The Box Office

[Fridays]

What does any of this even mean? The MCU fans didn't argue to give everything to Marvel Studios or anything like that. That was solely the studios decision. What MCU fans did say is that they feel Marvel Studios could do a better job than Fox and Sony, which given their respective track records makes sense (and has actually been proven correct in Spider-Man's case since the MCU films have done better commercially and critically than the Sony films.)
.

A significant amount of them argued it with help from the many pay rolled media sources because they were still into the connected universe thing . The ....give everything to marvel movement was more popular and talked about in the media than the Snyder Cut release. I was there.

Sony Spiderman films Spiderman 1, 2, and Into Spider verse are more critically acclaimed and made more money for Sony than the MCU films. Sam Raimi movies are also well beloved and well respected in the comic genre.

As far as the quality taking a nosedive, well that's purely subjective

it is not subjective though thanks for proving my point about tribalism vs constructive criticism.

tribalism is not admitting when something is bad. Like this awful CGI?




With Avatar 2 and Marverick, How can MCU still have this kind of CGI?

Constructive criticism is admitting this cgi is bad and asking how can marvel improve in the next films. tribalism is saying that me saying this cgi is bad is totally all subjective as if I have not seen movies with better CGI (Avatar 2/Top Gun 2) . I won't' even want this kind of CGI as a TV director for the CW Network talk of a big budjet franchise with his 29th movie entry.

[Rincewind]

it is not subjective though thanks for proving my point about tribalism vs constructive criticism.

JFC, not this argument again.

Please, for the love of god, look up the definitions of OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE.

Opinions are subjective. Talking about the "quality" of anything is an opinion. That makes it subjective.

[80sbaby]

A significant amount of them argued it with help from the many pay rolled media sources because they were still into the connected universe thing . The ....give everything to marvel movement was more popular and talked about in the media than the Snyder Cut release. I was there.

Sony Spiderman films Spiderman 1, 2, and Into Spider verse are more critically acclaimed and made more money for Sony than the MCU films. Sam Raimi movies are also well beloved and well respected in the comic genre.





it is not subjective though thanks for proving my point about tribalism vs constructive criticism.

tribalism is not admitting when something is bad. Like this awful CGI?




With Avatar 2 and Marverick, How can MCU still have this kind of CGI?

Constructive criticism is admitting this cgi is bad and asking how can marvel improve in the next films. tribalism is saying that me saying this cgi is bad is totally all subjective as if I have not seen movies with better CGI (Avatar 2/Top Gun 2) . I won't' even want this kind of CGI as a TV director for the CW Network talk of a big budjet franchise with his 29th movie entry.

I was also there and what I'm saying is closer to the truth than what you're claiming. You're throwing out fake stats like "significant amount" when most fans of the mCU could care less, i.e. the general public. Those fans that post on forums like this are a minority of the overall fanbase.

And as for your last statement lol how can you STILL not understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective?" It's truly amazing.

[Colossus1980]

How many times did we hear in the 2010-2019 era that sony and fox should give the rights back to Disney? That was not staying on your own lane. Many MCU fans were actually rejoicing when Disney bought fox though many of them had little knowledge on the x-men universe.

It was great when that happened. For some reason I don't think you really read any comics except for X-Men. You do know superheroes mingle with others in comic books right? I'm sure even if you only read X-books there have been guest appearances by other supes that aren't mutants. Better to have all Marvel properties under one company instead of parceled out to various. At least we have the possibility to have characters interact just like the comic books. Plus no more of those cheap looking Fox films that ignored the true core X-Men. Why you go on and on about low level quality of those films is beyond me.

[Fridays]

JFC, not this argument again.

Please, for the love of god, look up the definitions of OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE.

Opinions are subjective. Talking about the "quality" of anything is an opinion. That makes it subjective.

Are you saying it is subjective that Ant-Man 3 CGI is on the same level as Top Gun Maverick or Avatar 2? I will proudly say that those two movies have SUPERIOR VFX to Ant Man 3 OBJECTIVLY. It ain't even close.


