Avengers: Doomsday

[batguy]

Very true, about the limits of keeping all the various MCU movies/shows integrated.

Part of the problem is the audience. They have a bad habit of wanting to see incompatible characters & worlds clashed together. That's how we get 'Deadpool & Wolverine' and it sells big.

Sure, DP & WV made money. But how did it work in the bigger picture? I suppose maybe its effect on Deadpool was neutral, but I don't think it was very good for Wolverine or the MCU in general. It just seemed like another step in the MCU's long march away from dramatic stakes.

 

[Astyanax]

Part of the problem is the audience. They have a bad habit of wanting to see incompatible characters & worlds clashed together. That's how we get 'Deadpool & Wolverine' and it sells big.

I'm sorry, are you judging me for liking Deadpool & Wolverine very much and paying to see it multiple times? Bad form, old boy.

The audience is NEVER the problem.

 

[batguy]

I'm sorry, are you judging me for liking Deadpool & Wolverine very much and paying to see it multiple times? Bad form, old boy.

The audience is NEVER the problem.

Indiana & Dial of Destiny.
Solo: A Star Wars Story.
Terminator: Dark Fate.
Jaws: The Revenge.

Should any of these movies have been made?

Audience demand is why this stuff happens. Producers say "Well, it's gonna be crap, but it will make money." The public KNOWS it will probably be crap and they line up for it anyway.

 

[Astyanax]

Indiana & Dial of Destiny.
Solo: A Star Wars Story.
Terminator: Dark Fate.
Jaws: The Revenge.

Should any of these movies have been made?

Audience demand is why this stuff happens. Producers say "Well, it's gonna be crap, but it will make money." The public KNOWS it will probably be crap and they line up for it anyway.

I respectfully disagree. None of those films on your list did well at all, especially compared to their predecessors. They were performance disappointments all.

Those movies did not happen because of audience demand, but rather the corporate idiots' inaccurate assumptions of what the audience demand is. Not to mention their own agendas, which don't even take audience demand into consideration.

No, again, the audiences are not to blame. Disney et al are not reading us correctly!

 

[batguy]

I respectfully disagree. None of those films on your list did well at all, especially compared to their predecessors. They were performance disappointments all.

Those movies did not happen because of audience demand, but rather the corporate idiots' inaccurate assumptions of what the audience demand is. Not to mention their own agendas, which don't even take audience demand into consideration.

No, again, the audiences are not to blame. Disney et al are not reading us correctly!

Hollywood is not reading us as well as they could & should. But the bottom line is that people will pay for certain things despite knowing better.

Making Indiana Jones #5 was a safer financial bet than making a new $200m swashbucker starring Phoebe Waller-Bridge. The latter would not have gotten funding at all. Disney made the correct calculation that dressing it as Indy#5 would cushion the idea from truly bombing.

Why?

Beause people will go see another 'Indy' even though they know better.

People will see the Indy #5 trailer and say "Meh, it could be fun, but Indy really should have ended after 'Last Crusade." Then they will go buy tickets and see Indy #5. Then they will walk out of the theater and say "Yep, I was right. It was disappointing. They should have stopped after 'Last Crusade." And Disney will collect their winnings (or reduced losses, at least).

 

[Astyanax]

Hollywood is not reading us as well as they could & should. But the bottom line is that people will pay for certain things despite knowing better.
Making Indiana Jones #5 was a safer financial bet than making a new $200m swashbucker starring Phoebe Waller-Bridge. The latter would not have gotten funding at all. Disney made the correct calculation that dressing it as Indy#5 would cushion the idea from truly bombing.

Why?

Beause people will go see another 'Indy' even though they know better.

People will see the Indy #5 trailer and say "Meh, it could be fun, but Indy really should have ended after 'Last Crusade." Then they will go buy tickets and see Indy #5. Then they will walk out of the theater and say "Yep, I was right. It was disappointing and they should have stopped after 'Last Crusade." And Disney will collect their winnings (or reduced losses, at least).

Yet, we know, and we have said many times on this very forum, that Disney would make tons more money if they did it right. A well-written sequel trilogy or Indiana Jones 5 that captured the spirit of their predecessors would have made triple what they did. We know this.

