Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Anwar]

Lol. What are you even talking about?

You can see the Neilson Ratings for yourself. They are posted.

They prove everything I've said.

Marvels was an underperformer on streaming as well. Couldn't even make the Overall Top Ten.

And if you think the images have been faked, all the numbers are here:

https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/top-ten/#television

Easily juked images, considering Nielsen isn't reliable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekb...y-of-streaming-video-ratings/?sh=500253507ab0

https://www.vulture.com/article/nielsen-streaming-ratings-suits-young-sheldon.html

Looks like The Marvels dropped off the 'Movies' chart almost immediately as well.

So audiences really have spoken regarding The Marvels. There's no way to spin it positively.

Again, juked. Nielsen not reliable when it comes to streaming.

For Echo?

Nah man. It dropped like a stone after one week. Which is terrible for a multiple-episode launch.

Gone off the charts a week after it's debut. Audiences tried it, and peaced out. Poor word of mouth.

You're using an unreliable source that uses easily fooled/juked numbers. Word of Mouth was very good, folks enjoyed it. The Grifters can't stand that because they flip out anytime they see a woman or nonwhite who isn't a useless shrieking damsel, but the Grift is falling apart like Alex Jones did.

Name them. Let's see

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/the-marvels-earns-top-movie-spot-in-streaming-charts/

https://boardwalktimes.net/the-marvels-box-office-bomb-and-streaming-success-cce4b2fd4e1a

Off the top of my head.

Lol. Apples and Oranges. None of those films were on the same budget scale as this, they were mid-budget compared to where we are now.

Nope, they were considered high budget for their time.

And Cap and Thor still had positive ROI (return on investment), due to their lower budgets.

Not enough to justify sequels, by todays standards.

Doesn't get more clear that that.

https://www.leadershipnowproject.or...isney-ceo-defends-corporate-freedom-of-speech

“A company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do,”

So he's defending Disney's writers and their "Messages"

And BTW, social and political commentary and messages are a part of all storytelling. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

 

[TerryTrek]

Easily juked images, considering Nielsen isn't reliable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekb...y-of-streaming-video-ratings/?sh=500253507ab0

https://www.vulture.com/article/nielsen-streaming-ratings-suits-young-sheldon.html

Again, juked. Nielsen not reliable when it comes to streaming.

You're using an unreliable source that uses easily fooled/juked numbers. Word of Mouth was very good, folks enjoyed it. The Grifters can't stand that because they flip out anytime they see a woman or nonwhite who isn't a useless shrieking damsel, but the Grift is falling apart like Alex Jones did.

I gave you the Nielson links. None of the images are modified. They're all direct numbers from the Nielson website. And it's an industry trusted metric used by everyone from the aforementioned Forbes, to Hollywood Reporter, Variety and all the other industry trades. Nielson streaming data is as legitimate a metric as one can get.

And..



You're busted. You claim Nielson is supposedly inaccurate, yet the sites you linked uses the exact same Nielson data for their articles:

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/the-marvels-earns-top-movie-spot-in-streaming-charts/

https://boardwalktimes.net/the-marvels-box-office-bomb-and-streaming-success-cce4b2fd4e1a

Off the top of my head.

Nope, they were considered high budget for their time.

Not enough to justify sequels, by todays standards.

Not true. Shang-Chi had a similar ROI, and has a sequel in works. Thor (2011) for example, did 3X it's production budget WW. It turned in a small profit/ROI, but it was still green.

It was just Eternals, The Marvels and A+W:Quantumania that were major financial losses relative to their higher budgets.

Audiences rejected them flat out.

https://www.leadershipnowproject.or...isney-ceo-defends-corporate-freedom-of-speech

“A company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do,”

So he's defending Disney's writers and their "Messages"

And BTW, social and political commentary and messages are a part of all storytelling. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

The article you linked is irrelevant. He's talking about Disney Corporate's stand on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill there with DeSantis.

