Summer 2011 box office predictions - Part 2

[Chewy]

yes Marvel Studio movies are faithful. but faithful doesnt automatic mean good. and i think thats the prbolem and why fanbyos are happy. they like them because they are faithful.
i have a feeling that Avengers will fail and that it will underperform.

Sure, that makes sense. Iron Man succeeded. Thor succeeded. Cap is succeeding. But Avengers will fail. Even though fanboys and general audiences liked all of the above. Because you think they are too faithful.

 

[kedrell]

Oh so you're looking forward to the more faithful version Webb is introducing where Gwen Stacey, who seems to be a science nerd, is his first crush/girlfriend that he meets in high school. Nice try, but read some more comics, that's not faithful

She said more faithful, which it clearly looks like it is. She didn't say 100% faithful. No adapted CBM is(except maybe Sin City).

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

yes Marvel Studio movies are faithful. but faithful doesnt automatic mean good. and i think thats the prbolem and why fanbyos are happy. they like them because they are faithful.
i have a feeling that Avengers will fail and that it will underperform.

Because only fans liked Thor and Captain America.

 

[Marvin]

I think you need the montage, it shows Captain America becoming the soldier/hero we know. The factory scene was his first try at playing the hero.

This is my problem with marvel films and their reception. Cap never becomes the solider "we know" not even close and the sequence in question really fell flat in and of itself...but there and always will be the many people that are and were really won over by it.

it's hard to say this without sounding like the snobs I despise but it's an acceptance of mediocrity and Kevin Fiege is smoking a cigar right now feeling like a boss. I say nay good sir. They are making arguably forgettable films that is then reflected in box office.

No, Nolan had to start over. You can't come back after Batman & Robin (that took the character and franchise way the Hell out there to the point of no return) and act like everything was hunky-dory with Batman 5 by just upping the darkness.

But Spider-Man 3 didn't cause the franchise to "have" to reboot. They could (and were, in fact, going to) continue on with Raimi, Maguire and Dunst for another one; no harm, no foul. I've always thought they could have kept going with the continuity even w/o them and just keep the supporting players like Simmons, Harris and Baker.

Nolan didn't have to restart actually. The man is supposedly talented enough he probably could have just recast and moved forward with a good film. I'm just pointed out the benefits he now reaps, The writers have complete control over the continuity of the universe and they can write better stories because of it.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Nah, you had to restart to Batman Begins. A sequel to Batman and Robin wouldn't have interested anyone. In fact, if people didn't think it was a reboot they thought it was a prequel to 89' Batman.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

She said more faithful, which it clearly looks like it is. She didn't say 100% faithful. No adapted CBM is(except maybe Sin City).

How is it more faithful, when it's not in really faithful in any way? The characterization, from the trailer at least, is just as off the mark as Mary Jane's was.

Nah, you had to restart to Batman Begins. A sequel to Batman and Robin wouldn't have interested anyone. In fact, if people didn't think it was a reboot they thought it was a prequel to 89' Batman.

Most people actually did think it was a prequel, until the Dark Knight was released.

 

[kedrell]

How is it more faithful, when it's not in really faithful in any way? The characterization, from the trailer at least, is just as off the mark as Mary Jane's was.

I'm talking about the whole picture rather than individual parts. I think when you stack them up, ASM will end up with a higher % of faithfulness than SM1 did.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Most people actually did think it was a prequel, until the Dark Knight was released.

To be honest, when Batman Begins was being released (I wasn't that big into comics or movies back in 05'), I thought it was a prequel to BAtman 89' too until I actually saw it.

Whatever people thought it was, no one was going to link it to Batman and Robin.

 

[DACrowe]

I say Spider-man is on par with Captain America and Thor. I felt all of them were good and well done. Spider-man's could've been more faithful, but it was well done as movie.

If I really think about it, I'd put Captain America and maybe Thor over Spider-man 1 because of Green Goblin, who could have been more menacing.

GG could have been more menacing but he was far more memorable than Loki or Red Skull. Also, when GG died it left an impact on the protagonist and the audience (especially with how Harry took it). Peter's victory over Norman felt sad, but poignant. I remember thinking when Red Skull was defeated, "That's it?"

To put it another way, what left more of an impact when it was over? Peter's guilt giving way to Spidey's joyous final swing through the city or Cap in Times Square muttering, "I had a date?"

I'm not picking on Cap, but I honestly think that after the summer 2011 Cap and Thor will lose their newness. I seriously doubt we'll be talking about them in ten years the way we talked about SM1. Call me skeptical.

