Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[M'rk son of Mogh]

That has not happened with the disastrous Quantumania and The Marvels, no matter how much you hope that will be the case. The films are considered terrible, and it is highly unlikely they will earn a second life as a classic. As of this date, there's not some groundswell of appreciation of the named films happening, nor have they been reassessed and elevated to be considered among the best of its own franchise.

Just so that I can understand your point of view better... take away the box office numbers, where are you getting that The Marvel is a "terrible" film? You're basically the only one on this site that says this after hearing what everyone else says after finally watching it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

"This site" is not the majority of movie audiences who criticized the films in question leading to their box-office failure (which is not in denial, otherwise the view and performance of the films would not be discussed in this thread),, just as Anwar referred to the perception of classic films with a reputation born not on a message board, but among the wide audiences of the world.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I loved The Marvels.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Both exaggerated and unrealistic, sure. But there are degrees.

If Bane broke Black Widow in her movie, he would have dropped her to the ground yet she would have landed on her feet, hunch over clutching her ribs, and limp away.

Okay, I present you this much beloved scene from Captain America: The Winter Soldier. At 2:35, you could rightfully argue that the shield saved his life, but there's no way his legs wouldn't be crushed in that impact. Captain America has powers, but Wolverine's healing factor and adamantium skeleton are not among them.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Okay, I present you this much beloved scene from Captain America: The Winter Soldier. At 2:35, you could rightfully argue that the shield saved his life, but there's no way his legs wouldn't be crushed in that impact. Captain America has powers, but Wolverine's healing factor and adamantium skeleton are not among them.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Still can't compare with someone that has a fictional "magic" enhancer (for all intents and purposes) which allows the suspension of disbelief to stretch farther.

And even so. The guy with the magic drugs landed and was down. He needed a moment. He acted the way anyone does who stumbles down.

She had a harder fall, yet landed on her feet and instantly kept walking. Didn't shake anything off. Watch the scene. For real, watch it first. Take away the super soldier serum and Evans still acted it out better.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see the point of dissecting the details of one implausible action-movie beat vs. another, when there are literally thousands of instances of non-superpowered characters in action movies walking away from things that would realistically put them in the hospital or kill them. Look at any Western where a guy in a saloon fight gets a chair broken over his head and barely slows down, when in reality it would probably fracture his skull. And then he gets thrown through a plate glass window and doesn't sustain a single serious laceration.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

"This site" is not the majority of movie audiences who criticized the films in question leading to their box-office failure (which is not in denial, otherwise the view and performance of the films would not be discussed in this thread),, just as Anwar referred to the perception of classic films with a reputation born not on a message board, but among the wide audiences of the world.

Can't deny it was a box office failure.

Still not seeing what made the movie "Terrible", though. As the wide audiences that have now watched the movie generally conclude, its fun. Not just the message board.

And even the detractors don't say "terrible" in their reviews. What did you hate so much about the movie that makes you feel it can't be anything but "terrible" and all the viewers who came to the party late are wrong?

I don't see the point of dissecting the details of one implausible action-movie beat vs. another, when there are literally thousands of instances of non-superpowered characters in action movies walking away from things that would realistically put them in the hospital or kill them. Look at any Western where a guy in a saloon fight gets a chair broken over his head and barely slows down, when in reality it would probably fracture his skull. And then he gets thrown through a plate glass window and doesn't sustain a single serious laceration.

Honestly, it's all the landing on the feet. I have never in any movie seen a person in a saloon get thrown out a window and land literally on his feet and continue walking. Never ever ever. That's not how people do it, that's not how athletes do it. The physics of it all was completely off and cartoonish and, yup, maybe small and insignificant, but that's the detail that finally yanked me out of the movie and then I couldn't get back to it.

 

[Christopher]

I have never in any movie seen a person in a saloon get thrown out a window and land literally on his feet and continue walking. Never ever ever.

You can suspend disbelief about them not being slashed to ribbons by broken glass and bleeding out, but you can't suspend disbelief about how they land? That's incredibly selective.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Can't deny it was a box office failure.

Still not seeing what made the movie "Terrible", though. As the wide audiences that have now watched the movie generally conclude, its fun. Not just the message board.

And even the detractors don't say "terrible" in their reviews. What did you hate so much about the movie that makes you feel it can't be anything but "terrible" and all the viewers who came to the party late are wrong?

You are all over the place trying to make this about me. It is not, so you are doing something other than discussing the film. If you have a hard time linking a box office bomb with audiences expressing their opinion that it was terrible in the months after its (historically, that's hardly an uncommon connection made about bombs) , then that's really something you need to let go, as you are triggered by that description. Or, since you referred to a message board, search this one, where there have been threads in this forum with members arguing for innumerable pages about how bad the films in question were, which--to one side of the arguments--justified the films bombing so hard. The posts are there. This is not about a single member.

Honestly, it's all the landing on the feet. I have never in any movie seen a person in a saloon get thrown out a window and land literally on his feet and continue walking. Never ever ever. That's not how people do it, that's not how athletes do it. The physics of it all was completely off and cartoonish and, yup, maybe small and insignificant, but that's the detail that finally yanked me out of the movie and then I couldn't get back to it.

I can agree with you there: that fall was straight out of a Warner Brothers cartoon, and while film and TV has played host to other non-superpowered characters falling or suffering hits that by all rights should have killed them--but did not, the execution of the stunt in question was ridiculous.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

You can suspend disbelief about them not being slashed to ribbons by broken glass and bleeding out, but you can't suspend disbelief about how they land? That's incredibly selective.

One you see a million times over so are used to the trope.

The other has never been done so badly that it's unique in execution so it stands out.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

If you have a hard time linking a box office bomb with audiences expressing their opinion that it was terrible in the months after its (historically, that's hardly an uncommon connection made about bombs) , then that's really something you need to let go, as you are triggered by that description.

Historically, there is zero connection to box office and quality.

Titanic, Avatars, and  Barbie are not the highest quality movies. Killers of the Flower Moon, It's A Wonderful Life or The Marvels aren't terrible. They simply didn't profit at the box office for a number of reasons.

 

[Tosk]

Am I remembering incorrectly or has "landing on her feet" been a part of the MCU Natasha's skillset since day one?

 

[theenglish]

...Evans still acted it out better.

In fairness to ScarJo, she had no idea about the piss poor quality of special effects that would illustrate her fall.

 

[JoeZhang]

Given the importance of streaming revenue as noted here - when is "The Marvels" sequel coming out?

 

[theenglish]

You can suspend disbelief about them not being slashed to ribbons by broken glass and bleeding out, but you can't suspend disbelief about how they land? That's incredibly selective.

In this case, it was really a matter of the special effects. They could easily have shown Natasha partially controlling her fall despite taking some brutal hits. Instead, the effects showed her falling like a rag doll all the way down. I didn't mind the movie's climax scene because it was like something out of a comic book--I can suspend my disbelief with the idea that Natasha is using her skills as they fall. The fall from the building wasn't like that. It just takes you out of the movie for the rest of that scene.

These kinds of movies are supposed to be fun, I get that. But, a scene like that fall should never have made the final cut of the movie. Based on what we know now, that Disney was pushing the effects teams beyond their limits at that time, I can understand--however, if there was ever an effect in need of some fixing up then it would be something like that one.

 

[Mage]

As for The Marvels, it was great. I really don't understand the negativity.

Because there hardly is negativity. As usual, it's a few people shouting loudly, while the people who actually did enjoy it have stated so on many online platforms and in conversations in real life.
We just decided to not bother and enjoy what we like instead of wasting our times with people that wish for us to be converted to their great fanboy driven hatred.
For the live of me... There is conversation and discussion, and there's people (many of them of this forum) who have a almost disturbing need to convince others of how their point of view is correct and the others are simply wrong and stupid. That's a weird thing to get off on if you ask me.

