[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Endus]

Her job is a being a super hero. She dresses up similar to another hero and takes a name the other hero used(in the comics). What Kamala does is wear a Brady jersey to a game she is playing in while having everyone call her Tim Bradyy. Yes the MCU version is technically less creepy since her hero name in Universe was given to her by her dad but even then nobody in the Universe is going to know that unless she tells them.

No, it's nothing like this. It's more like the new President of the USA being called "Mr. President" even when there's a past President who used to be called "Mr. President".

There's nothing "creepy" going on. It's a weird-ass take.

[Syegfryed]

All of the marvel movies/shows seems to be rushed with good start but they fall flat in the middle and the end. They don't seem to hve a specific goal and are just throwing different shit, as an example Doctor strange followed up no-way home but the concept of multiverse was different and barely mentioned and was different from Loki, not many stuff glued then together.

Quantumania was just boring, with some awful characters and a bad plot. Movie focus should be on Ant-man and the Wasp, but it was shifted to Hank wife and Scott Daughter(who was insufferable kid that they made super genius because "girl super genius and stuff and things'). Hank was just there to be comic relief and get cucked, a great waste.

Bad, but now awful like Thor love and thunder and Multiverse of Madness, those are probably the top 2 worse marvel movies of all time, that damn Waitiki waititi guy

Edit: I would also mention the excessive use of BAD humor in the moves is an annoying factor that is making those movies worse, a lot of cringe stuff and jokes that break tension/immersion

[Darththeo]

Her job is a being a super hero. She dresses up similar to another hero and takes a name the other hero used(in the comics). What Kamala does is wear a Brady jersey to a game she is playing in while having everyone call her Tim Bradyy. Yes the MCU version is technically less creepy since her hero name in Universe was given to her by her dad but even then nobody in the Universe is going to know that unless she tells them.

What do you think would happen if someone wearing a spider-man outfit suddenly was found with superpowers in the real world? Chances are that whatever name he is given by the media would relate to the outfit he was wearing, even if the powers make no sense for the name.

Same thing would happen if someone had a viral video of himself playing football in a Tom Brady jersey. Your example is why it makes sense that Ms Marvel could be a name given to Kamala in the MCU and elsewhere. As for the comics, it is less of a big deal as generational heroes are a thing, and repeated names are a thing. There are TWO Human Torches in Marvel. While Marvel doing the generational hero name is newer for them than DC, it is still a thing with heroes.

- - - Updated - - -

Shoot, people name their kids after people they don't even know.

People name their kids after fictional characters. There teachers who talk about "Oh, I know what fandom your parents were a part of."

- - - Updated - - -

I’m not a sports person so I may be off base, but don’t people do this with jerseys numbers even ones of people that inspire them even if there playing different sports?

Yes, many do. There are players who pick 12 for Tom Brady or 23 for Jordan, etc ... it is pretty common.

[InfiniteCharger]

I’m always interesting in this stuff (though not individual titles) and don’t remember when it was last brought up so looked up from numbers for 2022.

In the us there were

14,595 different manga sold, They sold 29,593,184 total books earning 438,873,124$.

For comics the picture seems to be a bit murkier due to the Covid changes in distribution so I couldn’t find as direct numbers so let’s go with some assuming.

A better comparison is to take a month from a previous year and compare to a current year month.

I just did a quick check and took the top 100 on the list from April 2022 and compared the top 100 on the list from May 1999.
The difference is 5 million issues for May 1999 and 2 million issues for April 2022. The fact is US comic sales are way down.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...2/2022-04.html

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...9/1999-05.html

And ICV2 and others have been commenting on this:

Comic retailers reported weak sales for Spring 2023 (January through April), and as is usually the case when comics (or any entertainment medium) has a sustained period of lackluster engagement, there’s general agreement that the problem is between the covers of the books that are coming to market, especially from Marvel Comics and DC Comics.

"There’s not a lot that a retailer can do about product that isn’t exciting to customers," John Robinson of Midwest retail chain Graham Crackers Comics said. "It’s not like publishers are trying to publish mediocre product, they’d like every EVENT to count and grab the public’s attention, it’s just not happening."

Asked about Marvel and DC sales, Bob Schaeffer of Dragon’s Lair Comics & Fantasy in San Antonio, Texas had much the same observation. "[They’re] trending down because many retailers that I’ve spoken to, including myself, don’t really see that there’s much of a coherent editorial vision with them," he told us. "They’re chasing the same thing, or chasing whatever they believe is the hot new thing."