 

[DACrowe]

She said more faithful, which it clearly looks like it is. She didn't say 100% faithful. No adapted CBM is(except maybe Sin City).

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Mechs or no, I don't see it being very similar to the tone or narrative Stan Lee used to tell the origin.

 

[flickchick85]

Oh so you're looking forward to the more faithful version Webb is introducing where Gwen Stacey, who seems to be a science nerd, is his first crush/girlfriend that he meets in high school. Nice try, but read some more comics, that's not faithful

Well since Gwen was originally presented as a science major, it'll be nice that she's at least big into science this time, and not some random model who needs Peter's help in class or whatever the hell she was in SM3. And it'll be nice to see her portrayed as his first love and given the proper importance in Peter's life, like she was supposed to be all along. So yes, I'd say this is more faithful, even if the timeline of when they met is shifted.

 

[kedrell]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Mechs or no, I don't see it being very similar to the tone or narrative Stan Lee used to tell the origin.

There's more to Spider-Man than just the Lee/Ditko era.

 

[Spider-Fan]

SM1 I feel has a lot of nostalgia and special memories, but Cap is a better film. As much as I love SM1, it does have its flaws. Red Skull's plan is much more clear than GG's vague search for power. Cap's character journey is more engaging. The romance is better written. It's just a better movie.

This is coming from a guy...username SPIDER-FAN!!!! I think that says something.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

GG could have been more menacing but he was far more memorable than Loki or Red Skull. Also, when GG died it left an impact on the protagonist and the audience (especially with how Harry took it). Peter's victory over Norman felt sad, but poignant. I remember thinking when Red Skull was defeated, "That's it?"

To put it another way, what left more of an impact when it was over? Peter's guilt giving way to Spidey's joyous final swing through the city or Cap in Times Square muttering, "I had a date?"

I'm not picking on Cap, but I honestly think that after the summer 2011 Cap and Thor will lose their newness. I seriously doubt we'll be talking about them in ten years the way we talked about SM1. Call me skeptical.

There was meaning to Cap's final quote though. Both were great in their own way. One was visual and the other was dialogue.

Red Skull was typical an evil archetype as GG, though GG had some more depth. I felt that Red Skull was on par with GG character wise, but I found Red Skull to be more entertaining.

But Loki I found to be a much deeper character than both of them. Loki was a guy who's frustrations with not being king and finding out who really had taken a toll. The guy wanted to [BLACKOUT]destroy his own race just to prove he was true asgardian. [/BLACKOUT] He was willing to do anything to get what wanted, but at the same time he did care for both his father and his brother. I found Loki to be a much more deeper, entertaining, and overall better character than GG and Red Skull. I look forward to what he's going to be doing in the Avengers as I'm glad that the best villain of all of the Marvel Studios films is going to be in it.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

SM1 I feel has a lot of nostalgia and special memories, but Cap is a better film. As much as I love SM1, it does have its flaws. Red Skull's plan is much more clear than GG's vague search for power. Cap's character journey is more engaging. The romance is better written. It's just a better movie.

This is coming from a guy...username SPIDER-FAN!!!! I think that says something.

Who's also a Captain America mod.

 

[Marvin]

SM1 I feel has a lot of nostalgia and special memories, but Cap is a better film. As much as I love SM1, it does have its flaws. Red Skull's plan is much more clear than GG's vague search for power. Cap's character journey is more engaging. The romance is better written. It's just a better movie.

This is coming from a guy...username SPIDER-FAN!!!! I think that says something.

This is an interesting stance and conclusion.
I mean does skull's old school plan to take over the world actually make for a better villain or antagonistic aspect? Is clarity the measure...I know some nolanites that would fight you in the street over the matter lol.

Is Cap's "journey" more engaging. I mean he almost literally has no ark. Whereas parker's is clear. Both characters want to save the world, get the girl and be a hero, the difference is Pete didn't start off that way.
The romance is a lot more traditional in Captain, though it seemed they were in love from the jump.

 

[BestGirl]

What do you mean by more time, another movie? That'd be a bad idea because people would be whining like they did with Iron Man 2 about it being too similar to the first movie. The movie was two hours long and went through the whole progression of Cap's WW2 storyline, there was/is nothing left to tell in that time period.

