The Marvels (2023)
- Thread starter renaissance_man
- Start date
Wait. What??
Have you seen The Marvels?
No. First I have heard about a potential Spaceballs homage though.
Not really a homage. If you see it you will get what I mean.
bwayne64
Master Member
I'll see it for free when it streams. Well maybe a $2 bag of popcorn. I'll probably sleep through half of it, like I have with several of these type of movies. If they make me angry a few minutes in, that might keep me awake a little longer. I doubt it will be worth the cost of the popcorn, but I need the
fiber, ; )
fiber, ; )
joberg
Legendary Member
Without forgetting the pay raise the crew, cast and everybody in between received in the past few weeks/days. That'll impact your overall budget for the next big features.
Start dipping in your wallet, 'cause the price of a movie ticket is bound to go up
Cephus
Master Member
Dead minimum. Keep in mind, we don't know the full cost of The Marvels yet. It's $300 million without the cost of reshoots, without marketing, etc. Disney only gets 55% of the domestic take and maybe 40% of the international box office. I would not be at all surprised to find out that The Marvels cost $400-450 million all told, if the Hollywood accountants ever let that come out.
All films have a second-week drop and in the last couple of years, it's been massive for Marvel movies. With as weak an opening as it had, the second-week drop is going to put it in the toilet, worse than it already is. None of these movies have legs anymore. It's just pathetic.
That's because once people get a dose of how bad they are, the rewatchability just isn't there and they spread word around that they simply suck.
(Unless one subscribes to Solo4114's theory that a secret cabal of "Marvel Haters" are taking out advertising at lemonade stands to make people stop watching Marvel Movies. )
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
Yeah, but that's stupid. There isn't a secret cabal of anyone, just the general public who don't want to go see bad movies, and the few people who have no taste in quality, who don't want that simple fact pointed out.
Riceball
Master Member
Not necessarily. Movie going habits have changed over the years and with more and more people getting larger screen 4K, hi-def TVs and everything hitting streaming (exp. Disney films) people are no longer so eager to go to the theater these days. Why spend at least a good $20/person to go to the theater when you can just wait a few months and watch it in the comfort of your home on a service you're already paying for? And like the hype behind Titanic that helped make it the huge success that it was, negative hype (esp. now with social media of all kinds) also serves to drive potential theater goers from watching movies that have been put on the negative hype train.
It's also been pointed out before that box office earnings are not a matrix for determining what is and isn't a good movie. For instance, both Titanic and Gladiator made huge money at the box office and both won Oscars, but a lot of people out there think that both movies are crap despite all of that. And as Solo414(?) pointed out, The Marvels is really only a flop because its budget was so ridiculously high, it's made $114 million worldwide, not too bad of a box office haul if its budget wasn't something like $200 to $300 million. Besides, there have been any number of movies in the past that have done poorly at the box office that still manage to find a fan base and is beloved by those fans. So, just because the Marvels wasn't a runaway hit that made a profit in spite of its ridiculous budget doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad movie. And to call people who have gone to see this movie and enjoyed people with bad taste is just plain rude and insulting. Who made you the arbiter of who has good or bad taste in movies?
Hunger Games opens this weekend. Next week Napoleon and Wish both open. It had its one weekend without much competition. party's over.
cboath
Master Member
Dont think that can be under estimated. Titanic took over a year to get to home viewing. Endgame was 6ish. We are down to 3ish months now. If you dont think that will impact the box office you are naive or worse. The system has fundamentally changed w studios using everything to prop up their streaming services.
Everyone isgoing to have to figure out new calculations for tbese things i think. That or push back home relesse back to the 6 to 9 month range and that isnt likely to happen.
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
No it casts judgement on the piece itself. Those who would have you believe that everything is about individual taste often use that to attempt to dissuade criticism of things they enjoy because they take criticism of an artwork as an attack on them. There are indeed things that are objectively bad and objectively good... films, books, shows pieces of art that are almost universally lauded as exceptional and there are also those that are panned. If there were no agreed upon way, no standards, no metrics to tell the difference there wouldn't be general consensus on what those exceptional and awful pieces are.
"You can't criticize this film, you can only say I didn't like it once, in a manner that I approve of, otherwise you're hurting my feelings," limits who can say what and under what circumstances that you(or whoever) decides. Much like gatekeeping.
Last edited:
Riceball
Master Member
If art could be considered objectively good or bad then there wouldn't be a general consensus, you're contradicting yourself. If art was objective, then there wouldn't be a general consensus, it would just be considered good or bad by all based on objective criteria. But there are no objective criteria to most artistic endeavors, if there were then there would be far fewer bad shows, movies, comics, book, etc. because if there were, then everybody would be following those criteria to ensure the success of their work. I'd argue that even attempting to slavishly follow any supposed objective criteria actually makes for bad art, art that's soulless and feels it's just checking off boxes and not being creative.
Cephus
Master Member
It's not about being good or bad, it's about being successful. There are metrics for determining successful. That's why we keep bringing up box office. Whether you personally like it or not is irrelevant to anyone but you.
If there's no standard or guidelines then no concensus can be made for or against a work of art. If you can't define the parameters at all then any stance taken is utterly meaningless. All of my English papers and art class projects should have passed with flying colors and I should have been awarded a full-ride scholarship to a college of my choosing based on said works. My teachers were then biased against me because that didn't happen and they arbitrarily hindered my education based on their subjective thoughts on my work. How dare they!
Last edited:
Yes, there are; they are called artistic conventions:
Source: convention | Art History Glossary
If you didn't have those (and thus criteria for judging the pieces), then nothing could be critiqued or reviewed. Seriously, the masters of old have works that wee treasured because they followed those criteria. Work that didn't did not do so well and were relegated to antiquity. I'm sorry, but it seems like you're trying to erase any sort of guidelines for evaluation. That doesn't result in "freedom of expression" but the death of art, and life itself.
In other words: how can you tell the sky from the ground if they are both colored the same and there's no horizon? That's what you're trying to do here.