And across the country in California, San Francisco retailer Brian Hibbs of Comix Experience was singing the same song. "It’s across the board that periodicals are having a lot of trouble," he said. "By and large, it’s because the publishers have not been doing the thing they need to do, which is trying to increase their market and get new customers in. They’re just trying to maximize the amount of money that they’re getting from the people who are already buying comics, which worked for a little while, but then it stopped working because people can smell sincerity."

https://icv2.com/articles/markets/vi...ag-weak-spring

- - - Updated - - -

The only people who brought up viewership were doing so to equate low viewership with the show/film itself being bad. You did so yourself in the quote they picked. You're trying to rewrite your own post history when it's visible to everyone.

No, quality is objectively qualifiable. It's enjoyment that's subjective. You can enjoy bad shows/films, but that doesn't make them "good", or even "good to you".

The point is comparing the viewership of Marvel D+ shows and movies to each other as a measure of audience reception. The only one making up bull shit is you trying to change the point into quality. Appealing to audiences does not indicate "quality" at all, it only equates to popularity and the goal of comics since the beginning has been appealing to audiences and popularity. You simply keep trying to deny this by introducing this idea of "quality" which is not what I am talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

You made the connection. We were discussing elsewhere as well as you got upset when I called it a good show. I haven't downplayed anything about the MCU having low viewership recently. It is strange that you keep saying people are denying reality while blatantly lying yourself.

I pointed out the fact that compared to other D+ shows Ms Marvel and the Marvels are not having the same viewership numbers. That is simply a fact. And has nothing to do with whether or not you called it a good show. Facts are facts and you keep trying to object to those facts by claiming that viewership numbers dont matter.

[Endus]

I pointed out the fact that compared to other D+ shows Ms Marvel and the Marvels are not having the same viewership numbers. That is simply a fact. And has nothing to do with whether or not you called it a good show. Facts are facts and you keep trying to object to those facts by claiming that viewership numbers dont matter.

The only way viewership numbers "matter" is to the studio who's expecting to make money off the product. Lower viewership might lead to not following up on that product with additional investment.

That's it.

If you're trying to impute anything else, you're making an irrational argument.

No one has denied any of these facts. You're just clearly trying to make irrational leaps from the facts, and incorrectly trying to portray out criticism of those leaps with a denial of the base facts which don't in any way support those leaps.

Like this;

The point is comparing the viewership of Marvel D+ shows and movies to each other as a measure of audience reception

Nope. All you can say about lower viewership is that less people saw the show. It says nothing about "audience reception".

[Lorgar Aurelian]

A better comparison is to take a month from a previous year and compare to a current year month.

Um this misses the whole point of the comparison.

I was comparing Manga sales to comic sales not current comic sales to past comic sales.

[InfiniteCharger]

Also, I'll repeat; the Ms. Marvel comic in no way "failed"; it led digital sales for ages and sold a ton of trades.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/7/2103817...an-disney-plus

If he's claiming the character was both unpopular and a critical failure, he's just lying or literally knows nothing about the actual figures of comics sales.

Ms Marvel #1 sold about 2000 copies in November 2014 and was #48 on the sales chart for that month.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-11.html

And digital comics sales numbers are even more hard to find than print sales numbers.

In the local cable show covering diversity in comics linked to earlier today, Ms. Marvel editor Sana Amanat was interviewed and she mentioned that “she’s our #1 digital seller.” It’s been mentioned publicly a few times that it’s among Marvel’s best selling digital titles, and over the summer at a Marvel summit it was announced that the first issue had sold more digitally than in print.

Considering that the first issue is now in its 7th printing, that may not still be the case…or it may. You’re more likely to find out the name of Renee Zellweger’s plastic surgeon than digital comics sales figures—although you can do a rolling average using App Annie to track in-app purchases. However it is now an established talking point that Ms. Marvel is a digital hit. It’s print sales are good, but it’s digital where it may be staking its claim as the comic of the moment. It’s also perhaps a teensy hint at why diversifying the audience is not a dirty word any more at the Big Two.

https://www.comicsbeat.com/ms-marvel...igital-seller/

And Ms Marvel debuted as a graphic novel, with sales far below normal floppy comics in that same month.

Ms Marvel #1 graphic novel 0ct 2014 with 7k+ copies, while Walking Dead comic sells over 300k copies.
https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-10.html

Ms Marvel Graphic Novel falls to #48 in graphic novel copies sold while Spiderman comic sells 130k+ copies.
https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-11.html

[Endus]

Ms Marvel #1 sold about 2000 copies in November 2014 and was #48 on the sales chart for that month.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-11.html

And digital comics sales numbers are even more hard to find than print sales numbers.


https://www.comicsbeat.com/ms-marvel...igital-seller/

It's always entertaining when you debunk your own claim within the same post. Ms. Marvel #1 going into a 7th printing points out you're cherry-picking the November 2014 sales dishonestly. And you're also ignoring trades sales.

