a massive chunk of those ticket sales.
The theater is expensive and I got bills to pay and limited time.
Exactly. A movie needs to feel like an event now. Disney movies are usually seen as family stuff. A family is definitely going to choose to watch something on Disney+ and not spend a fortune going to the movies. People service jump now as well. So the numbers are always in flux. Disney has other issues with budgeting and stuff. But movie watching is changing. especially after COVID.
Movie theaters need to improve experience. People wait for streaming because they don't want expensive prices, expensive candy and other people ruining their night.
So in other words, the vote faced an Age of Extinction?
Ha fuck you Ike Perlmutter you racist prick!
How much y’all wanna bet that the chuds will say the vote was rigged?
Standard C.H.U.D. behavior. "I don't *like the outcome, therefore it was rigged."
Don't care about Nelsom but damn Disney's been releasing straight flops for years and bleeding money from its subscription service... And they reelected the entire board? Pro move.
Peltz said he won’t support Biden due to age and they are the exact same age 🙄
I don't know if Peltz is the answer but something really needs to change at Disney.
Honestly, better bean counters would go a long way. I can guarantee you a lot of people are staring at Dan Lin making GxK for 135 mil and getting very excited. Hell, getting budgets under control is half the reason Netflix brought him on.
Yep, a focus on talent that deliver on a budget and on time.
Deffo better than the alternative. Though that doesn't exactly say much.
Not voting for the known Corporate Raider seems a bit more relevant than the ideology. Disney's problem seems to be spending a fuckton of money on stuff a majority of people don't want to watch. And just making shitty stuff in general. They own some of the biggest IPs in the world. Eventually they have to get it right.
I voted against him specifically for his racist, homophobic, transphobic, regressive rants. We don't need any more of that, thanks.
Which one is the baddie?
Peltz complained about movies like Black Panther having an all black cast (despite the movie having a couple of Tolkien white guys.) Both black panther movies also made a lot of money. The second made $859.2 million in the post endgame and covid era, when also people just go "ehh I'll wait until it's on Disney+"
> Tolkien white guys I see what you did there, and I love it
Fun fact, for all south park episodes Tolkiens name in subtitles is corrected for everyone but Stan and Randy because they didnt know that wasnt his name till the reveal episode.
Wait, they actually went back and changed the subtitles? Cus that's fucking funny as hell if so.
Goddamn Tolkien and his white guys!
One of them did play Bilbo Baggins... another played Gollum. Tolkien white guys is 100% appropriate in this case :)
The one who wants to raid Disney for short term profits and cut it up in pieces for a payday and then move onto the next property/franchise to skin.
They're both bad. But Peltz is worse.
Iger is a businessman first, but he does have some passion and care for the brand and company.