Captain America: Brave New World

[Ghost]

S Korea has been showing for years that action movies could be made for much smaller budgets.

Hell, look what Japan showed could be done with Godzilla Minus One and that small budget (small compared to Hollywood).

[biostem]

On 2/28/2025 at 12:51 PM, battlewraith said:

The spectacle of this film not flopping hard enough to satisfy some people is amusing.

Some of us just remember how good previous MCU films were, and at substantially lower expense.  We can also notice how the writing and FX of the last few films are not up to par with, again, what they were able to accomplish with smaller budgets, (even accounting for inflation), so the question remains - where is the money going?  I don't care from a "you're spending our money" standpoint, but rather from a "I know you can do better" one.  Either way, if a trailer doesn't sell me on a film, I'm not going to pay to go see it... simple as!

[battlewraith]

28 minutes ago, biostem said:

Some of us just remember how good previous MCU films were, and at substantially lower expense.  We can also notice how the writing and FX of the last few films are not up to par with, again, what they were able to accomplish with smaller budgets, (even accounting for inflation), so the question remains - where is the money going?  I don't care from a "you're spending our money" standpoint, but rather from a "I know you can do better" one.  Either way, if a trailer doesn't sell me on a film, I'm not going to pay to go see it... simple as!

 

I remember some being good, but there was quite a bit of crap as well. I think I've seen most of them, and with a few exceptions it's hard to remember what even happened in several of them. So I don't personally see some big falling off in quality. I think people in general are just tired of superhero flicks and different fandoms tend to get pissy when they don't like what the studios are focusing on. 

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I remember some being good, but there was quite a bit of crap as well. I think I've seen most of them, and with a few exceptions it's hard to remember what even happened in several of them. So I don't personally see some big falling off in quality. I think people in general are just tired of superhero flicks and different fandoms tend to get pissy when they don't like what the studios are focusing on. 

IMHO, it started around phase three.  Which movies from the first 2 phases do you think weren't good?  Thor the Dark World jumps out as the worst of the bunch, but compared to films in the later phases?  They're still better overall...

[battlewraith]

Just now, biostem said:

IMHO, it started around phase three.  Which movies from the first 2 phases do you think weren't good?  Thor the Dark World jumps out as the worst of the bunch, but compared to films in the later phases?  They're still better overall...

Iron Man 1 was good because it introduced us to RDJ as Stark, but otherwise was pretty unmemorable. Iron Man 3 was actually bad. Thor 1 was ok. Thor 2 was almost completely forgettable. Captain America 1 was decent. Winter Soldier was good. Guardians of the Galaxy and Antman were good. Age of Ultron was forgettable.

 

I'm not saying that the ones that were forgettable were bad movies, but I suspect that they were new and novel--so people remember them as being better than they actually were.

[Ghost]

5 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Iron Man 1 was good because it introduced us to RDJ as Stark, but otherwise was pretty unmemorable. Iron Man 3 was actually bad. Thor 1 was ok. Thor 2 was almost completely forgettable. Captain America 1 was decent. Winter Soldier was good. Guardians of the Galaxy and Antman were good. Age of Ultron was forgettable.

 

I'm not saying that the ones that were forgettable were bad movies, but I suspect that they were new and novel--so people remember them as being better than they actually were.

I think people were willing to overlook those movies because they knew the MCU was building towards something.

Since Endgame, they’ve been all over the place.  Sure they said they were building towards Kang - but then they started jobbing him out.  

Then we got mixed messages.  No Kang.  Oh wait, yes Kang.  Just kidding, No Kang.

Next they start bringing back the old gang, which makes it seem like they are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

[battlewraith]

22 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I think people were willing to overlook those movies because they knew the MCU was building towards something.

Since Endgame, they’ve been all over the place.  Sure they said they were building towards Kang - but then they started jobbing him out.  

Then we got mixed messages.  No Kang.  Oh wait, yes Kang.  Just kidding, No Kang.

Next they start bringing back the old gang, which makes it seem like they are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

 

Bringing back the old gang makes sense though. That's part of what makes Hollywood what it is--the star system. Throwing bags of money at RJD to get him to come back for some role that makes absolutely no sense will still probably bring in an audience. That is probably going to work at least for one movie.

 

As for them being all over the place--look at the source material. The comics are all over the place. These characters exist in a fragmented, heavily retconned nerdscape where significant features of the narrative can change whenever a new writer comes on board to put their spin on something. So the comics love multiverse narratives because it allows them throw crap against the wall and see what works, while dismissing the stuff that doesn't as some alternate version of the character. I think that is deeply ingrained in Marvel comics and the film studios buy into it in order to appeal to comics geeks and offer a rationale for why they bring Loki back from the dead or have RDJ play Doom or whatever. 

