CAPTAIN MARVEL starring Brie Larson (3/8/19) 5 5

[Bosco685]

And that wonderful history lesson.

That battle is so spectacular, yet lasts only a minute. This IS the world of Thor I so wanted to see.

[Prince Namor]

Just now, TwoPiece said:

No. I can and I have.

No you haven't.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

That 'easily better' is what surprised me. For me, Thor helped lay strong groundwork and is a better film because of how it pulled all the details together so cleanly.

I did not get that feeling from Captain Marvel. Though I loved seeing a live Skrulls portrayal (so cool).

The only thing wrong with Thor is that they dyed his eyebrows.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Chuck Gower said:

No you haven't.

I already incepted you. It's too late. I know you now.

[bane]

22 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It's personal opinion. You can't dictate someone's preference. None of these movies are CK, they're popcorn entertainment. It's like saying tacos are better than quesadillas. 

It is (usually), except when someone seems to have a negative opinion of The Last Jedi then its butthurt Star Wars fans rather than a general movie goer (myself) who thought the film was a boring turd.

[Prince Namor]

Just now, TwoPiece said:

I already incepted you. It's too late. I know you now.

Hardly. Back on ignore.

[Prince Namor]

1 minute ago, bane said:

It is (usually), except when someone seems to have a negative opinion of The Last Jedi then its butthurt Star Wars fans rather than a general movie goer (myself) who thought the film was a boring turd.

There are people who both enjoyed TLJ and didn't enjoy TLJ. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Hardly. Back on ignore.

You never had me on ignore. I had you on igbore.

[bane]

26 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

There are people who both enjoyed TLJ and didn't enjoy TLJ. 

I was definitely the latter. I wanted to walk out. But I was at a cinema you had to drive to and the person I was with had the car.... stay through the rest of the movie or walk 2 hours home.... now I wished I had walked home.

[Prince Namor]

27 minutes ago, bane said:

I was definitely the latter. I wanted to walk out. But I was at a cinema you had to drive to and the person I was with had the car.... stay through the rest of the movie or walk 2 hours home.... now I wished I had walked home.

And no one can change that feeling. You feel how you feel about it.

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Maybe 10% of the audience?

This.

This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind.

I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed.

But "10% of the audience" didn't read Thor comics in the '70s or 80s, it was closer to 1%.

My quick and dirty math:

Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. 

Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per).

At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater.

Then let's assume Thor averaged ~400,000 per issue in the '70s and '80s (based on April 1986 print run numbers of ~389,000 average - and this was smack in the sweet spot of Simonson's run).

That means, at best, Thor's monthly print run (even if every copy was read) was just 2% of the 2011's films audience.

Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s.

And that was for an early Phase One film.

[Bosco685]

14 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind.

I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed.

But "10% of the audience" didn't read Thor comics in the '70s or 80s, it was closer to 1%.

My quick and dirty math:

Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. 

Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per).

At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater.

Then let's assume Thor averaged ~400,000 per issue in the '70s and '80s (based on April 1986 print run numbers of ~389,000 average - and this was smack in the sweet spot of Simonson's run).

That means, at best, Thor's monthly print run (even if every copy was read) was just 2% of the 2011's films audience.

Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s.

And that was for an early Phase One film.

You are making it a box office discussion again. Quality of movie doesn't always lead to box office massive success.

Thor (2011) is a spectacular movie. Period. Stating Captain Marvel is 'easily better' than this film totally ignores all the fantastic work delivered in that film.

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind.

I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed.

But "10% of the audience" didn't read Thor comics in the '70s or 80s, it was closer to 1%.

My quick and dirty math:

Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. 

Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per).

At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater.

Then let's assume Thor averaged ~400,000 per issue in the '70s and '80s (based on April 1986 print run numbers of ~389,000 average - and this was smack in the sweet spot of Simonson's run).

That means, at best, Thor's monthly print run (even if every copy was read) was just 2% of the 2011's films audience.

Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s.

And that was for an early Phase One film.

I don't remember if I read any Thor title comics prior to, say, 2014?

I think we all know that general audiences have to buy-in for everyone to keep getting these (mostly) year-long Chris-mas presents. Most writers, directors, and executives deliver products that we can all appreciate.

It's only when a studio butts in and compromises some films that comic book fans, and even general audiences, suffer. The "general audience" members that I know were all confused about BvS. When they saw the Ultimate Edition, though, they liked it a lot. It was simply a more coherent and better story - overall.

From what I've read, for better or for worse, Watchmen receives a lot of flak for not deviating from source material (from those who have read the graphic novel).

Snyder, and definitely more recently the Russo Bros, know how to capture iconic images from comics on the big screen. They also put in a lot of Easter Eggs that only readers may catch. Keeping those moments in these movies is what keeps me glued to my seat. It's more enjoyable for me, and I can always tell my friends and family why "this moment was awesome" (i.e. Snyder's Dark Knight Returns #1 Cover shot in Dawn of Justice).