These two movies are box office gold because part of their showcase is must see VFX Blockbuster films? Not many films can achieve their kind of box office in today's time unless they are part of the Comic book bonanza that did not even end up beating these two films as the top grossing film of 2022.

[mace11]

The biggest MCU movies since Endgame have been nostalgia and multiverse fueled, No Way Home and Multiverse of Madness, every other movie that relies less on "Hey remember this character from 10+ years ago?" has either underperformed or gotten poor reviews. MoM got poor reviews despite it. Marvel can't get away with putting out poorly reviewed movies anymore because superhero fatigue is a real thing. People need more than cameos to care.

What poor reviews?
The only films that were not like by most critics in phase 4 f were eternals and ant-man 3.
Everything else got postive rt scores.
The lowest of that bunch would be thor 4(in 60's and doctor strange in 70's)still postive.

The average rating from critics however is higher,so while most critics did not like those two films,they still got good average ratings.
The same for black adam and wonder woman 84 dceu films.
A 5.5 to 6.4/10 is 3 stars out 5,good but not very good.
6.5 to 7.4/10 is 3 and half stars out 5,very good.


The rt audience scores are even higher and postive.
For eternals and ant-man there were no remember this character from 10 years ago.
Doctor strange has postive reviews,not poor and spiderman is even higher RT postive scores.

ETERNALS 47%
Average Rating 5.60 /10

AUDIENCE SCORE 78%
Average Rating: 4.0/5



DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS 74%
Average Rating: 6.50/10

AUDIENCE SCORE 85%
Average Rating: 4.3/5

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA 48%
5.60 out of 10 average rating

AUDIENCE 84%
4.2 out of 5 average rating

[Fridays]

It was great when that happened. For some reason I don't think you really read any comics except for X-Men. You do know superheroes mingle with others in comic books right? I'm sure even if you only read X-books there have been guest appearances by other supes that aren't mutants. Better to have all Marvel properties under one company instead of parceled out to various. At least we have the possibility to have characters interact just like the comic books. .

I read X-Men comics. They have little similarities to MCU movies though. If you read X-Men comics for about 3-5 years you will notice how different they are in tone on average than the standard MCU films. X-Men also tend to have less interactions with the other marvel heroes.

Plus no more of those cheap looking Fox films that ignored the true core X-Men. Why you go on and on about low level quality of those films is beyond me

Proof of the low level compared to MCU? I have yet to see any evidence on film? Objectively speaking low level quality products are mostly caused by high turn mass manufactured products and products with little artistic risk. this is one of the reason MCU quality has dropped so bad. they released about 17 project for phase 4 and that hurt their over quality that has already be going down once disney took over and started messing with the way MCU films were meant to look.

I fondly remember some VFX moments in X-Men united that took fox 3 years to just work one 1 product that the director took time to create. It still has VFX quality superior to all the MCU films. This movie is exactly 20 years and it has a superior quality to the current Ant-Man 3 in every area of film and I say this in a constructive criticism of the entire comic book films of now and the past. The comic book genre is dying because we have less X-Men 2 (director/screen writer- film) kind of films and more Ant-Man 3 ( common disney product) in the genre.

[Rincewind]

Are you saying it is subjective that Ant-Man 3 CGI is on the same level as Top Gun Maverick or Avatar 2? I will proudly say that those two movies have SUPERIOR VFX to Ant Man 3 OBJECTIVLY. It ain't even close.


These two movies are box office gold because part of their showcase is must see VFX Blockbuster films? Not many films can achieve their kind of box office in today's time unless they are part of the Comic book bonanza that did not even end up beating these two films as the top grossing film of 2022.

I am saying that any opinion, no matter how widely held, is subjective. It's really not that hard to understand.

[Fridays]

I was also there and what I'm saying is closer to the truth than what you're claiming. You're throwing out fake stats like "significant amount" when most fans of the mCU could care less, i.e. the general public. Those fans that post on forums like this are a minority of the overall fanbase.

And as for your last statement lol how can you STILL not understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective?" It's truly amazing.

What fake stats?

I am not even a person that cared deeply about Spiderman Homecoming, I have yet to name one person one this forum or anywhere that finds it a better quality film that Into the Spiderverse.

