Dr. Strange 2 (spoilers)

[HollowSage]

This doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure why you even quoted me at all.

What you're posting doesn't even really have anything to do with what I said originally.

Are you really surprised that it makes no sense? Anything that doesn’t fit the “Disney is ruining Marvel” narrative is ignored or hand waved. The same complaints are just recycled for every Marvel movie which is why you might question if they saw the movie or not.

[Alan2099]

I feel safe in saying that anyone who thinks Dr. Strange 2 wasn't as violent or gritty as Raimi's Spider-man movies has either not watched the Spider-man movies or not watched Dr. Strange 2.

I think Feige should seriously reconsider Disney plus tv shows. They should not be mandatory to enjoy the movies which was not the case with Dr Strange.

I didn't watch the show and I had no problem telling what was going on.

[Wildling]

Yeah, Dr. Strange 2 is cleaning house box office wise but I'm not surprised to see it drop the way it did.

I actually mentioned earlier that the horror aspects and overall violence of the movie might not play well with general audiences. MoM is easily the most violent Marvel movie and certainly one of the most graphic PG-13 superhero movies I've ever seen, a lot of people simply didn't get what they expected.

That's the thing about giving directors free hands over a movie, the output could go either way. That's not to say it's a bad movie at all just that in this case the output probably didn't match audience expectations.

I already had a hunch the opening weekend was inflated by expectations regarding the multiverse after the high of No Way Home, and possible cameos.

Doc has made himself dependable supporting other movies, but really, debuting that much higher than his first solo movie had to come with a catch. Now that audiences have sized it up, it's coming down to Earth.

What's in its favor right now is lack of serious competition until the new Top Gun (which is getting surprisingly great reviews for what looks like a nostalgia cash grab).

[inisideguy]

I feel safe in saying that anyone who thinks Dr. Strange 2 wasn't as violent or gritty as Raimi's Spider-man movies has either not watched the Spider-man movies or not watched Dr. Strange 2.


I didn't watch the show and I had no problem telling what was going on.

Yea I mean I have watched all the Rami Spiderman movies and you are correct. If someone is saying they were more violent somehow than Doctor Strange they are not being serious at all. Its just blatant trolling.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I feel safe in saying that anyone who thinks Dr. Strange 2 wasn't as violent or gritty as Raimi's Spider-man movies has either not watched the Spider-man movies or not watched Dr. Strange 2.


I didn't watch the show and I had no problem telling what was going on.

I watched the show, but they did, verbally, explain why Wanda wanted America so bad.

But frankly, it was too much of an info dump, and kinda seems odd given that they reached out to her in the first place

[Castle]

oh no, I think this is one of those situation where I have to again explain in full depth why Kevin Feige is not Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder or James Cameron in the great producers debate with the violence of comic book movies pg 13 style.

No, again and for the last time. dr strange 2 is not violent in way that starts a debate of pg 13 because of the nature and style of the movie. Dr Strange is basically a very animated looking movie and the violence itself looked so fake and unrealistic that it does not carry any debate outside the Marvel Disney bubble .People keep asking me if I watched the film, yes I did, 8 days ago, now I feel it is fair to ask have we watched other pg 13 comic book films?

I think the best way to make easier is to look at it this way, if a comic book director of the past let's say Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan were to look at dr strange 2? what will they think and what will they change. I am guessing everything including the violence. I think both from their own record and past commentary about superhero movies, they will make the violence far more realistic and the direction would be better and they will build the cinematography from scratch from the over the top colourful looking movie that real life human beings should not be living in.

I am not going to jump on the issue of Disney has ruined marvel because that phrase is just too toxic now but it is indeed fair to say Disney has placed limitation on marvel movies. I for one has always been against Disney owning IPs like Daredevil, X-MEN, Blade and even Spiderman and looking at dr strange 2 , I would not want that to even be an X-MEN movie because this movie looks very cartoonish and ridiculous compared to a film like X-Men 2 because with xmen 2 where the director would ground as much as he can, to make even the fictional stuff look realistic, Dr strange 2 is like watching a video game from the mid 2000s where the violence does not irk because you know it is not real.

