The Marvels

Shamikebab said:
So your entire opinion of the film is second-hand. It's like reading a goodreads review and then critiquing a book :cry: This is so precious, it's rare you see someone defeat themselves in an argument.
Click to expand...
Someone doesn't understand the difference between a review on YouTube and watching clips of said movie, bravo :cry:
 
Shamikebab said:
So your entire opinion of the film is second-hand. It's like reading a goodreads review and then critiquing a book :cry: This is so precious, it's rare you see someone defeat themselves in an argument.
Click to expand...
So we should all just rush to watch the marvels? Sorry, but that's what reviews, trailers etc are there for. To help you decide whether you want to waste your time and money on something :p

I've seen and read enough to know it's not my bag.
 
Last edited:
IvanDobskey said:
Coming up with a load of fringe overpowered female characters and expecting them to be as immediately popular as the established male characters is just dumb.
Click to expand...

That’s a reasonable point and fair enough.

EddScott said:
You're missing the point. My issue is not so much this particular film per se, but when an agenda of strong females over weak males is pushed - which this film could arguably be included - the film makers blame everyone else for what ultimately is a weak film made worse by an agenda.
Click to expand...

I really don’t think there is any ‘agenda’ being pushed in this specific film, at all.

But I do think the ‘strong female lead’ and clunky ‘female empowerment’ trend was a thing (probably peaking with that infamous Batgirl trailer) and we’re now moving away from that.

Finally, the ‘over weak men’ part of your post is where these sentiments lose me. I have never had the impression from the Marvel franchise (or any others) that ‘men are weak compared with women’.
 
EddScott said:
You're missing the point. My issue is not so much this particular film per se, but when an agenda of strong females over weak males is pushed - which this film could arguably be included - the film makers blame everyone else for what ultimately is a weak film made worse by an agenda.
Click to expand...
Ok I thought in The Marvels thread you were talking about The Marvels. As Nitefly said, when has this even been the case in the MCU? It's not in this film.
 
Shamikebab said:
What about it is aimed at the wrong demographic exactly?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that aiming it at a demographic that just doesn't turn up to watch your film in large numbers (<35% female attendance so far), compared to aiming at the demographic that "does" turn up in larger numbers (men >65% attendance), is probably "aiming it at the wrong demographic" if you want your film to be profitable. The original was aimed at the "right" demographic, in comparison, and made over a billion but The Marvels didn't and now its suffering the financial consequences.

Shockingly, it turns out that young to middle aged women aren't the biggest market for comic book or superhero films but, for example, they are the "right" demographic for a film like Barbie, which again made over a billion.
 
ianh said:
I would suggest that aiming it at a demographic that just doesn't turn up to watch your film in large numbers (<35% female attendance so far), compared to aiming at the demographic that "does" turn up in larger numbers (men >65% attendance), is probably "aiming it at the wrong demographic" if you want your film to be profitable. The original was aimed at the "right" demographic, in comparison, and made over a billion but The Marvels didn't and now its suffering the financial consequences.

Shockingly, it turns out that young to middle aged women aren't the biggest market for comic book or superhero films but, for example, they are the "right" demographic for a film like Barbie, which again made over a billion.
Click to expand...
Right, but nobody has explained how it is aimed at women and not men, unless you're claiming that men won't watch a film without a male actor in a lead role
 
Last edited:
Disney are basically trying to turn marvel and star wars from a male centric brand to a female centric brand.

It's not working.

Boys grow up watching star wars, wanting to be Luke Skywalker, not Rey. And girls just aren't really interested in sci-fi like boys are. It's just fact.

It's absolutely nothing to do with misogyny, that's just a cheap lame excuse for failure.

Know your audience Disney and try catering to them. You might actually make some money.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
The original was aimed at the "right" demographic, in comparison, and made over a billion but The Marvels didn't and now its suffering the financial consequences.
Click to expand...
But we were told here that people only watched that because it came out before End Game.

The original thread for Captain Marvel was just as bad as this one to be honest.

23 pages before the movie was even released.

Before there was even a trailer, people were saying Brie Larson looked "bland" in the role from a few publicity photos

Woke wasn't a buzz word then, but anyone waiting to judge the movie itself was an "SJW" white knight who wanted Brie to sleep with them

Then there was smile-gate:

screenrant.com

Brie Larson Responds to 'Captain Marvel Should Smile' Trolls With MCU Photoshops

Maybe these trolls should try smiling more themselves.
screenrant.com screenrant.com

ianh said:
Just seen the photos from the London Premier -

Samuel L Jackson - Smiling and looks happy to be there

rEpor7M.jpg

Jude Law - Smiling and looks happy to be there

PRM621P.jpg

Brie Larson - Hmmmmmmmmmm, maybe she thinks she's not allowed to smile on the red carpet as she does smile and seem to have fun with the fans in other pics

vVq15am.jpg

To be fair I'm sure that there will be plenty of pics of her smiling/happy at the event, it's just the vast majority published so far just show the same "bland" expression which, it must be said, seems to be a conscious decision to make.
Click to expand...

Then when it came out the overwhelming majority liked it.

It was certainly better than 'The Marvels'
 
I thought you might have used your brain to work out that since I was talking about OCUK forum posts, that I meant people on the forums liked it.

There were 60k user reviews on RT before that movie even came out and most were negative.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
45% on rt and 3.0 on metacritic. But yeah sure, 'the overwhelming majority liked it' :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah yes, "audience / user reviews" - the thing that requires no proof that the user actually watched the movie / read the book / played the game and can either upvote / downvote based on agendas rather than the content being consumed.

It's an awful metric either being used for or against something.

At least with the Tomatometer the reviewers actually watched the thing and you actually get a broad spectrum of opinion.
 
The original captain marvel came out at the height of the superhero wave. It was released between the two biggest films of the franchise. They hinted you had to watch it before end game. It's success was assured. It wasn't any good though.
 
montymint said:
At least with the Tomatometer the reviewers actually watched the thing and you actually get a broad spectrum of opinion.
Click to expand...
Film companies have been paying for reviews on rt for years - hell it's a running joke that films that embrace certain check points score high. Anyone using a critic score to judge a movie is ******* insane in the current era.
 
C Kent said:
Film companies have been paying for reviews on rt for years - hell it's a running joke that films that embrace certain check points score high. Anyone using a critic score to judge a movie is ******* insane in the current era.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, using the example of Captain marvel - they bought all 550+ reviewers did they? Even the negative ones - do you realise how insane THAT sounds?

Are you saying that the "real users" section is more accurate - especially in the bot-driven social media world we currently live in where anonymous accounts are literally bought and paid for.

I'm not saying and haven't said that you should blindly follow a single large publication for the basis of a review - I was simply pointing out the bad faith argument of using a review score where there isn't even a name to go with the scores making up the aggregate. I did also point out that it's not a good use for either side of an argument for the reasons I've already stated.

It's like aggregating YouTube reviews but you pick only the ones most critical of "the agenda" because they'll agree with every point you make, or another poster using only YouTube reviews of people who think the other way. The unconscious bias always takes over - especially when discussing things that are of importance to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom