ZacKing

Fair enough. I didn't care for the dark and brooding Superman in the Snyder films either.

I'm hopeful people will eventually stop whinging over others having a different opinion or worldview than they do. I'm also hopeful someday people will stop trying to blame "social media hacks" for "poisoning the public perception" for shit movies flopping at the box office. Whether or not this movie will be a hit or flop isn't known at this point. I'd like to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I do have my reservations. James Gunn has done some good work before, so the movie may be great. Then again, given the propensity Hollywood has to produce overly preachy content, the concern @PeregrineFalcon has is legit. Remember, it's not the message, it's the delivery.

It's cancellation announcement.

Official trailer I don't have a good feeling about this.

What else can I say except "No, thank you."

So box office results for the second weekend fell off the usual cliff and are down close to 45% from opening weekend. Despite decent reviews, the box office is still tracking behind CA: BNW, which was a flop. Mates that have seen it mostly said it was ok, but nothing special, which is better than the last few MCU films. I'll wait for it on D+.

Anyone who read the Infinity War saga in the comics? It's not like they were completely unknown.

Like the forthcoming Ironheart. It didn't sell in the comics. No idea why they'd go with that for a series.

Yeah, there are shills on either side of the spectrum in the movie review business. People I know who have similar tastes to mine who saw it said it was ok. Nothing spectacular, but nothing like the Marvels. That's better than expected for the turds Marvel has been churning out. This one might actually recoup its budget.

$76 million opening in the US is below CA: BNW. Predictions are this film is going to follow the same pattern and drop off the cliff week 2. Reviews I've read and heard put this in the "ok" to "meh" category. Not "The Marvels" horrible, but nothing special either.

Why did you watch it then? You know this is his thing.

Marvel/Disney is doing what every studio does - milking a franchise for all they can. There's nothing wrong with trying new stuff. Their problem is the stuff they're choosing to do. They're picking projects that didn't sell well, if at all, when it was a comic and thinking it will all of a sudden find an audience as a movie or streaming series.

I knew this a long time ago. Fairly clear who has issues with women or anything feminine about their characters.

No. You're totally wrong. Ripley was brought up along with Sarah Connor as clear examples of compelling female characters that have a strong maternal instinct as part of their motivations behind their actions. This was done to refute your statements that female characters who are mothers and/or have strong maternal instincts (like Sue Storm) are shallow, boring and weak. Again, Ripley's backstory being expanded in the second film to include her having had a child didn't diminish her character in the least. She was still very much compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful. She did what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do.

James Cameron adding a child to Ripley's backstory in no way diminished her character. Ripley was a compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful character in Aliens, just as she was in the first movie.

Oh I understand just fine. You don't understand the character of Sue Storm at all, and believe female characters who are written to have strong maternal instincts and/or are mothers with children are weak and shallow and boring. You said so yourself.

Yep, you do.😉

Nice strawman. 😉 LMFAO!!!

And yet the industry is still in decline.

Call it an educated guess based on Disney's track record with pushing the poorly written "girl boss" cliche. See Rey in the Star Wars films, Snow White, etc. Nice deflection. Why is it that Sue has to become the leader? I know the writers are writing their own story. That's not what I asked you. Why is it so important for you that Sue be the leader? And as far as other options go, see the previous FF film. How'd that work out for them? Of course there isn't one thing that's causing the decline in ticket sales. It's a combination of a lot of things. One or two blockbusters aren't saving the industry though. It's still in decline. It might not be if they were producing better product that more people favored seeing in theaters over streaming. You're basically suggesting that losing thousands at the casino, but winning a hundred quid at the blackjack table means you're winning and everything is fine.