You cannot take the violence in dr strange 2 and put next to a film like Fight Club, that would be like Michael Jordan steeping into Space Jam. However you can take the violence from xmen 2, especially the wolverine or magneto scenes and put it in a film like Fight Club and it would not look out of place. You would just think the Brad Pitt and Edward Norton characters from Fight Club now have super powers. that is the difference I am trying to stress here.

I have seem many pg 13 comic films in the past that now, I may say maybe should have been rated r. I just wont do that with what I saw from dr strange 2 because there is no reason for a live action movie that is made to look so animated and spew rainbows would need an r rating.

[gambit2051]

Anyone know where Variant Mordo went after Strange walked away??? Or why Reed Richards believed a Scream could beat REALITY MANIPULATION??? Or why Blackbolt forgot Decades of control over his vocal cords because he had no mouth (when he still had nostrils to breathe with btw...they did not seal those, and a death rattle would have blown his brains out like it did here...not a Panicked Loss of Control...that should have done FAR more damage...)...sigh....sooooooo many Missed Opportunities....

Wanda's sudden change would have made A LOT more sense if a repowered Nightmare had been whispering in her ear and manipulating her by feeding her desire to find HER Billy and Tommy...Nightmare would have been drawn to Wanda like a gd magnet, and his extra influence would have made Wanda's heel turn make A LOT more sense than the bs we are fed...

The Performances are the main thing that save this movie, esp Olsen's.

[Galerion]

Anyone know where Variant Mordo went after Strange walked away??? Or why Reed Richards believed a Scream could beat REALITY MANIPULATION??? Or why Blackbolt forgot Decades of control over his vocal cords because he had no mouth (when he still had nostrils to breathe with btw...they did not seal those, and a death rattle would have blown his brains out like it did here...not a Panicked Loss of Control...that should have done FAR more damage...)...sigh....sooooooo many Missed Opportunities....

Wanda's sudden change would have made A LOT more sense if a repowered Nightmare had been whispering in her ear and manipulating her by feeding her desire to find HER Billy and Tommy...Nightmare would have been drawn to Wanda like a gd magnet, and his extra influence would have made Wanda's heel turn make A LOT more sense than the bs we are fed...

The Performances are the main thing that save this movie, esp Olsen's.

Where would he even get the idea that that would be thing when their Wanda was a housewife raising two kids in peace?

Also the Darkhold and Chthons corrupting influence are actually part of Wandas lore so why should that be replaced with something that doesn't relate to her?
Surely the MCU doesn't need to mimic the comics but this would a change just for the sake of changing things.

[Jack The Tripper]

Anyone know where Variant Mordo went after Strange walked away??? Or why Reed Richards believed a Scream could beat REALITY MANIPULATION??? Or why Blackbolt forgot Decades of control over his vocal cords because he had no mouth (when he still had nostrils to breathe with btw...they did not seal those, and a death rattle would have blown his brains out like it did here...not a Panicked Loss of Control...that should have done FAR more damage...)...sigh....sooooooo many Missed Opportunities....

Wanda's sudden change would have made A LOT more sense if a repowered Nightmare had been whispering in her ear and manipulating her by feeding her desire to find HER Billy and Tommy...Nightmare would have been drawn to Wanda like a gd magnet, and his extra influence would have made Wanda's heel turn make A LOT more sense than the bs we are fed...

The Performances are the main thing that save this movie, esp Olsen's.

I feel like the Darkhold’s corruption of Wanda still fills that hole you’re suggesting Nightmare fill, just without the need for a cliche team up battle at the end

[Jack The Tripper]

oh no, I think this is one of those situation where I have to again explain in full depth why Kevin Feige is not Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder or James Cameron in the great producers debate with the violence of comic book movies pg 13 style.

No, again and for the last time. dr strange 2 is not violent in way that starts a debate of pg 13 because of the nature and style of the movie. Dr Strange is basically a very animated looking movie and the violence itself looked so fake and unrealistic that it does not carry any debate outside the Marvel Disney bubble .People keep asking me if I watched the film, yes I did, 8 days ago, now I feel it is fair to ask have we watched other pg 13 comic book films?