Ms. Marvel's a wildly popular character in the comics. You're wrong on the facts and your own sources contradict you on claiming otherwise.

To quote your own source;

"However it is now an established talking point that Ms. Marvel is a digital hit. It’s print sales are good, but it’s digital where it may be staking its claim as the comic of the moment."

Oops, huh?

[InfiniteCharger]

The only way viewership numbers "matter" is to the studio who's expecting to make money off the product. Lower viewership might lead to not following up on that product with additional investment.

That's it.

If you're trying to impute anything else, you're making an irrational argument.

No one has denied any of these facts. You're just clearly trying to make irrational leaps from the facts, and incorrectly trying to portray out criticism of those leaps with a denial of the base facts which don't in any way support those leaps.

Like this;



Nope. All you can say about lower viewership is that less people saw the show. It says nothing about "audience reception".

Wrong. Popularity is he measure that comics have always been based on. This is why Spiderman is the most poplar superhero for Marvel comics because of the number of copies of the comic that were sold. That has nothing to do with "quality" and everything to do with popularity. Comics have never been sold for critic reviews but for audience popularity and sales.

[Endus]

Wrong. Popularity is he measure that comics have always been based on. This is why Spiderman is the most poplar superhero for Marvel comics because of the number of copies of the comic that were sold. That has nothing to do with "quality" and everything to do with popularity. Comics have never been sold for critic reviews but for audience popularity and sales.

You're jumping from "viewership" to "popularity", and then to "sales".

If you're not going to stick to a single argument, you don't have a point to make in the first place, right or wrong.

[InfiniteCharger]

It's always entertaining when you debunk your own claim within the same post. Ms. Marvel #1 going into a 7th printing points out you're cherry-picking the November 2014 sales dishonestly. And you're also ignoring trades sales.

Ms. Marvel's a wildly popular character in the comics. You're wrong on the facts and your own sources contradict you on claiming otherwise.

To quote your own source;

"However it is now an established talking point that Ms. Marvel is a digital hit. It’s print sales are good, but it’s digital where it may be staking its claim as the comic of the moment."

Oops, huh?

And? The Walking Dead comic for the month of October 2014 sold over 300k copies far more than the 7k for Ms Marvel graphic novel. Do you think that one also got multiple printings? I posted a link to the charts for those months and outside of November, Ms Marvel is nowhere near "wildly" popular compared to other Marvel titles.

Also that graphic novel was a collection of her individual first run titles into one volume from early 2014 and none of those were "wildly popular" compared to other marvel titles.

In February 2014 the Ms Marvel comic debuted at #24 on the list of #copies sold.
And in March 2014 she fell to #42 on the list of copies sold for that month.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-02.html
https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-03.html

- - - Updated - - -

You're jumping from "viewership" to "popularity", and then to "sales".

If you're not going to stick to a single argument, you don't have a point to make in the first place, right or wrong.

So now you are going to argue that sales and viewership are not measures of popularity?

Dude you have a problem with facts and this back and forth is pointless because you aren't changing those facts.

[Endus]

And? The Walking Dead comic for the month of October 2014 sold over 300k copies far more than the 7k for Ms Marvel graphic novel. Do you think that one also got multiple printings? I posted a link to the charts for those months and outside of November, Ms Marvel is nowhere near "wildly" popular compared to other Marvel titles.

Something else that struck me odd about your source; you cited this link for November 2014 sales; https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...4/2014-11.html

Now, the problem is that Ms. Marvel #1 launched in February 2014. That's the first Trade collection, not the first comic.

All this manipulation of sources to try and present a false claim that Ms. Marvel was not a popular character. You're just lying about shit, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

I posted a link to the charts for those months and outside of November, Ms Marvel is nowhere near "wildly" popular compared to other Marvel titles.

"However it is now an established talking point that Ms. Marvel is a digital hit. It’s print sales are good, but it’s digital where it may be staking its claim as the comic of the moment."

Your own source, dude. You're trying to rewrite history and you're citing sources that debunk your own lies.

[rhorle]

If every single character except Ms. Marvel is in your eyes an exception to the rule that they are mysoginistic/racist/whatever then what seems more likely? That you are doing mental gymnastics to make it about something its not or that they are making exceptions for every other character to get a "win" on Ms. Marvel?

If people are giving a free pass to some characters and only complaining about certain characters then they are doing mental gymnastics. It is that simple. I'm not sure how you are making this more complicated then it needs to be but that is often the case when people need to defend terrible. things.

- - - Updated - - -

I pointed out the fact that compared to other D+ shows Ms Marvel and the Marvels are not having the same viewership numbers. That is simply a fact. And has nothing to do with whether or not you called it a good show. Facts are facts and you keep trying to object to those facts by claiming that viewership numbers dont matter.

Then why did you use viewership, and other information, to claim I was wrong for calling it a good show? Facts are facts and you keep ignoring them. I've never said that viewership numbers don't matter. A fact you are ignoring. I've only said that viewership doesn't determine quality.

[Ihavewaffles]

what a cunt


THOR: RAGNAROK Director Taika Waititi Says He Only Made The Movie For Money And Knew Nothing About The Hero

https://comicbookmovie.com/thor/thor...8033#gs.1kot78
By JoshWilding - Nov 27, 2023 10:11 AM EST

Thor: Ragnarok remains one of Marvel Studios' best-reviewed movies and, crucially for a franchise which struggled more than those centred around Iron Man and Captain America, it was also a box office hit.

For some fans, the shift to wacky humour didn't quite resonate; after all, Thor had been a fantasy tale and while Thor: The Dark World fell short of being the Asgard-meets-Game of Thrones mashup we'd expected, it was far grittier than filmmaker Taika Waititi's colour-splashed vision for the God of Thunder.

Talking on the Smartless podcast, Waititi reflected on joining the MCU and admitted that he only agreed to helm Thor: Ragnarok because it meant he'd receive a sizeable payday.

"You know what? I had no interest in doing one of those films," he said. "It wasn’t on my plan for my career as an auteur. But I was poor and I’d just had a second child, and I thought, 'You know what, this would be a great opportunity to feed these children.'"

"And 'Thor,' let’s face it - it was probably the least popular franchise. I never read 'Thor' comics as a kid. That was the comic I’d pick up and be like 'Ugh.' And then I did some research on it, and I read one 'Thor' comic or 18 pages, or however long they are."

In fairness, plenty of successful comic book movie directors didn't grow up reading comic books, so Waititi isn't saying anything too shocking in that sense. However, his research building down to reading a single comic is a little more...surprising.

There's a good chance he's exaggerating, of course, as Thor: Ragnarok did end up featuring a fair few deep-cut references to the source material. The credit for those may go to writers Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher L. Yost, of course.

For Waititi, being offered the chance to helm the movie was a sign Marvel Studios was desperate. "I think there was no place left for them to go with that," he said of the threequel. "I thought, 'Well, they’ve called me in, this is really the bottom of the barrel.'"

Waititi stuck around the MCU, playing Korg in Avengers: Endgame and later helming Thor: Love and Thunder. He wrote the latter alongside Jennifer Kaytin Robinson and it drew mixed reviews, leading to the majority of fans - and even Chris Hemsworth - arguing that the Asgardian superhero needed another reset.

According to Waititi, he won't be involved with Thor 5 and that's not exactly led to any sort of great outpouring of disappointment. Now, the filmmaker will turn his sights to Star Wars, and he's already warned fans that he expects his approach to that Galaxy Far, Far Away to "p*ss" them off.

Do these comments about Thor: Ragnarok come as a surprise?

- - - Updated - - -

uh...noticing a trend? Ofc he will ruin what's left of star wars...


Taika Waititi Didn’t Read Anything About Hitler Before Playing the Fascist Leader

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...t-leader.html/
by AGUSTIN MOJICA - on July 28, 2022

Director and actor Taika Waititi’s performances are usually memorable. Whether he’s playing a space alien made of rocks, or the worst real-life monster in history, he brings the same approach to the role. For the most part, people seem to like it. And one thing’s for sure: he’s not shy about sharing his streamlined process!

Waititi seems to be having the time of his life as an A-list director. The New Zealand native is brimming with ideas and even has a pitch for another Thor movie ready to go. The man is a machine when it comes to writing and directing.

But a workaholic actor, he is not, as he happily shared in an interview with Wired.

“I’m the laziest actor you’ll ever, ever come across,” the What We Do In the Shadows director said. “I played Hitler, didn’t read anything about him.”

Hitler is normally a role taken on with gravitas, such as in the famous scene from Downfall. Waititi also didn’t intend to play the role in the first place. As the Jojo Rabbit project came together, he fell into the controversial part. And he wasn’t particularly excited about researching the role. So he simply didn’t.