[BrandX]

I'd say the issue with Kang was the actor himself and for some reason instead of just recasting, they went total change of lanes.

 

They also made plenty of mistakes yes.  Multiverse Sage doesn't seem to be as planned out, and when they fail on a movie (and by fail, I mean it didn't do as well as they wanted) they seemed to do a new course correction.

 

Of course, then they got FOX and that looked to force them into more changing course.

 

Not to mention Chadwick dying.

 

Bad choices, bad luck and bad timing.

 

I didn't hate Quantumania like others did, but honestly, why would you stick with the same director from the first two, when (while I quite enjoy them) they didn't make big box offices?

 

Eternals.  Did no one read the script?  Everyone of them treat Spite, a member of their group basically as old as the rest of them, as a child, simply due to her body.  No wonder she had issues.  Sure, humans seeing her it would make sense, but her own family?  Ikarus got all the hate and none of it really seemed to be explained why?  When people say this movie is woke, that is an easy thing to point to.

 

The Marvels.  Better than people give credit, but yes, Brie has lots of haters and Ms Marvel wasn't known to the masses.

 

Wakanda Forever?  Letitia wasn't a good lead.  We only get 10 minutes of Black Panther and they really should've re-casted the role.  I wonder what the movie would've been like if they had just re-casted. 

[Ghost]

Guess I’m one of the few who really liked Quantumania.

For me, the 2nd Antman movie was the worst of the trilogy.

 

The story behind Eternals is so weird.  Apparently they showed a pre screen to Marvel employees who heaped more praise on this movie, than any other movie in history.  Supposedly the execs were already celebrating the awards the movie would receive, and were horrified with the results once it was released.  Slightly out of touch?

 

The Marvels.  I sat watching it thinking “this is no where near as bad a movie as people were claiming”.  Then the singing/dancing planet happened, and I turned that crap off - only the 2nd Marvel movie I had ever stopped watching mid movie (Eternals was the first).

 

My only complaint about Wakanda Forever, is that Shuri looked horrible once suited up.  She looked as if she had the frame of a 13yr old girl - which made it laughable to me.  Other than that, I really enjoyed the movie and thought Namor was an awesome “villain”

[ZacKing]

On 3/1/2025 at 9:29 AM, TTRPGWhiz said:

That, and the obsession several regulars of this sub have with budgets and box office are what keep it entertaining. You’d think these movies are being made with taxpayer dollars for how much some people care about Disney’s bottom line. 

 

What's even more entertaining is reading comments like this that are so off the mark, it's hysterical.  People don't care about Disney's bottom line or whether or not they're making or losing money.  For those who aren't getting it -

 

14 hours ago, biostem said:

Some of us just remember how good previous MCU films were, and at substantially lower expense.  We can also notice how the writing and FX of the last few films are not up to par with, again, what they were able to accomplish with smaller budgets, (even accounting for inflation), so the question remains - where is the money going?  I don't care from a "you're spending our money" standpoint, but rather from a "I know you can do better" one.  Either way, if a trailer doesn't sell me on a film, I'm not going to pay to go see it... simple as!

 

^ That.  Hollywood could learn a lot from international films that are making excellent films for a fraction of the price tag.  Throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a MCU movie doesn't equate to "quality". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZacKing]

2 hours ago, BrandX said:

The Marvels.  Better than people give credit

 

No, it really isn't. lol

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

My only complaint about Wakanda Forever, is that Shuri looked horrible once suited up.  She looked as if she had the frame of a 13yr old girl - which made it laughable to me.  Other than that, I really enjoyed the movie and thought Namor was an awesome “villain”

 

Wakanda Forever completely and totally destroyed the character of Namor and the Atlanteans.  I agree that Shuri was awful and the role should have just been re-cast instead of trying to pass Shuri off as the hero.

[Ghost]

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

 

Wakanda Forever completely and totally destroyed the character of Namor and the Atlanteans.  I agree that Shuri was awful and the role should have just been re-cast instead of trying to pass Shuri off as the hero.

I still thought movie Namor was great, and was hoping he would become more of a threat in the MCU.

 

At the time, I didn’t mind that they weren’t recasting T’Challa.  I thought it was the respectful thing to do because I thought that was it for the character.