I think the best way to make easier is to look at it this way, if a comic book director of the past let's say Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan were to look at dr strange 2? what will they think and what will they change. I am guessing everything including the violence. I think both from their own record and past commentary about superhero movies, they will make the violence far more realistic and the direction would be better and they will build the cinematography from scratch from the over the top colourful looking movie that real life human beings should not be living in.

I am not going to jump on the issue of Disney has ruined marvel because that phrase is just too toxic now but it is indeed fair to say Disney has placed limitation on marvel movies. I for one has always been against Disney owning IPs like Daredevil, X-MEN, Blade and even Spiderman and looking at dr strange 2 , I would not want that to even be an X-MEN movie because this movie looks very cartoonish and ridiculous compared to a film like X-Men 2 because with xmen 2 where the director would ground as much as he can, to make even the fictional stuff look realistic, Dr strange 2 is like watching a video game from the mid 2000s where the violence does not irk because you know it is not real.

You cannot take the violence in dr strange 2 and put next to a film like Fight Club, that would be like Michael Jordan steeping into Space Jam. However you can take the violence from xmen 2, especially the wolverine or magneto scenes and put it in a film like Fight Club and it would not look out of place. You would just think the Brad Pitt and Edward Norton characters from Fight Club now have super powers. that is the difference I am trying to stress here.

I have seem many pg 13 comic films in the past that now, I may say maybe should have been rated r. I just wont do that with what I saw from dr strange 2 because there is no reason for a live action movie that is made to look so animated and spew rainbows would need an r rating.

Why is it even being compared to Fight Club here? Raimi has done “realistic violence” in his Spider-Man movies yes, however, this film borrows more from his horror movies. We don’t need to see injury like we do in Foght Club, we don’t even need to see it like on the Saw films.

This is a fantasy movie that is still made for nearly all ages. Acting like it would have been better if we had scenes like in Saving Private Ryan while still keeping the goofiness and camp that Raimi is known for goes against everything I’ve seen people critique about directors and marvel films

[Jack The Tripper]

I have no idea why anyone would want to change anything. This movie is at 291 million domestic after a week. The first movie made 235 million domestic in its entire run. Its going to pass Thor Ragnarok in another few days on the domestic list. This is a doctor strange movie. Anyone who doesnt see how remarkable it is for a Doctor Strange movie to be pulling in this type of money is goofy. Its like people talked about on the Box office thread. The expectations for Marvel movies now are so unrealistic its not even funny.

For a Doctor strange movie to pull in at least 800 million without China or really even Russia is remarkable. But people can write their own negative views on anything. What movie in the last few years has done better than this? One movie. Spider-man no way home. Thats it.


I think people think that we should be back in the good old days of 2018 which was a crazy box office year. But thats not happening for any movie right now. Except No way home.

The reason people are worried about it not doing insane box office is because the film was clearly marketed in a way to drum up hype similar to No Way Home, despite there not being the same levels of fan service, and therefore hurting its impact. Bob Chapek (Disney CEO) seems like the type of guy to pull the brakes on anything like this going forward if it doesn’t meet his expectations financially.

Of course it is a financial success (it’s passed the first film’s full global gross in a week and a half) - but I personally can’t help feel like the heads at Disney seeing it as a disappointment because it didn’t bring in NWH money. That marketing campaign was a stupid choice in hindsight

[The Cool Thatguy]

oh no, I think this is one of those situation where I have to again explain in full depth why Kevin Feige is not Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder or James Cameron in the great producers debate with the violence of comic book movies pg 13 style.

No, again and for the last time. dr strange 2 is not violent in way that starts a debate of pg 13 because of the nature and style of the movie. Dr Strange is basically a very animated looking movie and the violence itself looked so fake and unrealistic that it does not carry any debate outside the Marvel Disney bubble .People keep asking me if I watched the film, yes I did, 8 days ago, now I feel it is fair to ask have we watched other pg 13 comic book films?

I think the best way to make easier is to look at it this way, if a comic book director of the past let's say Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan were to look at dr strange 2? what will they think and what will they change. I am guessing everything including the violence. I think both from their own record and past commentary about superhero movies, they will make the violence far more realistic and the direction would be better and they will build the cinematography from scratch from the over the top colourful looking movie that real life human beings should not be living in.

