General Disney Hate Thread

[SuperBacon]

Already seen some Mouse-nonces "Well actually when compared to DC movies..." about this, and my god where do they get the energy? Just accept these are shit* films

Still, good news about Inside Out 2 eh? 

 

*will probably never watch it, and am happy to die on this hill. Do you know how shit a Brie Larson film must be for me not to watch it as I would genuinely REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED.

[DavidB6937]

It's a shame as it's actually a pretty decent film. The three women work really well together and it's a fun watch.

A lot of the online comments are embarrassing to be honest. DC fans trying to use this as a reason for making the Flash look better. Good luck with that.

And there's plenty of those absolutely terrible takes about Marvel going woke with female led movies and blah blah blah.

Between that and the strikes and general content exhaustion and a lot of regular hate towards Larson I never really expected it to do very well. I'd be surprised if Disney were expecting huge numbers considering all the various factors.

But really I'm just glad it was a fun watch. There are definitely concerning projects where you can worry about the quality dipping but this didn't feel like one of them.

[LaGoosh]

I'm assuming it's a money laundering thing, like that Ingenious Films thing we had over here a few years back.

[johnnyboy]

17 minutes ago, Lorne Malvo said:

Somebody who is on the fence about seeing the new Marvel film who has a Disney+ accountis much more likely to wait a couple of months and watch it in the comfort of their own home.

I'm a moderate fan and I think it's only Spider-man I've bothered seeing in the cinema since Endgame and the pandemic as I'm already paying for Disney+.

Contradictorily, I am booked to see The Marvels this week purely as I fancy a night out and girl power and all that.

[Hannibal Scorch]

1 hour ago, SuperBacon said:

Already seen some Mouse-nonces "Well actually when compared to DC movies..." about this, and my god where do they get the energy? Just accept these are shit* films

Still, good news about Inside Out 2 eh? 

 

*will probably never watch it, and am happy to die on this hill. Do you know how shit a Brie Larson film must be for me not to watch it as I would genuinely REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED.

It’s not though. If you like Marvel films, this one is much lighter and more fun. If you don’t, it won’t convert you. I think Brie’s Captain Marvel has been enjoyable and I don’t get why she’s singled out every time she’s in one of these.

@Lorne Malvo I think you’re right. Disney have created their own problem by putting content so quickly on to D+, especially during the pandemic, that most of the people won’t go to the cinema for the films as I can watch it at home in a couple of months. They are killing their own box office to keep people paying for their streaming.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Hannibal Scorch

[d-d-d-dAz]

They've made the Marvel universe impenetrable to normal people with lives and no Disney+ subscription.

It's an absolutely catastrophic strategy, based on the idea that there's enough juice in the nerd lemon that you needn't worry about squeezing other fruits.

Marvel films were successful, I think, because they were basically big, bombastic action films that'd appeal to adults, wrapped in a shiny, colourful aesthetic that appeals to kids and with an A-list lead to sweep up everyone else.

B-List actors in bloated, convoluted cod-sci fi epics is a far less winning formula.

Edited November 13, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[DavidB6937]

11 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

They've made the Marvel universe impenetrable to normal people with lives and no Disney+ subscription.

It's an absolutely catastrophic strategy, based on the idea that there's another juice in the nerd lemon that you needn't worry about squeezing other fruits.

Marvel films were successful, I think, because they were basically big, bombastic action films that'd appeal to adults, wrapped in a shiny, colourful aesthetic that appeals to kids and with an A-list lead to sweep up everyone else.

B-List actors in bloated, convoluted cod-sci fi epics is a far less winning formula.

The thing is - it's not all like that. Granted, some of it is and that's a challenge. But the fact that it's perceived to be like that by people is a problem in itself. If there's that thought of 'oh I haven't seen Ms Marvel so I won't bother with this' then it's definitely an issue, even if the film is pretty open to anyone sitting down in front of it and watching it.

Directors/writers having to think about catering to the masses AND to those who watch absolutely everything is incredibly difficult and something they have to juggle. Obviously this wasn't a problem when they didn't have series or they just weren't connected at all. But what's more difficult is convincing people to come and watch it in the first place.

[d-d-d-dAz]

13 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

The thing is - it's not all like that. Granted, some of it is and that's a challenge. But the fact that it's perceived to be like that by people is a problem in itself. If there's that thought of 'oh I haven't seen Ms Marvel so I won't bother with this' then it's definitely an issue, even if the film is pretty open to anyone sitting down in front of it and watching it.

Directors/writers having to think about catering to the masses AND to those who watch absolutely everything is incredibly difficult and something they have to juggle. Obviously this wasn't a problem when they didn't have series or they just weren't connected at all. But what's more difficult is convincing people to come and watch it in the first place.

To be fair, I am just assuming - as every time someone says to me 'you need to see Loki before you watch Ant Man and the Wasp' or whatever, my immediate response is 'okay, i'll watch neither'.

