Captain America: Brave New World
- Thread starter dascoyne
- Start date
Last edited:
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Then again, why spend the extra $$$ on good CGI when the film’s been reshot three times and they know it’s gonna flop?
The film hasn't even been released and already that tired arguement of "woke blah, blah, blah" is being bandied about.
This could be why films don't do well, preconceived opinions and personal bias generating a swell of negative opinion before anyone has even seen it.
People speak of superhero fatigue, personally I'm getting bored of the "anti-woke" brigade spreading negativity.
Fandom is its own worst enemy.
Brave New World looks to be in the same vein as Winter Soldier, a sort of political thriller. But judging by a recent release, people seem to want a plethora of juvenile d*ck jokes, profanity, pointless cameos and Easter eggs to make up the bulk of their movies.
To each their own I suppose.
This could be why films don't do well, preconceived opinions and personal bias generating a swell of negative opinion before anyone has even seen it.
People speak of superhero fatigue, personally I'm getting bored of the "anti-woke" brigade spreading negativity.
Fandom is its own worst enemy.
Brave New World looks to be in the same vein as Winter Soldier, a sort of political thriller. But judging by a recent release, people seem to want a plethora of juvenile d*ck jokes, profanity, pointless cameos and Easter eggs to make up the bulk of their movies.
To each their own I suppose.
I'd like to believe it.
But this movie is another one of these "shoot it 2-3 times to get a releasable version". How good is the script gonna be? IMO it's fair to make assumptions when the productions have been so bungled.
This movie may not be a woke disaster. But when it comes to the validity of the assumptions about it, that is almost beside the point. It's been strongly rumored that the first version was a woke disaster. It kept being re-shot because the test screenings were spectacular bombs.
IMO the heavy re-shooting suggests that there was something specific wrong with it. If it was just weak in a general sense, they wouldn't have had a strong clear idea of how to fix it. Mediocre movies usually get released as-is.
Last edited:
Most if not all movies undergo some kind of reshoots.
Focus group screenings views are taken into account and changes are made. It's been happening for decades. It's nothing new.
It's not comparable IMO. This movie's production has been way outside the norms.
Reshoots are typically measured in days. This movie was re-shot for months.
So long as it produces a good film, does it matter?
People seem quick to jump on to these things without context and make assumptions based on their negative bias.
There seems to be a whole subculture of fandom who just always want things to fail before they've even been released.
Why do people assume the next version of Microsoft Windows will be full of bugs? Have they even tried it?
The skepticism & trolling comes from somewhere. These tentpole superhero movies are commercial products.
It's not comparable in my opinion. Movies are artistic endeavours as much as commercial ones.
Some more than others.
If Toyota produces 10 ugly cars in a row then people will assume the next one will be ugly. That's unfortunate for the designer of #11, who might be a rookie without any responsibility for the previous ones. But that's how the world works.
Even if the public guesses wrong about the 11th Toyota, their guess was still smart. Most of the public won't know that the designer of the 11th car was a new rookie. And besides, the new rookie was chosen by the same bosses who made the hiring & approval decisions that produced the last 10 turds.
Large corporations carry a lot of inertia. They don't turn on a dime.
Have Marvel produced 10 bad films in a row?
Or is it more that the fandom, or a part of fandom will now always put out a negative opinion in advance of any new release because of a perceived agenda.
Not every film will land in the same way with every person who watches it but if they don't take risks and don't mix things up then we will end up with the same characters and same stories being told over and over. Then there would be a justifiable backlash over a lack of creativity and freshness.
Hollywood has produced a lot of forgettable superhero-disaster flicks lately.
I know a Linux nerd who hates Microsoft with a passion. I swear to God, if a tree fell on his house he would blame Windows #11.
Who cares? Is this a problem that needs intervention?
People are entitled to have irrational grudges & hangups.
But this one is getting another round of even more reshoots this month! And under a new director to boot. While one short stint of reshoots is expected, multiple rounds involving rewriting the plot and inserting a new villain are not normal. Giancarlo Esposito was not originally intended to be in the movie at all. This degree of reshoots is absolutely confidence sapping.
Last edited:
Handing over brands to new characters was always the weakest a dumbest part of the comics and now it’s the weakest and dumbest part of the movies.
It ruins the “here’s a special person” (which is the ENTIRE concept of a super hero origin) and tries to make it just a successful brand. As if anyone can do it, as long as you make sure to lock down the trademark and licensing rights, you too can fight super villains!
It ruins the “here’s a special person” (which is the ENTIRE concept of a super hero origin) and tries to make it just a successful brand. As if anyone can do it, as long as you make sure to lock down the trademark and licensing rights, you too can fight super villains!
Yes and no.
'Superman vs the Liquor Store Bandits' is not much of an adventure. Powered-up villains and sidekicks have been around since day one. It's necessary to make interesting stories.
Bloop
Sr Member
I don't think enough people think of the Ang Lee "Hulk" that fondly to bring Sam Elliot back. After all, it's not part of the MCU - though I suppose that doesn't matter much these days, with all the "multiversing" going on. Still, it seems they wanted to get an actor more in the vein of the late William Hurt. Ford and Hurt aren't all that similar, but I would say they're more similar than Hurt and Elliot.
But, as you said, Ford's star power has to be a big reason for his casting. Mackie isn't as bankable as Chris Evans was, and he's also saddled with a franchise that is trying to "find" itself (for lack of a better term).
Yeah the 2000s Hulk movies are generally forgotten now.
I don't think Harrison was the best replacement choice even for the profit motive. US presidents are not always very old in real life. Three of the last five were in their 40s-50s. They could have picked a younger actor with more box office draw, or somebody who fits the villain bill better. Mel Gibson would own that role.
Last edited:
cboath
Master Member
He's younger than Ford, sure. But not buy that much. He's at least pushing 70.
Mel has the "mad man" image though.
I'm just pointing out that a US president doesn't need to be the oldest actor in the movie all the time. Barack was only 47yo when he took office. Dubya Bush was 54. Hillary's husband Bill was 46. Anthony Mackie is 46 right now.