 

[Christopher]

In this case, it was really a matter of the special effects. They could easily have shown Natasha partially controlling her fall despite taking some brutal hits. Instead, the effects showed her falling like a rag doll all the way down. I didn't mind the movie's climax scene because it was like something out of a comic book--I can suspend my disbelief with the idea that Natasha is using her skills as they fall. The fall from the building wasn't like that. It just takes you out of the movie for the rest of that scene.

These kinds of movies are supposed to be fun, I get that. But, a scene like that fall should never have made the final cut of the movie. Based on what we know now, that Disney was pushing the effects teams beyond their limits at that time, I can understand--however, if there was ever an effect in need of some fixing up then it would be something like that one.

Which is exactly why I don't see the big deal. One flaw that happened for understandable reasons doesn't ruin a whole movie. And I don't understand what's so bad about the rest of the movie that such a trivial complaint could be the "final straw." Like I said, I thought it was a good movie overall, and the parts I didn't care for did not erase or cancel out the parts I did like.

My problem with the climax is that it felt tacked-on and obligatory. This was a character-focused spy thriller that didn't call for a gigantic CGI action climax with a giant flying base falling out of the sky. But gigantic CGI action climaxes have become a kneejerk requirement in modern superhero movies, even though half the time they don't add anything of value to the story and just get in the way.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Historically, there is zero connection to box office and quality.

That's not Anwar's little game: by referring to two films which performed poorly at the box office, but were reassessed as classics once in the ancillary market (at the time, cable and home video), he's attempting to make the highly false equivalency argument that Quantumania and The Marvels are of the same class and are viewed at a similar level of consideration. Obviously, that is not the case, and its quite the absurd game, since he has not in any way demonstrated that his argument has merit. Its simply trying to wish it into existence.

One would guess that the films in question do not even rate high within their own series let alone as single movies. The MCU had bad movies which bombed. That is a fact that should not be s difficult to accept. Many film series throughout film history had bad bombs among their number, yet no one is casting spells trying to defend every entry as some quality production or classic, because to do so is living in denial about the nature of any continuing series: eventually, some bad writing, directing, budget issues, mismanagement from on high, or failing to read the room about what is appealing to audiences, etc. (or any combination of this list) will lead to a bad film. It happens, whether it is the debated MCU films,or DC, Star Trek, and other series, but a certain someone has to defend the MCU to ridiculous degrees, as seen in this recent discussion.

 

[theenglish]

I would have to agree that, in the modern era, it is unlikely a classic gem that didn't succeed at the box office will be rediscovered decades later. Up until the streaming era, this was possible because there were a lot of good films that just got overlooked. Today, once a movie goes to streaming then it is likely somebody will discover it if its good.

I don't think anyone is arguing that The Marvels and Quantumania are classics, just that they are not as bad as many have made them out to be. The Marvels is an enjoyable, if flawed movie, and I know that Quantumania has its supporters out there too.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

That's not Anwar's little game: by referring to two films which performed poorly at the box office, but were reassessed as classics once in the ancillary market (at the time, cable and home video), he's attempting to make the highly false equivalency argument that Quantumania and The Marvels are of the same class and are viewed at a similar level of consideration. Obviously, that is not the case, and its quite the absurd game, since he has not in any way demonstrated that his argument has merit. Its simply trying to wish it into existence.

One would guess that the films in question do not even rate high within their own series let alone as single movies. The MCU had bad movies which bombed. That is a fact that should not be s difficult to accept. Many film series throughout film history had bad bombs among their number, yet no one is casting spells trying to defend every entry as some quality production or classic, because to do so is living in denial about the nature of any continuing series: eventually, some bad writing, directing, budget issues, mismanagement from on high, or failing to read the room about what is appealing to audiences, etc. (or any combination of this list) will lead to a bad film. It happens, whether it is the debated MCU films,or DC, Star Trek, and other series, but a certain someone has to defend the MCU to ridiculous degrees, as seen in this recent discussion.

What's your definition of bad?
Let's just get on that same page, that's why we're going in circles I think.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that a movie is bad if people don't make the time and spend their money to watch it. And it ends there. Since the writing, directing, and budget all seemed to range from adequate to well done from those that saw it, it implies those aren't considerations. Can a movie fail to reach an audience but not be a bad movie?