 

Now that I know they plan to continue using Black Panther, my opinion has changed and TChalla should have been recast for the sequel.

 

 

[BrandX]

4 hours ago, Ghost said:

I still thought movie Namor was great, and was hoping he would become more of a threat in the MCU.

 

At the time, I didn’t mind that they weren’t recasting T’Challa.  I thought it was the respectful thing to do because I thought that was it for the character.

 

Now that I know they plan to continue using Black Panther, my opinion has changed and TChalla should have been recast for the sequel.

 

 

 

I was saying recast from day one.  From what I read, Chadwick said to recast too.

 

But I remember LOTS AND LOTS of people saying how disrespectful it would be to recast a character.  So much whining at the idea of recasting.

 

Nevermind those same people didn't whine about other recasts.  Including Ross.

[BrandX]

8 hours ago, Ghost said:

Guess I’m one of the few who really liked Quantumania.

For me, the 2nd Antman movie was the worst of the trilogy.

 

The story behind Eternals is so weird.  Apparently they showed a pre screen to Marvel employees who heaped more praise on this movie, than any other movie in history.  Supposedly the execs were already celebrating the awards the movie would receive, and were horrified with the results once it was released.  Slightly out of touch?

 

The Marvels.  I sat watching it thinking “this is no where near as bad a movie as people were claiming”.  Then the singing/dancing planet happened, and I turned that crap off - only the 2nd Marvel movie I had ever stopped watching mid movie (Eternals was the first).

 

My only complaint about Wakanda Forever, is that Shuri looked horrible once suited up.  She looked as if she had the frame of a 13yr old girl - which made it laughable to me.  Other than that, I really enjoyed the movie and thought Namor was an awesome “villain”

 

The singing wasn't even that long of a scene.

[Ghost]

54 minutes ago, BrandX said:

 

The singing wasn't even that long of a scene.

I wouldn’t know.

In a universe with superheroes, gods, monster and powers - the idea of a planet that sings everything was something I just wasn’t willing to accept or suspend disbelief for.

 

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

I wouldn’t know.

In a universe with superheroes, gods, monster and powers - the idea of a planet that sings everything was something I just wasn’t willing to accept or suspend disbelief for.

 

It's very common for tv series, especially shows like Angel or Buffy, to have a musical episode. Usually there is some plot contrivance that explains why everyone is singing their lines.  I've seen it on a lot of different shows and this, I think, is the vibe they were going for with that segment. I'm not particularly into it, but that segment was not that long and honestly in a universe with superheroes, gods, monsters and powers--that's exactly where you would find this sort of thing. Comic books are not hard scifi and the genre is a catchall for anything the writers think is cool. The goofy fun parts of that movie were not the problem. The problem was when it took itself seriously as a Marvel we-have-to-save-the-world narrative. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

15 hours ago, ZacKing said:

 

What's even more entertaining is reading comments like this that are so off the mark, it's hysterical.  People don't care about Disney's bottom line or whether or not they're making or losing money.  For those who aren't getting it -

 

 

^ That.  Hollywood could learn a lot from international films that are making excellent films for a fraction of the price tag.  Throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a MCU movie doesn't equate to "quality". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol gimme a break. There are several lengthy comments in here about how much PR and marketing cost, the relative values of today dollars vs. 20 years ago, etc. None of that has to do with whether these movies are “good” or not.

 

”Where does the money go?” is *exactly* what I’m talking about. It’s nobody’s business but the suits’. Anyone thinking they’re entitled to an answer to that question is wrong about it. They made a movie, it cost X amount. Either see it or don’t. Either like it or don’t. 

[Luminara]

3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

”Where does the money go?” is *exactly* what I’m talking about. It’s nobody’s business but the suits’.

 

When people are paying for something expensive, they're interested in knowing what makes it so expensive.  Movie tickets are expensive.  Due to the non-centralized nature of streaming services (everyone has a streaming service now, they're all separate and they all have their own cost), streaming is expensive.  We know what makes a shoe cost what it does, or a phone, or a cutting board.  We know where they're manufactured, we know how they're made, we know what it cost to make them and we're free to determine whether they're worth paying for.  We're even at the point of including ethical considerations in the value and cost of things.  Was it made in a sweat shop where the workers only get $0.42/hr., or was it made by people being paid a fair wage, and which do I want to spend my money on?

