Movies AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR v.11

[LuchaBear]

This needs to happen

 

[LuchaBear]

It broke $2bn?

Holy crap. Did not expect anything close to that.

But what will 4 do?

 

[Horse Style]

I hope instead of changing the characters who are the alter egos of the original Avengers (RiRi for Ironman, female Thor, Miles Morales, etc.), they change the focus to new, well-liked characters.

What I mean is instead of this as the head of the Avengers:

Ironman as a black chick
Captain America as Bucky/Falcon
Female Thor
Asian Hulk

We just go with this as the make-up of the new Avengers:

Doctor Strange
Black Panther
Spiderman

With original Hulk and Thor still there but more in the background.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Thanks, man. I'm sure that has something to do with that I just said.

It does, you pointed out that something like Infinity War is building on a franchise for success relative to Avatar, I was mentioning that this does also mean that in order for it to make much sense you need to have seen a decent amount of Marvel films, thus limiting its audience.

You could argue I spose Force Awakens didn't suffer from that as much given that some knowledge of the original Starwars films is near universal(in the west at least) even to people who might not have watched them.

 

[USA!USA!]

Just seen it again,


Dumb theory because we can see hulk within banner come out.

Even if loki could "pretend" to look like hulk for a split second..hulk came out while banner was in the iron man armour, so nobody would see him. Why would loki pretend to be banner/hulk if there was nobody around to trick? He is the trickster god no? And there is no indication that Loki is a 4th wall breaking character

Yeah that's what I was thinking - theory is pretty trash.

 

[chickenluver]

The Disney-Fox merger happened. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Doctor Doom, Galactus etc. going to be in the MCU.

 

[Horse Style]

Yeah that's what I was thinking - theory is pretty trash.

People just can't let go of Loki. I personally don't see the appeal. He was very overrated. In the Thor movie, he was just an insecure prick with daddy issues that decided he was going to try to fix these issues by murdering Thor (the assumed favorite)and even his own race (Frost giants). Then when he finds out his daddy doesn't approve, he commits suicide (but not really) and goes on to try to kill innocent humans

He's basically a school shooter if they were a demigod.

Then again, that's probably the reason so many comic fans emphatize with him

 

[minute bull]

It does, you pointed out that something like Infinity War is building on a franchise for success relative to Avatar, I was mentioning that this does also mean that in order for it to make much sense you need to have seen a decent amount of Marvel films, thus limiting its audience.

Nah. To quote your favorite preface: Again, what I said speaks specifically to why three films are popular vs two films being (more) popular. What you said talks about how franchise audiences can be limited. What does that have to do with TFA, IW, and JW being inside the top five circle?

Maybe you meant that's why ALIEN VS PREDATORS doesn't do as well as each franchise on its own? Or people won't go to see HARRY POTTER on some kiddie bullshit?

Or are you saying that TFA, IW, and JW are in the top five for OTHER reasons than cachet?

Shitty gif incoming:

You could argue I spose Force Awakens didn't suffer from that as much given that some knowledge of the original Starwars films is near universal(in the west at least) even to people who might not have watched them.

I likely wouldn't because that's not an argument. That's a random generalization.

I could easily say that the advent of combining IMAX and 3D likewise limits audiences because a lot of people hate 3D, but that doesn't really address Method's and MikeMcMann's assertion that AVATAR is the most popular because of new technology. Number one: it is the most popular. Number two: it was at the forefront of technology. Number three: I think we're done here.

And people call me the contrarian.​

 

[Deleted member 110072]

People just can't let go of Loki. I personally don't see the appeal. He was very overrated. In the Thor movie, he was just an insecure prick with daddy issues that decided he was going to try to fix these issues by murdering Thor (the assumed favorite)and even his own race (Frost giants). Then when he finds out his daddy doesn't approve, he commits suicide (but not really) and goes on to try to kill innocent humans

He's basically a school shooter if they were a demigod.

Then again, that's probably the reason so many comic fans emphatize with him

The majority of the appeal was always in the performance but I do think you could argue that post Ragnarok he'd been rather played out as a character.

 

[Horse Style]

Nah. To quote your favorite preface: Again, what I said speaks specifically to why three films are popular vs two films being (more) popular. What you said talks about how franchise audiences can be limited. What does that have to do with TFA, IW, and JW being inside the top five circle?