Sure, people will go in some numbers to watch crap, if that's all there is. Something amazing comes out (dare I say Deadpool 3), then the numbers reflect a true audience pleaser. Your taste might not align there, that's fair. But it deserves high marks for quality writing and capturing the zeitgest well.

I would really consider giving audiences a bit more credit. Because you're talking about yourself, and you're talking about me.

 

[jts1031]

People will see the Indy #5 trailer and say "Meh, it could be fun, but Indy really should have ended after 'Last Crusade." Then they will go buy tickets and see Indy #5. Then they will walk out of the theater and say "Yep, I was right. It was disappointing. They should have stopped after 'Last Crusade." And Disney will collect their winnings (or reduced losses, at least).

And that's where these movies fail. If I go to see the movie and think it was as bad as I thought, I'm not going to go back to watch it again. The only way the studios end up with a blockbuster is repeat viewing. Going to see a movie once doesn't cut it anymore. I think the last movie I bothered to watch more than once in a theater was The Dark Knight. I used to be at opening night for the Star Wars movies, but I didn't even bother to watch Rise of Skywalker in a theater, nor did I go to see Indy 5. Burned one too many times by the current regime. I think there will probably be a reduced return on the Avatar movies as they go along as well. People will start to get burned out and they won't keep going to the theater to watch it over and over.

 

[Ron]

If everybody is going to be in this, doesn't that undermine Secret Wars?

 

[batguy]

I'm not trying to get on any high horses about watching certain movies. I watch my share of them. But I know I'm supporting some bad habits (on the part of the studios) that I shouldn't.


It's like watching a greasy political commentator that lies/exaggerates stuff. Or eating junkfood. Or calling up that toxic ex-girlfriend.

Yeah, we have the right to do these things. And we do them, because we are only human. But we also know better the whole time.

 

[renaissance_man]

If everybody is going to be in this, doesn't that undermine Secret Wars?

Cumberbatch has already said he isn't in Doomsday, it's likely Spiderman won't be in Doomsday.

A good portion of the announced cast so far could could not survive Doomsday and that's where the other half of the as yet unannounced cast could come into Secret Wars.

It's all speculation at the moment.

 

[Ron]

Cumberbatch has already said he isn't in Doomsday, it's likely Spiderman won't be in Doomsday.

A good portion of the announced cast so far could could not survive Doomsday and that's where the other half of the as yet unannounced cast could come into Secret Wars.

It's all speculation at the moment.

I think Holland was one of the names on the chairs no?

 

[renaissance_man]

I think Holland was one of the names on the chairs no?

Not Holland, Tom Hiddleston was though.

 

[Ron]

Not Holland, Tom Hiddleston was though.

Yes, that's who I was thinking of. It's funny that you knew that's who I mixed him up with.

 

[Uridium]

Daredevil's powers are more grounded - even though he's blind and has radar senses, his physical strength isn't really unbelievable. Putting him in The Avengers would present problems of the scale of power. I'm not saying they couldn't do it and make it look someewhat believable within the context of a big action movie, but it's harder to separate him from how he appears in his own series.

I am by no means an expert on these characters, but in my mind, Daredevil is just as powerful as Black Widow or Hawkeye. They managed to work alongside the more 'Godly' powered Avengers.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Personally, the problem I felt with She-Hulk (the tv show) was that the 4th wall breaking was pretty much just in one episode, and was much more of an extreme break than anything in the Deadpool movies. Deadpool mostly just makes references to our "real world," looks at the camera, which you could just explain in-universe that he's just kind of crazy, and makes weird references that no one in his world would really understand, and mugs for a non-existent camera.

The "suspension of disbelief" that we have to have when watching movies and tv was much harder to have for the She-Hulk stuff than for Deadpool. She-Hulk's 4th wall breaking also breaks the rest of the connected MCU, with the onscreen content blatantly acknowledging that none of this is real, which ruins our suspension of disbelief.

Comic books are a bit different, but even so, I never read She-Hulk or Deadpool, and I would have the same criticisms when things are taken too far. It would be better to have the She-Hulk show exist in a different universe. It's also the problem of trying to connect everything in a shared universe, so that you inevitably run into problems when films and shows don't match in tone, or when characters and the world shown in each separate film/show present things that wouldn't make sense if all were truly interconnected.