 

And there's the movie industry, keeping everything hidden while demanding ever-escalating fees to see their products.  Hidden gender gaps in wages.  Hidden hiring practices.  Hidden assets.  Hidden bonuses for executives who push films out the door, regardless of success or quality.  Hidden expenses, hidden practices, hidden legal fees to cover inappropriate behavior on- and off-set.

 

People want to know if what they're spending on a ticket or streaming service is justified.  We know Hollywood is as corrupt as Washington DC, we're tired of it and we're asking questions.  Considering that they've spent decades accusing the general public of being thieves, I doubt you'll find much support for the position of letting them keep their own shady practices and expenditures under wraps.

[BrandX]

12 hours ago, Ghost said:

I wouldn’t know.

In a universe with superheroes, gods, monster and powers - the idea of a planet that sings everything was something I just wasn’t willing to accept or suspend disbelief for.

 

 

Honestly, I thought they were trying to do something for countries that like to put a dance in everything.

[Ghost]

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

It's very common for tv series, especially shows like Angel or Buffy, to have a musical episode. Usually there is some plot contrivance that explains why everyone is singing their lines.  I've seen it on a lot of different shows and this, I think, is the vibe they were going for with that segment. I'm not particularly into it, but that segment was not that long and honestly in a universe with superheroes, gods, monsters and powers--that's exactly where you would find this sort of thing. Comic books are not hard scifi and the genre is a catchall for anything the writers think is cool. The goofy fun parts of that movie were not the problem. The problem was when it took itself seriously as a Marvel we-have-to-save-the-world narrative. 

And I won’t watch those episodes either.  
If I want to watch a musical, that’s what I will watch.

 

That goofy scene may have been fine too you, but it wasn’t to me.  Which is why I turned it off and moved on to something else.

We not all gonna like the same things.

 

[Ghost]

5 minutes ago, BrandX said:

 

Honestly, I thought they were trying to do something for countries that like to put a dance in everything.

That could be the reason, especially with Kamala being one of the main characters.

[ZacKing]

6 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

lol gimme a break. There are several lengthy comments in here about how much PR and marketing cost, the relative values of today dollars vs. 20 years ago, etc. None of that has to do with whether these movies are “good” or not.

 

You're still not getting it.  Try re-reading what @biostem and @Luminara posted again.  

 

Not everyone is a mindless sheep who will just consume whatever product is put in front of them just because it's attached to a favorite IP.  Disney spending hundreds of millions to produce crap movies that stink makes one question where did the money go?  Throwing that sort of money at movies should be producing hit after hit.  It isn't.  Why are international film studios and independent projects producing quality films that are well received by critics and audiences alike and making tons of money doing it for a mere fraction of the cost that Hollywood does it for?  Take Godzilla.  Godzilla KoTM had a reported budget of $170 million.  Godzilla Minus One had a reported budget of $15 million, won an academy award and is better rated by both critics and audiences alike.  That's just one example.  Discussions about how much is spent on these movies and where the money goes are all valid questions to ask.

 

34 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Honestly, I thought they were trying to do something for countries that like to put a dance in everything.

 

This is exactly the reason that was done.  The US isn't where movies are making their money anymore and hasn't been for a long time.  There is nothing wrong with that.

[battlewraith]

3 hours ago, Luminara said:

People want to know if what they're spending on a ticket or streaming service is justified.  We know Hollywood is as corrupt as Washington DC, we're tired of it and we're asking questions.  Considering that they've spent decades accusing the general public of being thieves, I doubt you'll find much support for the position of letting them keep their own shady practices and expenditures under wraps.

 

So what are you proposing? Why does it matter how a movie studio spends its money?

 

If you're coming at this issue as a capitalist, its pretty straightforward. If you don't like some company's product don't buy it. Invest your money in products and studios that produce the things you like. The thing is, if other people like the things you don't and are willing to pay money for it--them's the breaks. All the complaining about what the studios are putting out is just that...complaining. That's the system, it doesn't center around what any particular fan wants. It also keeps a lot of people employed, even if they are working on a colossal bomb of a movie.

 

If you're coming at this from another political perspective, that the entire structure of the industry is corrupt in the sense that a political system isa corrupt--sweet baby Jesus,  stupid Marvel movies are near the bottom of the list of things you should be concerned with.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Take Godzilla.  Godzilla KoTM had a reported budget of $170 million.  Godzilla Minus One had a reported budget of $15 million, won an academy award and is better rated by both critics and audiences alike.  That's just one example. 

 

Yeah it's an outlier. Japan has produced a ton of Godzilla movies, how many were hits here? If it's that simple, we should see a bunch of smash hits coming down from that studio right?