Neither am I, but nice try though. Good luck trying to prove that I'm a woman hating misogynist. I've been re-watching the Stargate franchise of late. Love Samantha Carter and Dr. Weir. Absolutely in love with Teyla. Kate Mulgrew as Captain Janeway was fantastic. I've no problem at all with female characters being in leadership positions. Like any other fictional character regardless of gender, it depends on how their written. The characters I've mentioned here are strong women who stand shoulder to shoulder to their male counterparts, not above them and don't need to berate them or talk down to them in order to elevate themselves. It's no different for a male character that berates or needs to talk down to their female counterparts in order to build themselves up. That's what a poorly written girl boss character is. I'll ask again, why does it have to be Sue as the leader? What's wrong with Ben Grimm? Why can't he or Johnny be "re-imagined" as the leader of the team? Sure. And there's a significant subset of people who will take the time to get off the couch and spend the extra money if there's something unique that they want to see in the theaters. Hollywood isn't producing that product as they used to anymore. So going by your own statements, Hollywood box office is down because people can just wait for streaming because its cheaper. No one will be going to the theaters anymore because it's a pain to drive there and tickets and such are too expensive, but Disney can make a couple of movies that will get people back into the theater and suddenly the expense and hassle suddenly disappears? Which is it? Pick one.

I have to admit, this sounds a whole lot better to me than Sue Storm: Girl Boss. I'll bet real money studio execs at Disney had the same thoughts about the original Snow White, then came up with their "new and improved!" story for those "modern audiences". How'd that work out for them? So crap writing isn't the reason the MCU is failing, but the movies are crap and bombing. Ok... Yes, that's right. Hollywood can't produce a product that people are willing to spend money on and want to go to a theater and see. Nice to see that's finally sinking in for you. Why only Sue? Why can't Ben Grimm or Johnny Storm be the leader? Isn't The Thing a cliche of the quasimodo type monster or dumb brute stereotypes? I don't know where you're getting the whole Sue Storm isn't important enough thing from. I just don't. I've never gotten that vibe from the comics. She's always been an integral part of the team, just like everyone else. You seem to think that she's somehow subservient to the men on the team and that makes her weak and shallow. She isn't. This isn't what has been said about Sue though. What has been said is that being a matriarch or maternal figure doesn't make a female character weak. That's all.

How'd that work out for them in the last FF dumpster fire? Disney hasn't seemed to learn yet that "reinterpretation" isn't what audiences want. See Snow White. I completely agree. Most everything on any of these streaming services is complete garbage and "filler" content to make their library look more impressive. With that said, audiences are still preferring that garbage over going to the movies, so Hollywood is losing money. They're not producing a product people want to see. I don't think it's "superhero fatigue". I think it's crap writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think the point was to say Ripley's motivations in the first film were maternal, nor is it that the one and only way for a female protagonist to be interesting or compelling is for them to be a mother. That's not true. Women characters don't need to be mothers to be good protagonists. I think the point is that you were suggesting that motherly/matriarch type characters are shallow and not very compelling, and that's not true either. The maternal instinct is very powerful, and Sarah Connor in T2 is a great example of that. I don't think anyone would characterize her as weak in that movie. Ripley protecting Newt was very maternal too. There's nothing wrong with that. So Sue Storm being the matriarch of the Fantastic Four doesn't make her weak or shallow or inferior by any stretch. That's her character. She doesn't need to suddenly become the general barking out orders to everyone in order to make her more compelling. See above. I think the point is to show that the matriarch/maternal figure doesn't mean they're weak. I don't understand this. What makes a mother weak? Why do you think her being the matriarch of the team makes her less than the others? I just don't see that in her character. I don't think it's "seething" about there being a strong female character, just that it's out of character for Sue to be in that role, and not following the source material more closely hasn't been working for the MCU. 100% agree. The movie industry hasn't figured out how to produce a product that will get people back into theaters. Completely agree. ^ That.

Yeah there's lots of variables for why ticket sales are in decline, with a big part of that being movie studios are churning out crap that nobody wants to pay money to see. Trying to claim that's not a big part of it is just silly and arguing just to argue. What exactly do you think a "mother" figure is? I don't think you're grasping how strong the maternal instinct and how important a matriarch figure is in a family. Being "motherly" doesn't necessarily equate to a woman cooking dinner, cleaning the house, changing diapers and following the orders her husband barks at her. Sarah Connor is a great example. She didn't become what she became because she had an overabundance of testosterone and just liked shooting guns and blowing stuff up. She was protecting her child. That maternal instinct to protect her son was the motivation. Look at Samantha Carter in SG-1, Princess Leia, Padme Amidala. There's plenty of examples of matriarch female characters keeping the team together and standing shoulder to shoulder with her male counterparts, not above them. Try looking at women who are matriarchs as something other than "shallow".