Maybe you meant that's why ALIEN VS PREDATORS doesn't do as well as each franchise on its own? Or people won't go to see HARRY POTTER on some kiddie bullshit?

Or are you saying that TFA, IW, and JW are in the top five for OTHER reasons than cachet?

Shitty gif incoming:

I likely wouldn't because that's not an argument. That's a random generalization.

I could easily say that the advent of combining IMAX and 3D likewise limits audiences because a lot of people hate 3D, but that doesn't really address Method's and MikeMcMann's assertion that AVATAR is the most popular because of new technology.

And people call me the contrarian.​

Can you point to a concrete reason why Avatar did better? Do you think it's better due it having a better story, better graphics, etc.?

What point are you trying to make? Are you just saying "haha, it made more and it wasn't a sequel so that proves...something"

FWIW, I've seen many critics point out that one of the few things going against IW is that you need to have seen a good chunk of the previous MCU films to understand what's going on. That is certainly true and very limiting in regards to audience yet IW still surpassed the 2bn milestone.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I saw a conspiracy on youtube the other day that Hulk in the movie wasn't really Banner but he was Loki in disguise and that's why he Banner (or Loki if its true) couldn't summon the Hulk.

I think it is totally bullshit tho.

 

[Horse Style]

The majority of the appeal was always in the performance but I do think you could argue that post Ragnarok he'd been rather played out as a character.

Personally, I think the MCU is filled with outstanding performances from actors. While Hiddleston's performance was outstanding, I don't think it was that special when compared to other MCU. I'm certainly in the minority, though.

Anyway, I was tired of Loki after the first Avengers movie. Thanos killing him in the first 5 minutes of IW put me in the good mood for the rest of the movie.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Nah. To quote your favorite preface: Again, what I said speaks specifically to why three films are popular vs two films being (more) popular. What you said talks about how franchise audiences can be limited. What does that have to do with TFA, IW, and JW being inside the top five circle?

Maybe you meant that's why ALIEN VS PREDATORS doesn't do as well as each franchise on its own? Or people won't go to see HARRY POTTER on some kiddie bullshit?

Or are you saying that TFA, IW, and JW are in the top five for OTHER reasons than cachet?

Shitty gif incoming:

I likely wouldn't because that's not an argument. That's a random generalization.

I could easily say that the advent of combining IMAX and 3D likewise limits audiences because a lot of people hate 3D, but that doesn't really address Method's and MikeMcMann's assertion that AVATAR is the most popular because of new technology. Number one: it is the most popular. Number two: it was at the forefront of technology. Number three: I think we're done here.

And people call me the contrarian.​

Wait was it only shown on 3D or Imax because then your point might make sense on how that could limit, or were those ADDITIONAL platforms that generated a ton more buzz?

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Nah. To quote your favorite preface: Again, what I said speaks specifically to why three films are popular vs two films being (more) popular. What you said talks about how franchise audiences can be limited. What does that have to do with TFA, IW, and JW being inside the top five circle?

Maybe you meant that's why ALIEN VS PREDATORS doesn't do as well as each franchise on its own? Or people won't go to see HARRY POTTER on some kiddie bullshit?

Or are you saying that TFA, IW, and JW are in the top five for OTHER reasons than cachet?
​

I likely wouldn't because that's not an argument. That's a random generalization.

I could easily say that the advent of combining IMAX and 3D likewise limits audiences because a lot of people hate 3D, but that doesn't really address Method's and MikeMcMann's assertion that AVATAR is the most popular because of new technology. Number one: it is the most popular. Number two: it was at the forefront of technology. Number three: I think we're done here.

And people call me the contrarian.​

I'd call you insecure or attention starved wanting to turn a casual conservation into an aggressive argument.

Something like Infinity War does obviously depend on the franchise to attract interest but ultimately that's the nature of the film isn't it? the story it tells is only possible within a franchise, its hard to view it as independent of that.

Again as I said I think part of the reason Avatar sits at the top is exactly because audiences could come into it totally cold and understand it. That obviously gives a film greater breakout potential with a larger audience as I'd argue you see within Marvels franchise in Black Panther(in the US at least) than needed little or no previous viewing of it to be understood.

Doesn't mean I'm belittling the success of something like Avatar, more arguing that its only a film like Avatar that could have such success, franchise releases will often be self limiting.

 

[minute bull]

Can you point to a concrete reason why Avatar did better? Do you think it's better due it having a better story, better graphics, etc.?