Take Daredevil. The tone of the show tends to be more of a crime-drama, a little more grounded than other fantastical MCU properties. When you try to connect the NYC in Daredevil  and DD: Born Again, it doesn't really fit with the MCU as shown in The Avengers connected movies and GOTG. The gritty organized crime element and doesn't really fit the tone of the MCU. Daredevil's powers are more grounded - even though he's blind and has radar senses, his physical strength isn't really unbelievable. Putting him in The Avengers would present problems of the scale of power. I'm not saying they couldn't do it and make it look someewhat believable within the context of a big action movie, but it's harder to separate him from how he appears in his own series.

The world of Daredevil works better when it largely ignores the rest of the MCU. I mean, if there's gang members running around (or flying) in NYC that have alien-based weapons, like the Vulture was peddling in Spider-Man: Homecoming, it kind of breaks the Kingpin's crime world.

I guess it really comes down on how much you are willing to believe all these properties are connected. For me, it's a bit easier to enjoy Daredevil as being more grounded than it was to have She-Hulk literally break the 4th wall and climb into "the real world." I still enjoyed She-Hulk as a series, but the 4th wall stuff just was too far for me.

She hulk has always been commentary on the audience. In the comics; the joke has always been about the readers. The nudity issue was one of the main points. Many readers started out hoping for some miraculous topless female hulk that could NEVER happen with the comics code in place. Much of the humor was based in that teasing that such a thing was even possible to an audience that already knew it was impossible. The common fourth wall breaking in Marvel probably started with that back around '77 when the entire industry was on the brink of creatively burning out.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Indiana & Dial of Destiny.
Solo: A Star Wars Story.
Terminator: Dark Fate.
Jaws: The Revenge.

Should any of these movies have been made?

Audience demand is why this stuff happens. Producers say "Well, it's gonna be crap, but it will make money." The public KNOWS it will probably be crap and they line up for it anyway.

The is nothing wrong with the concept of some of these. The problem is usually in the execution.
With exception of the jaws film, these all could have worked if allowed to. "Too many cooks in the kitchen" is a famous rule as to why do many films fail technically.

They fail artistically because we have a film industry that is a business that forgets what it is supposed to be selling. You cannot succeed as business selling art if you have no art to sell.

That's no longer business, that's crime.

 

[Riceball]

Back on topic, I'm a bit leery about this movie. I feel that there hasn't been any real buildup to this movie so far. While I don't remember everything leading up to the first Avengers movie, it just felt like they were dropping clues and hints with every movie that led up to it. But, since Endgame, there didn't seem to be much build-up to this next Avengers movie. They kind of hinted at the big bad for this chapter of the MCU, but then they dropped it after the whole Jonathan Majors controversy and only started to hint at the big bad again with the latest Captain America movie. So, to me, it seems to be too soon for another Avengers movie.

 

[batguy]

Back on topic, I'm a bit leery about this movie. I feel that there hasn't been any real buildup to this movie so far. While I don't remember everything leading up to the first Avengers movie, it just felt like they were dropping clues and hints with every movie that led up to it. But, since Endgame, there didn't seem to be much build-up to this next Avengers movie. They kind of hinted at the big bad for this chapter of the MCU, but then they dropped it after the whole Jonathan Majors controversy and only started to hint at the big bad again with the latest Captain America movie. So, to me, it seems to be too soon for another Avengers movie.

This.

The studio bosses have never internalized that the MCU needed that high-quality interwoven story to be such a hit. The MBAs in the top offices don't understand creativity. They are always trying to recreate the big payoffs without laying all the ground work first.

 

[renaissance_man]

This.

The studio bosses have never internalized that the MCU needed that high-quality interwoven story to be such a hit. The MBAs in the top offices don't understand creativity. They are always trying to recreate the big payoffs without laying all the ground work first.

Doom is due to be in the next Spider-Man film in some way. Hints that he will also somehow be in FF possibly a post credits scene. Also who knows what Thunderbolts might have in store. Give it time, Avengers Doomsday is still over a year away.
Also don't forget they had to pivot away from Kang.

 

[cboath]

Its hard to have a buildup to a movie you didnt know you were making til everything through 2024 was in the can before you went in that direction. They were going to build to kang til majors screwed up those plans.