Nothing to do with Iger's comments that Disney should now pull back on messaging in their films and focus on storytelling first and foremost.

"Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger said Wednesday he will no longer tolerate his company’s partners and creative team prioritizing messaging over storytelling.

“Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be,” Iger said at the DealBook Summit in New York on Wednesday. “We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages.” - Iger"


So you're reaching. You should pay attention to the Disney shareholders developments this Wednesday.

 

[Anwar]

I gave you the Nielson links. None of the images are modified.

They're invalid, it's well known Nielsen isn't any good when it comes to Streaming and modern TV.

They're all direct numbers from the Nielson website. And it's an industry trusted metric used by everyone from the aforementioned Forbes, to Hollywood Reporter, Variety and all the other industry trades.

No, it's been noted that it's actually quite invalid today. Especially against streaming.

You're busted. You claim Nielson is supposedly inaccurate, yet the sites you linked uses the exact same Nielson data for their articles

No, they actually brought up how inaccurate Nielsen was and how only those business' own data really was relevant. That's why streaming charts aren't Nielsen charts, because Nielsen isn't accurate.

Not true. Shang-Chi had a similar ROI, and has a sequel in works. Thor (2011) for example, did 3X it's production budget WW. It turned in a small profit/ROI, but it was still green

Shang-Chi did have a high budget, and it succeeded in spite on the pandemic and the smear campaign against the film. That's why it's getting a sequel, whereas First Avenger and Thor 1 wouldn't warrant sequels by modern standards. They didn't have the external factors of a political smear campaign and a pandemic.

It was just Eternals, The Marvels and A+W:Quantumania that were major financial losses relative to their higher budgets

All vindicated on streaming afterwards, as it shows how the pandemic and changing film environments have affected things.

And by your logic, Fight Club and the Shining and the Thing 1982 and Blade Runner must all be awful.

The article you linked is irrelevant. He's talking about Disney Corporate's stand on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill there with DeSantis.

Which is no different from anything else they write. He's saying they have freedom of speech to write things.

Nothing to do with Iger's comments that Disney should now pull back on messaging in their films and focus on storytelling first and foremost.

Everything to do with it.

"Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger said Wednesday he will no longer tolerate his company’s partners and creative team prioritizing messaging over storytelling.

“Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be,” Iger said at the DealBook Summit in New York on Wednesday. “We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages.”

- Iger"

“A company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do,” Disney CEO Bob Iger told shareholders earlier this month."

“We have entertained with values and with having a positive impact on the world in many different ways. ‘Black Panther’ is a great example of that,” Iger said. “I like being able to entertain if you can infuse it with positive messages and have a good impact on the world. Fantastic."

So you're reaching.

No, just not clinging to outdated data and outdated thinking.

You should pay attention to the Disney shareholders developments this Wednesday.

I will, the racist old men like Peltz and Perlmutter outed themselves and their thinking.

 

[fireproof78]

And by your logic, Fight Club and the Shining and the Thing 1982 and Blade Runner must all be awful.

They are.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They are.

^ Bombs away!

 

[Set Harth]

They are.

 

[fireproof78]

Because I don't regard them as good movies, especially Fight Club and The Thing. They just don't work for me, and work on the premise of entirely unlikeable characters going through shitty situations.

 

[JD]

They are.

Except for The Shining, I got bored about half way through it and quit.

 

[fireproof78]

Except for The Shining, I got bored about half way through it and quit.

No surprise. My cinema tastes baffle many.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except for The Shining, I got bored about half way through it and quit.

The Shining left me shook. I had to find another film to watch afterwards (Might have been Star Wars ESB) to calm down.

 

[Mage]

Because I don't regard them as good movies, especially Fight Club and The Thing. They just don't work for me, and work on the premise of entirely unlikeable characters going through shitty situations.

There is a difference between movies not being good or even outright bad, and not liking them.
There are many movies that 'don't work' for me, but I can definitely tell they are very well made movies.

