Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Yeah, him using the phrase SJW seriously is what I mean that he isn't quite on the mark about the political aspect, but he does a great break down of the marketing strategy of Marvel towards the end of the movie and also addresses the whole Her/a hero thing, and there he is spot on. Basically ignore everything else he says, except the last five minutes or so, because there are a few interesting observations.
io9 has an article about Goose the Cat and SLJ.
Once again, Jackson knows what's what:
Also, Brie Larson is allergic? Man, that must have been tough. (Coincidentally, Keirnan Shipka of The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is also allergic, which was tough because of Salem the cat. Which is why she picks up the cat once in the first episode and then never again.)
Highly allergic, evidently. According to her, they mostly managed it by keeping the shoots with the cat brief and scheduling them very particularly.
Still...
Especially since, because of how aware they are of cats' meme factor, she did a bunch of ads and such with Goose as well.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 4th 2019 at 2:31:17 AM
If the trolling didn't work, Ghostbusters (2016) would've been a massive box office hit.
Then again, there were other factors involved, like The Secret Life of Pets, Finding Nemo and the slew of other blockbusters that were coming out and...just not doing well.
Edited by Mario1995 on Mar 4th 2019 at 5:29:17 AM
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
I don't think the trolling was the only reason for Ghostbusters' failure, no. The film itself by most accounts I've heard was enjoyable enough (especially if you're concerned with female representation), but sort of middling. It had trouble really finding an audience. I don't think the film would have been a massive box office hit at all, either way.
Captain Marvel is basically a guaranteed success by virtue of being a Marvel movie. Not the same situation at all.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Mar 4th 2019 at 6:34:16 AM
Ghostbusters is a really mediocre comedy trying to inflate its own box-office by using the name of a well-liked franchise.
It was always going to, if not fail, then at least not make enough money to get it a sequel, maybe get a small cult following.
It's just not Box Office Records material, and the Rule 63 faux-controversy surrounding it is the only reason it even got so much attention.
If you want a proper exemple, look no further than Mad Max Fury Road.
Most reboots (not to confuse with Live action remakes) have the tendency to do decent at best with a good chance of bombing. For one, it is always hard to tell how much interest there actually still is in the franchise in question(fans are loud, but they rarely represent the majority), two, exactly the fans are usually the ones most bothered about the notion of a reboot and three, how do you recreate something and make it better? It can be done, but usually it happens with properties which failed the first time around.
Well, cats are God's greatest creation, so clearly Brie Larson is an evil virus of Satan and Captain Marvel exists only to turn our youth into devil-worshipers!
Well, there's the new Jumanji.
Personally, I don't like the live-action remake trend, either, for I consider animation to be the superior medium and retelling the story in live-action leaves you at best with a "almost as good" movie.
That said, I do like and respect Maleficent for doing something new and interesting with its material.
Edited by HailMuffins on Mar 4th 2019 at 7:49:07 AM
![]()
Exceptions confirm the rule (and DON'T get me started on Maleficient, it is the one movie out there I would wipe from existence if I could).
Well, technically you are not allergic to the cat in itself, you are allergic against a certain protein in their spit. Not her fault that cats spread their spit all over themselves….
They don't, actually. That's a very common misunderstanding of the phrase.
"Exceptions prove the rule" is more a logic/syntax thing than an actual ideology. It basically means when you dictate "no parking, except after 8" that the fact that there is a time where one can park reinforces the preceding rule that elsewise you can't.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 4th 2019 at 3:01:30 AM
Hrm...
Tried to get a little of my "four days before showtime" hype eased by watching a Marvel movie on Netflix. The only one I hadn't seen since the theatres was Dr. Strange, so I go on to see that only to find that Netflix has removed it.
The first of many (well that and the Captain America movies, I notice, but I've rewatched those so many times I sometimes dream with Alan Silvestri's soundtrack).
Oh well. Guess I'll watch Ant Man and the Wasp again.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 4th 2019 at 3:01:07 AM
I actually don't even think that Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle counts as a reboot, but rather as a semi-sequel. After all, they even mention Alan Parrish in the film.
In any case, these are the reboots I remember flopping:
- RoboCop
- Total Recall
- Ghostbusters
- Conan the Barbarian
- Friday the 13th
- A Nightmare on Elm Street
- Power Rangers
Reboots that have done well (critically/commercially):
- Bumblebee
- Texas Chainshaw Massacre
- The Hills Have Eyes
Ones that I am completely unsure about:
- Dredd (based on the comic, not the previous film, but really well critically, but no so good commercially)
- Star Trek (did well critically and commercially, but am completely unsure of the "reboot" status, as it does involve time travel creating an alternate timeline)
- Mad Max: Fury Road (did extremely well critically and somewhat well commercially, but that status as "reboot" is unsure, because it could simply be a continuation with a new actor, a la James Bond)
- Terminator Genysis (did poorly critically and commercially, but is another where it's only a semi-reboot due to time travel)
- Halloween (can it be considered a reboot if it is a sequel to the first film? even if it disregards all the rest?)
Films that are technically reboots, but are also based on well-known characters that have gone through multiple actors:
- Batman Begins (did well)
- Casino Royale (did well)
- Man of Steel (did well)
- Fan4stic (flopped massively)
- The Amazing Spider-Man (did okay) / Spider-Man: Homecoming (did well)
So, really, it's a toss up over whether reboots do well or not and there are a ton of other mitigating factors.
Edited by alliterator on Mar 4th 2019 at 3:07:53 AM
There was the Psycho reboot which at the very least flopped critically, I am not quite sure how the Dawn of the dead reboot did, Planet of the Apes first failed and then succeeded on the second try, Same with Gozilla and King Kong, Teenage mutant hero turtles succeeded in the box office but not critically…and then there is the reboot of Charly and the Chocolate factory...
I mean, yes, a lot depends on the approach - continuations seems to do better, long standing franchises work better than revered movies, unless it is something like Robin Hood or Merlin which has done so often that it has become really hit or miss, and there is certainly something to say about name recognition, so I get why Hollywood keeps doing those things, but straight up reboots of the kind Ghostbusters tried, they tend to fail quite often (again, unless they are Disney's live action remakes).
Not that Marvel has to worry about this anytime soon….
Wait, they made a Total Recall reboot?
And I'd count Dredd as a success: the movie is fantastic and while it might not have made a ton of money (for this was the pre-Deadpool era, where R-rated movies weren't box office blasts), the budget was actually pretty small, believe it or not, so I think it at least made a profit.
And technically, we call the movies like the new Jumanji "soft reboots": technically a sequel, but it refuses to get out of the predecessor's flat.
Man, this movie just makes me really want to see more Infinity War info. Because I am all the way for seeing Cassie Lang grow up to be a heroine (or whatever likely horrible thing is actually going on with her in the Bad Present, before things are changed for the better).
Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 4th 2019 at 3:24:40 AM
This is the list of best-selling horror remakes.
As expected, most are remakes of J-horror, since most American horror audiences wouldn't have seen the original, but Texas Chainsaw Massacre hit it out of the park. Dawn of the Dead is 11th on the list, Halloween is 12th, and Evil Dead is 15th.
I think we can definitely say that "horror remakes" do pretty well, even if they don't do well critically (probably because horror films can be made for much cheaper). What that means for Ghostbusters (which is horror comedy), I'm not sure. In fact, here a list of best-selling comedy remakes
and Ghostbusters comes in at #5.
Edited by alliterator on Mar 4th 2019 at 3:31:36 AM