I wanted to see more of the Howling Commandos, Bucky, and Peggy's and Cap's relationship. It blows my mind that what we saw of Cap in CA was the entirety of his WWII career. Surely he has other villains he could fight in the sequel. Just say he's taking a break from fighting Red Skull.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I wanted to see more of the Howling Commandos, Bucky, and Peggy's and Cap's relationship. It blows my mind that what we saw of Cap in CA was the entirety of his WWII career. Surely he has other villains he could fight in the sequel. Just say he's taking a break from fighting Red Skull.

But, we also know his romance with Peggy is doomed, how it all ends, etc. There is no point after he comes to the present in making films about it. It's better to move on to the modern era adjustment storyline. We can flashback to the WWII period, I think. But, entire movie? I don't think it is a good idea.

 

[BestGirl]

But, we also know his romance with Peggy is doomed, how it all ends, etc. There is no point after he comes to the present in making films about it. It's better to move on to the modern era adjustment storyline. We can flashback to the WWII period, I think. But, entire movie? I don't think it is a good idea.

Eh, I suppose. I just wish we'd gotten a WWII trilogy or duology. Damned Avengers forced the story to conclude too soon.

 

[jacobed]

In the comics doesn't a bunch of his WW2 enemies come to the present as well so couldn't they have him face off against one of those and then have him flashback to the first time they fought each other. I mean the movie takes place over like 3 years or something like that so there is a lot of missions in WW2 we didn't see.

 

[terry78]

Zemo may still be running around in today's world.

 

[flickchick85]

I agree that they need to continue the story in present day, but I'm all for WWII flashbacks. They could open a new film with one of the full missions we didn't see in WWII, let it inform the backstory of the plot in the present. It could be a sort of prologue to the opening title like in a Bond movie or something.

 

[Doctor Jones]

There's more to Spider-Man than just the Lee/Ditko era.

This is ironic considering Raimi's films did follow this era closely yet still get bashed but it's still Spider-Man.

 

[DACrowe]

There's more to Spider-Man than just the Lee/Ditko era.

I agree. But when you're telling the origin, then dark, moody, brooding and somber are not words I'd use to describe the tone and aesthetic of that story. However, that is the tone of the trailer which is a far cry from the origin which was done pretty perfectly already.

I'm all for adapting later periods like the '80s and think Lizard is a great villain to explore. But I find it humorous when someone says this will be more faithful to the comics than Raimi's movie when they both were about the birth of Spidey and one looks like the Lee/Ditko style and one clearly does not.

 

[DACrowe]

SM1 I feel has a lot of nostalgia and special memories, but Cap is a better film. As much as I love SM1, it does have its flaws. Red Skull's plan is much more clear than GG's vague search for power. Cap's character journey is more engaging. The romance is better written. It's just a better movie.

This is coming from a guy...username SPIDER-FAN!!!! I think that says something.

Eh....I just don't see it. Cap to me was very uneven and while entertaining, was a bit too skimming the surface. Again, I don't expect us to be discussing it in ten years the way we do Raimi's film.

There was meaning to Cap's final quote though. Both were great in their own way. One was visual and the other was dialogue.

Red Skull was typical an evil archetype as GG, though GG had some more depth. I felt that Red Skull was on par with GG character wise, but I found Red Skull to be more entertaining.

But Loki I found to be a much deeper character than both of them. Loki was a guy who's frustrations with not being king and finding out who really had taken a toll. The guy wanted to [BLACKOUT]destroy his own race just to prove he was true asgardian. [/BLACKOUT] He was willing to do anything to get what wanted, but at the same time he did care for both his father and his brother. I found Loki to be a much more deeper, entertaining, and overall better character than GG and Red Skull. I look forward to what he's going to be doing in the Avengers as I'm glad that the best villain of all of the Marvel Studios films is going to be in it.

Loki had way more depth than GG or REd Skull. But his cinematic characterization, while well acted and engaging during the film, is not very memorable. The scorned younger brother looking to prove himself as better than his brother through conniving to hide his own impotence and self-doubt. It all sounds very Shakespearian and that probably is because it is with Claudius from Hamlet. But the movie Loki is not Claudius or even Scar from Lion King. He was a good villain for that movie, but I saw the movie in May and his character is already becoming blurry to me.

As for Red Skull, to each their own. Hugo Weaving has played amazing villains before (Agent Smith), as well as anti-heroes (V). I thought Red Skull was a fun throwback to generic movie villains, much like Dafoe's hamming as GG. But Dafoe anchored it with real and meaningful relationships developed between him and Harry, as well as him and Peter. But I see your point. I do think GG is a more memorable villain than either of them, but that may simply be because he is based on a stronger character. Ironically, I'd say Loki is the best acted and most richly developed, but the slightest in memorable impact.