I am not going to jump on the issue of Disney has ruined marvel because that phrase is just too toxic now but it is indeed fair to say Disney has placed limitation on marvel movies. I for one has always been against Disney owning IPs like Daredevil, X-MEN, Blade and even Spiderman and looking at dr strange 2 , I would not want that to even be an X-MEN movie because this movie looks very cartoonish and ridiculous compared to a film like X-Men 2 because with xmen 2 where the director would ground as much as he can, to make even the fictional stuff look realistic, Dr strange 2 is like watching a video game from the mid 2000s where the violence does not irk because you know it is not real.

You cannot take the violence in dr strange 2 and put next to a film like Fight Club, that would be like Michael Jordan steeping into Space Jam. However you can take the violence from xmen 2, especially the wolverine or magneto scenes and put it in a film like Fight Club and it would not look out of place. You would just think the Brad Pitt and Edward Norton characters from Fight Club now have super powers. that is the difference I am trying to stress here.

I have seem many pg 13 comic films in the past that now, I may say maybe should have been rated r. I just wont do that with what I saw from dr strange 2 because there is no reason for a live action movie that is made to look so animated and spew rainbows would need an r rating.

Oh no, Castle doesn't like an MCU movie! Who could have foreseen such a thing?

[HollowSage]

The reason people are worried about it not doing insane box office is because the film was clearly marketed in a way to drum up hype similar to No Way Home, despite there not being the same levels of fan service, and therefore hurting its impact. Bob Chapek (Disney CEO) seems like the type of guy to pull the brakes on anything like this going forward if it doesn’t meet his expectations financially.

Of course it is a financial success (it’s passed the first film’s full global gross in a week and a half) - but I personally can’t help feel like the heads at Disney seeing it as a disappointment because it didn’t bring in NWH money. That marketing campaign was a stupid choice in hindsight

Was it though? Marketing campaigns only serve one function. Convince people to see the movie. Well, mission accomplished. More people have seen Dr. Strange 2 than saw the first one in the same time frame.

Dr. Strange is not Spider-Man. He’s never been as popular as Spider-Man. I don’t think anyone at Disney/Marvel are really shocked that a Dr. Strange movie won’t outperform a movie with 3 Spider-Men. It was never going to be as big as NWH. That doesn’t mean it’s not a huge success.

[Jack The Tripper]

Was it though? Marketing campaigns only serve one function. Convince people to see the movie. Well, mission accomplished. More people have seen Dr. Strange 2 than saw the first one in the same time frame.

Dr. Strange is not Spider-Man. He’s never been as popular as Spider-Man. I don’t think anyone at Disney/Marvel are really shocked that a Dr. Strange movie won’t outperform a movie with 3 Spider-Men. It was never going to be as big as NWH. That doesn’t mean it’s not a huge success.

Though I personally agree, the marketing for the movie (and hype built by fans admittedly) painted a picture that the movie had more Easter egg surprises than there were - they spoiled the most “fan service” cameo in a trailer months before with Xavier, which I think led a lot of people to believe the movie would have more, bigger surprises (I.e. FOX versions of other characters, other older versions of characters). I think that due to that error in marketing a lot of people feel cheated by the film, and so don’t feel the want or need to rewatch it in cinemas. With it being marketed in a similar way to NWH I think it’s fair to say Disney wanted to make a similar box office. Of course they should have looked at the film and restrained how much they wanted to tease, but it looks like it’ll be a front heavy opening, with a pretty big diminish for the next few weeks.

I loved the film, so I hope they do see it as a success. Raimi has expressed interest in coming back, and I’d love to see him get a chance to tell a story from the ground up with the character for the next film. In my opinion this film was better than the first in pretty much every way, and I hope they see the box office as proof of this, but I’m worried that Disney execs hyped this film up to themselves as being another nearly 2 billion dollar movie. I hope it’s not the case, but the marketing definitely implies that that’s what they expected

[Noodle]

oh no, I think this is one of those situation where I have to again explain in full depth why Kevin Feige is not Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder or James Cameron in the great producers debate with the violence of comic book movies pg 13 style.

Being condescending doesn't suddenly make your opinions fact regardless of how many times you feel you have to "explain" it.