[SuperBacon]

A lot of this can also come down to the fact that they are fairly minor characters to the wider public. 

Most people know the X-Men, most people know The Avengers. 

The Marvels? Not so much.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that plays the biggest part IMO.

[DavidB6937]

3 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

A lot of this can also come down to the fact that they are fairly minor characters to the wider public. 

Most people know the X-Men, most people know The Avengers. 

The Marvels? Not so much.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that plays the biggest part IMO.

It didn't though. They got themselves to a point where 'Marvel' was enough to sell something because people knew they were getting a good film regardless. No one knew who the fuck Guardians were. It's the exhaustion and the lower quality control and the interlinking with the series and a multitude of things really that have worn away at that faith that people have in Marvel. Now it's easier for people to make that decision to miss some of them for one or all of those reasons. And that's a dangerous place to be because when you actually do produce something decent and no one's bothering to see it then what?

In many ways their greed and oversaturation has come back to bite them in the ass, and I say that as someone who watches and enjoys most of it. But I can see why the reputational damage is something that will be very very difficult for them to rescue. Much like DC really.

[d-d-d-dAz]

9 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

A lot of this can also come down to the fact that they are fairly minor characters to the wider public. 

Most people know the X-Men, most people know The Avengers. 

The Marvels? Not so much.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that plays the biggest part IMO.

I think it probably plays a part, but equally the original premise of Guardians of the Galaxy was them elevating more obscure Marvel characters and those films did huge numbers.

I watched that one, Eternals was it?, and it was just B-List Actors in an emotionless sprawling sci-fi 'epic', which I think is just a less popular format than recognisable actor plays recognisable character in recognisable action film structure.

[Chest Rockwell]

57 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

They've made the Marvel universe impenetrable to normal people with lives and no Disney+ subscription.

It's an absolutely catastrophic strategy, based on the idea that there's enough juice in the nerd lemon that you needn't worry about squeezing other fruits.

Marvel films were successful, I think, because they were basically big, bombastic action films that'd appeal to adults, wrapped in a shiny, colourful aesthetic that appeals to kids and with an A-list lead to sweep up everyone else.

B-List actors in bloated, convoluted cod-sci fi epics is a far less winning formula.

It's hilariously predicatable in that this is exactly what happened with Marvel comics in the 90s and they seemingly learned absolutely nothing. 

[LaGoosh]

I think fundamentally the issue is you spend years and dozens of films building up to Endgame, Endgame is a massive success and ends the stories of the main characters in an incredibly satisfactory way. In a perfect world the whole thing ends there. But by keeping going there's this whole "so what?" vibe to the whole thing. It all feels pointless and supplementary. Iron Man to Endgame was THE STORY. Instead of stopping at that perfect point they've done something even worse: they've increased the output. No one knows where any of this is going, it's difficult to keep up with, the (already pretty ropey) quality is going down, it all feels meaningless and people are seemingly burnt out on it. Especially as the majority of the big characters are gone. Its a cinematic universe of midcarders. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by LaGoosh

[WyattSheepMask]

1 hour ago, LaGoosh said:

I think fundamentally the issue is you spend years and dozens of films building up to Endgame, Endgame is a massive success and ends the stories of the main characters in an incredibly satisfactory way. In a perfect world the whole thing ends there. But by keeping going there's this whole "so what?" vibe to the whole thing. It all feels pointless and supplementary. Iron Man to Endgame was THE STORY. Instead of stopping at that perfect point they've done something even worse: they've increased the output. No one knows where any of this is going, it's difficult to keep up with, the (already pretty ropey) quality is going down, it all feels meaningless and people are seemingly burnt out on it. Especially as the majority of the big characters are gone. Its a cinematic universe of midcarders. 

This is very much it for me. Endgame felt like an ending. Not just an ending to that phase (or whatever they’re calling them these days), but an end to the whole shabang. But then they kept going and rather than being the culmination of something, Endgame just became another piece of the puzzle.

To put it into a wrestling context, it’s like the Gargano/Ciampa feud in NXT. That they had at Takeover: New Orleans saw the babyface get the win, making the heel surrender. It was highly praised at the time on here and pretty much everywhere else. But rather than just accept that they’d done a great job with it, they had to do it again, and again, and even more to the point that it became a joke.

I watched Wanadavision at the time, but I honestly have no desire to ever watch anything Marvel related ever again because they just kept going long after what felt a natural endpoint 

Edited November 13, 2023 by WyattSheepMask

[SuperBacon]

1 hour ago, DavidB6937 said:

It didn't though. They got themselves to a point where 'Marvel' was enough to sell something because people knew they were getting a good film regardless. No one knew who the fuck Guardians were.

 

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I think it probably plays a part, but equally the original premise of Guardians of the Galaxy was them elevating more obscure Marvel characters and those films did huge numbers.

 

 

2 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

Of course there are exceptions to every rule

Anyway, fuck Guardians Of The Galaxy, when they could've had Glenn Howerton in the lead role and didn't.

FUCK. THEM.