I have a channel where I review craft beer, and a thing that pops up a lot lately is people calling certain beers bad. 'Ugh, this IPA is really bitter, it's a bad beer.'
No. It's a well brewed beer that fits every aspect of what it should be. Your personally taste does not like bitter. That doesn't mean the beer is bad. Now, if the beer had many brewing defects, and smelled like buttered popcorn and boiled vegetables... Yup, now it's a bad beer.

 

[Tosk]

Too many metrics to take into consideration. Easier just to assume that when someone says a movie is bad they are saying "I do not like it" unless they go into greater detail.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Reuters reports that Disney secured enough shareholder votes to prevent Nelson Peltz's bid to the board directors. Thank the gods.

The report, however, comes with the caveat that it's not a done deal until the shareholders meeting later today:

Enough votes had been cast as of Tuesday evening to put Disney's board directors safely ahead of Trian's two challengers, Peltz and former Disney chief financial officer Jay Rasulo, the sources said.

Blackwells Capital, another hedge fund that nominated three board director candidates at Disney, was also unsuccessful in its attempt, the sources said.

The result of this year's most high-profile board fight will be announced at Disney's annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday, and the sources cautioned that there was always a possibility that some shareholders may change their vote. They requested anonymity ahead of an official announcement.
​

Hopefully the vote holds because I don't want Peltz anywhere near the board directors. This is the first time I've heard of Rasulo but if he's nominated by the same group as Peltz, I'm sure he's just as awful...and stupid.

 

[Relayer1]

Because I don't regard them as good movies, especially Fight Club and The Thing. They just don't work for me, and work on the premise of entirely unlikeable characters going through shitty situations.

I have a list of huge or lauded movies I hate. E.T., Close Encounters, Interstellar, Gangs Of New York, Hellraiser, Poltergeist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dog Day Afternoon, Midnight Cowboy, Vertigo...

I find them terrible, but objectively I don't actually think they are bad movies. I just REALLY don't like them.

 

[Anwar]

I mean heck, I never liked "Aliens" because of how cliche and predictable I found it.

 

[Set Harth]

Because I don't regard them as good movies, especially Fight Club and The Thing. They just don't work for me, and work on the premise of entirely unlikeable characters going through shitty situations.

To be fair I have mixed feelings about Fight Club, but part of that has to do with personal stuff that can't legitimately be blamed on the film itself. But I consider the others you mentioned unimpeachable. ( Full disclosure, I've been a Blade Runner cultist. )

 

[fireproof78]

To be fair I have mixed feelings about Fight Club, but part of that has to do with personal stuff that can't legitimately be blamed on the film itself. But I consider the others you mentioned unimpeachable. ( Full disclosure, I've been a Blade Runner cultist. )

IDIC my friend.

There is a difference between movies not being good or even outright bad, and not liking them.
There are many movies that 'don't work' for me, but I can definitely tell they are very well made movies.

I mean, yes and no. Yes, I'm sure there's some standard that makes them good. But, for me, the premise of each film is one of cruelty, and doesn't justify it in the narrative.

 

[Set Harth]

Interstellar

 

[Christopher]

I have a list of huge or lauded movies I hate. E.T., Close Encounters, Interstellar, Gangs Of New York, Hellraiser, Poltergeist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dog Day Afternoon, Midnight Cowboy, Vertigo...

I find them terrible, but objectively I don't actually think they are bad movies. I just REALLY don't like them.

I hate E.T., but I recognize that it's brilliantly made. In fact, that's part of why I hate it. I resented that Spielberg's expert technique (and John Williams's score) managed to make me shed tears for the hideous alien puppet thing's apparent death when I intellectually found the whole thing facile and ridiculous. It made me feel manipulated.

Same with Close Encounters -- the story is mindless and dumb and celebrates a man abandoning his family because of an irrational cultish obsession, but it's fantastically well-made.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

You don't truly know the pain of hating popular movies unless you hate the original Star Wars.

Plus, I also never liked the Godfather and found Citizen Kane the most boring experience ever forced on me in my life.