The Marvels’ release date has been pushed back https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-release-date-fall-2023-1235526788/
Would this be worth seeing in 3D??
The Marvels’ release date has been pushed back https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-release-date-fall-2023-1235526788/
I like the poster.The Marvels’ release date has been pushed back https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-release-date-fall-2023-1235526788/
Bob Iger has said they are going to double down on Star Wars and Marvel content.IMO, D+ needs to broaden its scope and cater for a greater breadth of demographics. Marvel and Star Wars will get you so far, but that’s still a limited audience pool.
My daughter, who first saw 3 in the cinema as her first visit there, utterly hated the ending of 4 and would nearly have a meltdown at the mention of it. Refused to acknowledge its existence. She’s a bit old for the series now but if Toy Story 5 reunites Buzz and Woody, I think she’d go see it!Bob Iger has said they are going to double down on Star Wars and Marvel content.
Does anyone really need a Toy Story 5 at this stage? 3 & 4 already told solid farewell stories.
The Marvels’ release date has been pushed back https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-release-date-fall-2023-1235526788/
One of the very few movies that I'd say yes for.
Do we know yet which, if any, superhero name they're going with for Cassie? In the comic's she's been Stature and Stinger.
I'm hoping for Stinger. I've always thought it had a nicer ring to it.
I like it better too, it fits in nicely with the insect themed names like Ant-Man and The Wasp.
Well, that helps resolve my musings about Secret Invasion getting a premiere date soon.The Marvels’ release date has been pushed back https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-release-date-fall-2023-1235526788/
That's definitely one of the best posters I've seen in recent years, Marvel or otherwise. It's like they actually put some effort into it for once.I like the poster.
They did find at least a bit of success with the PG-13 Pirates of the Carribean movies and Jungle Cruise.Disney has been fighting its own reputation for family-friendly content for decades now. Back in the '80s, after their early attempts at older-skewing movies like The Black Hole got hampered by the assumptions the audience pinned to the Disney name, Disney started releasing PG and R films under the Touchstone Pictures label, even though it was the exact same studio making the films.
More recently, the whole reason Disney acquired things like Marvel and Lucasfilm was to broaden their demographic appeal, to offer a wider range of content to draw a broader audience. (Specifically, they wanted to appeal more to the male demographic than their existing content did.) Yet people still assume the intention was the opposite, to make the Marvel and Star Wars stuff conform to the Disney brand.
Disney seems to have a love-hate relationship with its own brand. It obsessively plasters the Disney name all over its properties, yet it also keeps trying to run from its name and sneak things out under alternate labels like Touchstone and Hulu.
Literally the last thing Disney+ needs to do is slow down. They barely produce something for the general audience as it is, most D+ originals are kids and tween stuff, with a Star Wars or Marvel show only showing up for, what, 3-4 months of the year combined? That's what it feels like, at least.
What they need to do is, quite frankly, put out better Star Wars and Marvel shows. There are huge shifts in quality between shows in both brands, with Star Wars doing worse at the moment in my opinion. They should focus on doing better, seeing what has been working and what hasn't been, and adjusting things accordingly. Putting out less content for the general audience just makes D+ a worse value.
As much as people try to pretend that Disney+ was made to focus on kids, they sure as hell seem to want people outside of the Bluey audience to watch stuff and pay for a subscription. Keep in mind I say this as someone who really enjoys Disney animated movies in general, I'm not saying it needs to be a more "adult" streaming service, it just needs to keep regularly shows that are enjoyable for the general audiences that like Star Wars/Marvel type stuff but are also old enough to drive.
I think Star Wars, Marvel, and National Geographic are really meant to be the only stuff on Disney+ geared towards an older audience, and other than that it's meant to be the one big family friendly service. Everything else geared towards an older audience produced by Disney and Fox goes onto Hulu, so putting more of that kind of content on D+ would then make Hulu redundant.IMO, D+ needs to broaden its scope and cater for a greater breadth of demographics. Marvel and Star Wars will get you so far, but that’s still a limited audience pool.
It seems to this Marvel and Star Wars (not SW completist) fan that, aside from rewatching Marvel and SW and some archive Fox genre shows that the service is getting rapidly stagnant.
Has Marvel developed a habit of casting non-white actors to portray villains in their movies lately? First, we had Tenoch Huerta in "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever". Next, we have Jonathan Majors in "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania". And I just heard that Chukwudi Iwuji will portray the main villain in "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3". Is this a new trend for the MCU?
In Majors' case he's carried over from the Loki show, for whatever that's worth.Has Marvel developed a habit of casting non-white actors to portray villains in their movies lately? First, we had Tenoch Huerta in "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever". Next, we have Jonathan Majors in "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania". And I just heard that Chukwudi Iwuji will portray the main villain in "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3". Is this a new trend for the MCU?
"New trend?" It's been normal since the turn of the century for comic-book movies to cast roles more inclusively than the original comics creators were allowed to by the racist standards of the day. If you cast the best actors for each role instead of defaulting to white people, naturally they'll be of a variety of ethnicities.
Of course, replacing Atlantis with "Talokan" (i.e. Tlalocan) in BP:WF made sense, because it made Namor's story a tale of reaction against colonial oppression, fitting into the themes of the BP series. As for the rest, they presumably cast the best actor for each role. Fair and unbiased casting just looks like a bias toward non-white people if you're used to white people dominating.
Namor wasn't the "villain" in the story either.
Sure he was. Lots of villains are sympathetic, doing the wrong thing for good or relatable reasons but still at odds with the heroes. Yes, he'll probably be brought back as an antihero later, but many Marvel characters in the comics have started out as villains before becoming protagonists or heroes, like Hawkeye, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, the Punisher, and Venom. (Not that I consider the latter two heroes in any sense of the word, but they both got treated that way in the comics after being introduced as villains.)
Not really--he was the antagonist, and foil for Shuri, but he wasn't a villain.
Recording on season 2 of X-men 97 has started. Didn't know it had even got a season 2 but that's awesome news. Wonder if other animated characters such as Spiderman or Iron Man might show up.
You say this like it's a bad thing.Has Marvel developed a habit of casting non-white actors to portray villains in their movies lately? First, we had Tenoch Huerta in "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever". Next, we have Jonathan Majors in "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania". And I just heard that Chukwudi Iwuji will portray the main villain in "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3". Is this a new trend for the MCU?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.