I like Berlington Coat Factory (however you spell his name), but am always concerned with mysticism and such in movies. It tends to lead to really lazy writing, specifically the conflict resolution. For example, Interstellar, where the end is just weird **** going on with the main character holding the audience's hand and explaining whats taking place cause it barely makes any sense. The Thor 2 or Eric Bana Hulk movie ending might be better examples.
Intersteller made perfect sense! Funny how people got lost at the end there, cant blame them though. But in reailty, the movie was enlightening to say the least. It takes an open mind to appreciate it i guess though.
I have sympathy for both of the last two posts. This Strange movie could (and probably will) get a little woo woo for some audiences. Like: "Well, how is he actually in trouble if he could just all like go to the astral plane and come back later after the villain is sleeping off a few martinis?" ETC
I realize this is somewhat besides your point, but to be clear his body is vulnerable when he's in the astral plane. That's why he only does it from a safe place.
Most common fans would not know whether Fantastic 4 or Ant-Man are in the MCU, but see the Marvel Name before both trailers and the movie. FF got a whopping $167M. Ant-Man got $518. Also, Marvel's name got less people in theaters for Ant-Man than any other MCU movie except Incredible Hulk. After the first week once people talked about the movie, Ant-Man didn't crater at the Box Office...it picked up steam in the domestic box offiice relative to other marvel moves with similar openings. I doubt Marvel expected Ant-Man to do as well as it did. Now if you want to say Marvel's Name with RDJ starring....$700M is a chip shot without needing to be good. Granted, putting out bad movies is how one hurts the brand. Ant-Man did not hurt the brand.
Fantastic Four ISN'T in the MCU, and nor was it presented as such. Also they plaster the Marvel logo all over their products, people definitely knew Ant-Man was part of it. Especially after they showed Falcon in the commercials. Besides that I guess I'm looking for your point.
Marvel has built up so much goodwill at this point, even when their movies aren't that great I always end up enjoying it at the theater. They could release anything, and I think that's close to what they are doing. They just reach into a bag, pull out a character, and make an entertaining flick and a franchise.
No it didn't and either way its ****ty writing when a character is having to hold the audience's hand and walk them through whats going on. That's a clear cut sign the writer should rethink the story.
Basically the overall tone. This seems to be a serious movie instead of going with a more whacky look at magic. And at the end when he said,"teach me" it just hooked me.
Go look at the ratings for You, Me, and Dupree. That's what the Russo brothers directed before Winter Soldier. Go look at Super, Scooby-Doo, and whatever else James Gunn (Slither not withstanding, it has great reviews) directed before Guardians of the Galaxy. I think there's plenty of evidence that you can make one of these comic movies really well despite not necessarily having other "great" films under your belt.
Yeah, where are all the "BWAAAAAAAAHHs"? This is my favorite Marvel character. Still have copies of Strange Tales in storage. From what I see in the teaser, they remained true to Stephen Strange's origin: A vain, arrogant and gifted surgeon who loses his surgical abilities after a car accident damages his hands. Without those superior medical skills, he becomes lost and embittered and wanders the earth where he winds up in the temple of the Ancient One who teaches him the "Mystic Arts". Cumberbach nails the character (he ALWAYS nails the character). My only quibble is with the casting of Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. I remain mystified as to why Hollywood continues to cast Anglo actors in Asian parts. The Ancient One should have been played by an Asian actor like Chow Yun-fat, Tony Leung Chiu-wa or Choi Min-sik. There's quite the discussion on the Net about the similarities between this movie and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins with Christian Bale - the insinuation being that Dr. Strange is ripping off that movie where Bruce Wayne wanders the world in search of training to fight crime where he encounters Ra's al Ghul and the League Of Shadows who trains him. In reality, it was Nolan who borrowed from Steve Ditko's origin story and not the other way around. Curious to see how this movie is received as it's so different from Marvel's typical superhero/superpowers story. This is more about magic, mysticism and parallel planes of existence. It may be too esoteric for Marvel's usual audience.
Did you say "Marvel" or "MCU" brings in 400-500M? Marvel is the brand people know...and F4 used that brand as prominently in its trailer as Ant-Man. Sony is not stupid and did not go out of its way to let people know this wasn't an MCU film. Falcon doesn't have nearly the brand recognition as showing "Marvel" on the screen. The Marvel brand may have been responsible for the first weekend, but the Marvel brand and the MCU name less so do not command 400-500M in the box office. The Marvel Name attached to the Avengers, a sequel to an already established film, or RDJ is a different story. GotG and Ant-Man were both risks that succeeded. People keep saying the Superhero Genre is going to bust, but that is only going to happen when bad movie after bad movie comes out. Inhumans, Captain Marvel, Black Panther all appear to be risks, but if done well will succeed.
Dude you don't even know what company has the rights to what -- Fox made Fantastic Four. Anyway I still have 0 clue what your original point was. I never said the "superhero genre" was going bust. If you can point out one Marvel made movie since Thor that has made less than $500 million, I'd love to agree with your other point.
I am aware who made Fantastic 4. You said "Marvel" name brings in 400-500M. Watch the Fantastic 4 trailer....what 6 letter word is on the screen by itself? This is what the average moviegoer sees and knows. There are not enough MCU fanboys to bring in 500M. The Marvel name does not bring in 400-500M as you said. The movies are good. If the name alone is responsible for the 500M...you like crappy movies.
Just for fun I humored you and went to watch the first trailer link when Google came up...no Marvel logo until the very end and it's extremely tiny in the bottom left corner. Anyway I'm done debating semantics with you, you can think whatever you like. My point stands, I think Dr. Strange will make more than $500M. It may be $525M, but I think it'll be higher than that.
...wonder how many people OUTSIDE of the comics world even know this. Steve Ditko was as influential a creator as was Stan Lee or Jack Kirby for Marvel Comics' early days. Aside: I understand Ditko had something of a falling out with Stan Lee and Marvel over Spider-Man, and that Ditko and Lee never really made up... ...But to your point about people arguing about The Doctor's origins mirroring (visually and tonally) those seen in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy...I think that's where the potential success of the film lay with casual moviegoers... ...most of those people who don't have a wealth of comic continuity knowledge with these characters outside of basic Hollywood PR or pop culture references are the ones who are making those claims, I'd imagine. Again, the archetype for Strange's character is simple, but...in the hands of an actor like Cumberbatch...can become seminal and broadly appealing, especially with Marvels Studios essentially chasing its own goals. I think the trick is how the script chooses to depict the mystic line Doctor Strange must choose to straddle. Strange's power isn't just about who he is himself...it's also about what he has access to as "Master of the Mystic Arts"...what he knows is almost more important that what he does or does not do... ...that seems to look promising, from the trailer...even if we've already seem something of its like in other films before...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-BVs-KCSiA 9 second mark...full screen...official version..first link for me. Your point was that a movie will make 400-500M because it has Marvel's name on it. I contend that Ant-Man was enjoyable and earned most of its box office on merit (i.e. not name alone) even though it "only" made 500M.
I see both of your points. I agree, Ant Man being a decent movie helped make it money. But the Marvel Studios involvement is more to people than just the logo, and the general audience does pick up on it. I do not think the general audience expects Captain America to show up when they walk into Deadpool, X-Men or Fantastic 4. The ones that do probably expect to see Captain America show up in Superman.