I agree largely with M & MM: t'was the technology!

But then the argument could be isn't there a better film that also combines these technologies? Was it just tech that did it? Was it being first (Wang, be first!)?

What I think helps AVATAR is Cameron's deft control of story. He keeps it simple and vanilla but injects enough toothsomeness to make it engaging on multiple levels. The film is definitely complete in itself, relies on no other film to help you enjoy or understand. It also appeals to a wide array of ages and cultures. It's also a rollercoaster thrillride film, and who doesn't love exhilaration?

When it comes to box office toppers, the criteria isn't so much what the film does well; it's more about making no mistakes. David Lean says what makes a great film are THREE GREAT SCENES/NO BAD ONES. If you don't give people anything to complain about, they'll still complain -- but it'll be harder.​

What point are you trying to make? Are you just saying "haha, it made more and it wasn't a sequel so that proves...something"

Not sure. I have never given much credence to box office take when it comes to film merit. I think merit and popularity should be kept discrete. I guess I was just waxing on the fact Cameron fucking did #1 and #2 on his own. Wait, that sounds wrong.​

LOL, but seriously -- it's because I'm talking; not debating, not making any argument of any kind.
​

FWIW, I've seen many critics point out that one of the few things going against IW is that you need to have seen a good chunk of the previous MCU films to understand what's going on. That is certainly true and very limiting in regards to audience yet IW still surpassed the 2bn milestone.

Not when that $2b comprises people who HAVE seen all twenty films. That's why they came to this one, because they saw ALL of them.​

Wait was it only shown on 3D or Imax because then your point might make sense on how that could limit, or were those ADDITIONAL platforms that generated a ton more buzz?

I am not making that point. I was playing the mooreorless role.
​

I'd call you insecure or attention starved wanting to turn a casual conservation into an aggressive argument.

You'd still be wrong, Mr I Butt Into Your Conversation and YOU Want Attention.

This IS my casual conversation. There is no argument here. You're saying things that simply have no bearing on what I'm saying, but maybe you're trying to make me look bad. I don't know. I asked you what you liked about INSIDE AND OUT and you have yet to entertain that discussion when I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU. Yet, when something that wasn't directed at you, now you want to quibble!

Who's making argument? Spare me the passive aggression.​

Again

CLASSIC!​

as I said I think part of the reason Avatar sits at the top is exactly because audiences could come into it totally cold and understand it. That obviously gives a film greater breakout potential with a larger audience as I'd argue you see within Marvels franchise in Black Panther(in the US at least) than needed little or no previous viewing of it to be understood.

Doesn't mean I'm belittling the success of something like Avatar, more arguing that its only a film like Avatar that could have such success, franchise releases will often be self limiting.

I must have missed that part before.

So you're saying part of the reason AVATAR sits at the top is because audiences didn't need other films to enjoy it? Hey, that's the same thing I said!​

 

[chickenluver]

I like Hiddleston as Loki a lot, and I'm glad he stuck around as long as he did. Looking at all the villains across the MCU, most only got one movie. Red Skull got a nice cameo in Infinity War, and Thanos will get at least one additional appearance, hopefully more. But Loki had major roles in Avengers and all three Thor movies, plus his brief appearance in Infinity War. Because of this I'm ok with him being gone for good.

 

[minute bull]

Hell, out of all the characters Loki is one who really could handle an entirely different actor change without much hindrance to the character. It might still hurt because people want to see Hiddleston, but I can't think of another character who would as easily make a switch.

 

[RayA]

The Disney-Fox merger happened. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Doctor Doom, Galactus etc. going to be in the MCU.

I'd like to see Galactus as a future villain. Introducing the F4 could work, but it seems a bit late. I don't want the X-men in the MCU though, that's just too much going on there, and I don't like the idea of one in every how many people just happening to be a mutant with powers.

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

The Disney-Fox merger happened. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Doctor Doom, Galactus etc. going to be in the MCU.

Isn't Comcast still making a bid?

 

[Horse Style]

I'd like to see Galactus as a future villain. Introducing the F4 could work, but it seems a bit late. I don't want the X-men in the MCU though, that's just too much going on there, and I don't like the idea of one in every how many people just happening to be a mutant with powers.

One thing that always seemed silly to me is that in X-Men, the people with powers (mutants) were so hated by society but then a large portion of society loves the Avengers and Spiderman.