Sam Raimi films are so beloved that some comic fans gladly thought that Multiverse of Madness would be a comic film masterpiece until they realised Sam Raimi is working for MCU and not for himself with the blessing of Sony.

Top Gun is objectively superior to Ant Man 3 VFX because the producers went for a more realistic less green screen approach.



It all been subjective is a LOL Moment in a film dissertation.

[Fridays]

I am saying that any opinion, no matter how widely held, is subjective. It's really not that hard to understand.

No it is not. if it was there will be no such thing as film school or how film making has developed and changed in 80 years or so. Not even James Cameron will ever say Titanic and Avatar 2 have the same visual quality because they objectively don't.

You know ...I won't find any DC fans that will say Black Adam VFX is as good as Top Gun 2 because it isnt. there were lots of generic cgi in black adam. Some mcu fans are arguing that ant man 3 vfx can be considered as good as top gun 2 is tribalism at it best and at the same time worse.

[inisideguy]

Hey dumb question for box office buffs. Does South Korea just have a way higher theater count per capita than other places or are these super small theaters. It shows on the numbers that there are over 2,000 theaters that Ant-man is released in. That is a crap load of theaters for a population of 51 million people.

Correction I should say screens. But still. That is a lot.

[Rincewind]

No it is not. if it was there will be no such thing as film school or how film making has developed and changed in 80 years or so. Not even James Cameron will ever say Titanic and Avatar 2 have the same visual quality because they objectively don't.

You know ...I won't find any DC fans that will say Black Adam VFX is as good as Top Gun 2 because it isnt. there were lost of generic cgi in black adam. the fact that you have some mcu fans are arguing that ant man 3 vfx can be considered as good as top gun 2 is tribalism at it best and at the same time worse.

I am very, very sure James Cameron knows what subjective and objective mean. The only person who is confused is you.

[Maestro 216]

No it is not. if it was there will be no such thing as film school or how film making has developed and changed in 80 years or so. Not even James Cameron will ever say Titanic and Avatar 2 have the same visual quality because they objectively don't.

You know ...I won't find any DC fans that will say Black Adam VFX is as good as Top Gun 2 because it isnt. there were lots of generic cgi in black adam. Some mcu fans are arguing that ant man 3 vfx can be considered as good as top gun 2 is tribalism at it best and at the same time worse.

MCU needed some humble pie at least DC fans can admit DCEU was mostly a failure with small successes.

[Fridays]

MCU needed some humble pie at least DC fans can admit DCEU was mostly a failure with small successes.

honestly and this is not an anti DC rant and I dont' think any DC fan will think so either. It is a Constructive criticism of Black Adam

When it comes to quality I tend to hold WB much much much higher than Marvel Studios because their library has given us some of the best visual movies of the last 20 years. Dune, Interstellar, The Later half of Harry Potter films to name a few and Nolan and Snyder had some really top notch VFX in their comic films so I was surprised when we got this



I don't know what they were going for here but this was just not the best and no where near the level of Top Gun 2 if we are talking about the action-adventure films of 2022 . I don't feel any DC fan will say it is subjective I am saying so.

Black Adam failed was due to the bad cgi, meh story and the branding not been as strong as MCU that can still protect average-generic films.

As I said before I feel the reason DC fans can easily admit success and failure is because they have other options to make up for their failure. Black Adam's failure has no bearing on The Batman that was a box office success. DC fans are more similar to the older generation of Marvel fans that came from the Blade-X-Men-Spiderman film era of the late 90s to the mid 2000s. MCU fans became their own sub- fan base after Avengers 2012 , people should stop using the term marvel fans and mcu fans synonymously all the time.

[Fridays]

I am very, very sure James Cameron knows what subjective and objective mean. The only person who is confused is you.

I am not confused in saying the reason why Top Gun Maverick was a box office smash was because it was a highly visually attractive movie with a good story arc, something Ant-Man3 lacks severely.

If Ant Man 3 has any legs in the following weeks raking in the money. it is because of the MCU logo not because of the good cgi or story.

Watch from 1.43 minutes. Cameron explains the difference between Avatar and Titanic VFX and he is speaking objectively as a film maker.