Deviating from comics keeps things interesting, but giving us those little nuggets of nostalgia keeps the child in me alive, and keeps me wanting more and more experiences like that. There has to be a good mix of both. Phase 1 kinda "got me back into comics".

[ComicConnoisseur]

30 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind.

I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed.

 

Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s.

 

Yep, that`s a good point. More people now have seen this Captain Marvel movie than read the Captain Marvel comic books.

 I think this same kind of thought might have had something also to do with the Green Lantern movie failure,because at the time millions of mainstream people thought John Stewart was Green Lantern because of the success of Justice League Unlimited. JLU was watched by millions, not many mainstream people knew Hal Jordan was GL.

That`s why they were disappointed when the Green Lantern movie wasn't about him

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by ComicConnoisseur

[Gatsby77]

10 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Thor (2011) is a spectacular movie. Period. Stating Captain Marvel is 'easily better' than this film totally ignores all the fantastic work delivered in that film.

Here's where we disagree.

*Some* of the Asgard scenes are spectacular; the movie as a whole? Not so much.

My main issue with the Thor film (that kills its re-watchability) is the earthbound scenes. That are:

- low-budget (meant what I said with much of it looking like it came out of that '90s C-list TV show Renegade)

- low stakes (who cares if The Destroyer takes out a town?)

- poorly cast (I believe Natalie Portman was miscast, and Kat Dennings' comic relief sidekick schtick was out-of-place)

- even the "Thor adjusts to Earth" comedy was poorly executed

 

Sure, it was exciting to *finally* see Thor, Odin, Loki, The Warriors Three, etc. on the big screen. But that doesn't mean that it was - in and of itself - a great film.

Ragnarok?

A great film, with _far_ more re-watchability than Thor or Thor 2.

Ditto Iron Man.

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Yep, that`s a good point. More people now have seen this Captain Marvel movie than read the Captain Marvel comic books.

 I think this same kind of thought might have had something also to do with the Green Lantern movie failure,because at the time millions of mainstream people thought John Stewart was Green Lantern because of the success of Justice League Unlimited. JLU was watched by millions, not many mainstream people knew Hal Jordan was GL.

That`s why they were disappointed when the Green Lantern movie wasn't about him

 

Being a tire fire of a movie didn't really help Green Lantern...

[Bosco685]

26 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

My quick and dirty math:

Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. 

Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per).

At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater.

And this math - do you realize how much variance there is with such an average? Hundreds of thousands of dollars and break it down to the actual ticket sales per person is not that simple. It's very unreliable statistics.

It's like Box Office Mojo stating the average ticket sales in 2019 was $9. I haven't paid $9 for a movie in the past few years. And it flattens out the higher ticket sales of IMAX, 3-D and D-Box.

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Here's where we disagree.

*Some* of the Asgard scenes are spectacular; the movie as a whole? Not so much.

My main issue with the Thor film (that kills its re-watchability) is the earthbound scenes. That are:

- low-budget (meant what I said with much of it looking like it came out of that '90s C-list TV show Renegade)

- low stakes (who cares if The Destroyer takes out a town?)

- poorly cast (I believe Natalie Portman was miscast, and Kat Dennings' comic relief sidekick schtick was out-of-place)

- even the "Thor adjusts to Earth" comedy was poorly executed

 

Sure, it was exciting to *finally* see Thor, Odin, Loki, The Warriors Three, etc. on the big screen. But that doesn't mean that it was - in and of itself - a great film.

Ragnarok?

A great film, with _far_ more re-watchability than Thor or Thor 2.

Ditto Iron Man.

It's your opinion. Meanwhile, Chris Hemsworth became a star sooner because of that film. Captain Marvel was a weaker film than Thor (2011) for me.

[bane]

40 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind.

I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed.

But "10% of the audience" didn't read Thor comics in the '70s or 80s, it was closer to 1%.

My quick and dirty math:

Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. 

Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per).

At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater.

Then let's assume Thor averaged ~400,000 per issue in the '70s and '80s (based on April 1986 print run numbers of ~389,000 average - and this was smack in the sweet spot of Simonson's run).

That means, at best, Thor's monthly print run (even if every copy was read) was just 2% of the 2011's films audience.

Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s.

And that was for an early Phase One film.

This.

My nephew is dragging me to Shazam but he has no desire to read or collect Captain Marvel/Shazam comics, the trailer is what has pulled him in.

I gave him the rundown on the character and the history, he shrugged his shoulders. Don't care.

Edited March 14, 2019 by bane

[ComicConnoisseur]

3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Being a tire fire of a movie didn't really help Green Lantern...

If Ryan Reynolds couldn't make Hal Jordan cool with movie audiences than no one can.

If DC is smart they go with John Stewart GL or Tales of GL Corps movie the next time.