[Syegfryed]

what a cunt


THOR: RAGNAROK Director Taika Waititi Says He Only Made The Movie For Money And Knew Nothing About The Hero

That was evident when you watch ragnarok and love and thunder, those movies had nothing to do with Thor from the comics and BARELY had something to do with the Thor from the previous movies. He was luck people liked Ragnrok, probably going on the hype of guardians of the galaxy, but he dial to 11 and fucked love and thunder.

You know what? I had no interest in doing one of those films," he said. "It wasn’t on my plan for my career as an auteur. But I was poor and I’d just had a second child, and I thought, 'You know what, this would be a great opportunity to feed these children.'"

Also, evidently true, seems like people (directors/writers/producers) hate super hero genre, hate they have to do those things, but since its their job they have to do it, same way for fantasy stuff, they see this shit as "for kids" and are only there for the money.

According to Waititi, he won't be involved with Thor 5 and that's not exactly led to any sort of great outpouring of disappointment. Now, the filmmaker will turn his sights to Star Wars, and he's already warned fans that he expects his approach to that Galaxy Far, Far Away to "p*ss" them off.

He basically did his shit, put the blame on marvel and now is set to ruin another universe. Star war is in such a good position after so many great content that what we most need a asshat like him doing a movie that will piss off the people who love the franchise.

[JDL49]

I hereby request a second level of post ignoring. When a post by someone on my ignore list is quoted I want that post ignored as well. This shit is getting old and is destroying the sites utility for me.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Taika Waititi Didn’t Read Anything About Hitler Before Playing the Fascist Leader

Have you actually watched the movie where he played Hitler? Because he's not actually playing Hitler. The "Hitler" he is playing is the Imaginary friend of the little boy that is the protagonist.

[Ihavewaffles]

Have you actually watched the movie where he played Hitler? Because he's not actually playing Hitler. The "Hitler" he is playing is the Imaginary friend of the little boy that is the protagonist.

Yes, and that is...convenient.. so if his job was to be more accurate, he wouldn't be..

[Biomega]

It's actually not uncommon for directors/actors to ignore source materials intentionally - because their goal isn't to be true to the source, but to make a good film here, now. They don't want to be biased and weighed down by previous interpretations of the material, but do their own take on it. That's why they carefully avoid influences that could predispose them one way or another.

That being said, there's more to this than that factoid. For one, the director doesn't do everything in a movie. They're ultimately responsible as the person the buck stops at, but they're a team leader - not a dictator. Writers, creative consultants, etc. etc. all have input as well and a lot of those know the source materials extremely well. Directors will take their input on board and transform it in their own way, which gives them the best of both worlds: they can have other people make sure they're not going off the rails completely, but can leave themselves unbiased by previous interpretations to better craft their own, original vision.

The same goes for actors. They may consciously avoid things like e.g. looking at previous movies or plays that they're supposed to do so they aren't tempted to just replicate existing interpretations; but that doesn't mean they'll e.g. make up their own dialogue entirely and just change the character they're playing on every level. That's not in their control, and that's not what their job is. Other people are there to write their lines and give them stage directions etc. and those people may be very well acquainted with the source material.

Now, that doesn't mean that's the only way to do things, or that it works for every production. There's other directors/actors that go the complete opposite and will spend months buried in the materials until they understand every single line. They practice their craft differently, and create their originality in different ways. And there's also projects that will require more familiarity with the source material, for example historical pieces that examine specific events or biopics and so on, where ignoring the "source" is probably not a good idea because the project is directly connected to specific facts and circumstances.

At the end of the day, these are just different creative techniques. You can't just treat them unequivocally, no matter how attractive of a clickbait line "HE NEVER READ THE BOOK?!" makes for.

(And of course let's not forget that sometimes people also, you know, lie about this. So when a director goes "oh, the book? naaah never read it" in a publicity interview, don't just automatically believe that)

[Endus]

It's actually not uncommon for directors/actors to ignore source materials intentionally - because their goal isn't to be true to the source, but to make a good film here, now. They don't want to be biased and weighed down by previous interpretations of the material, but do their own take on it. That's why they carefully avoid influences that could predispose them one way or another.

That being said, there's more to this than that factoid. For one, the director doesn't do everything in a movie. They're ultimately responsible as the person the buck stops at, but they're a team leader - not a dictator. Writers, creative consultants, etc. etc. all have input as well and a lot of those know the source materials extremely well. Directors will take their input on board and transform it in their own way, which gives them the best of both worlds: they can have other people make sure they're not going off the rails completely, but can leave themselves unbiased by previous interpretations to better craft their own, original vision.

The same goes for actors. They may consciously avoid things like e.g. looking at previous movies or plays that they're supposed to do so they aren't tempted to just replicate existing interpretations; but that doesn't mean they'll e.g. make up their own dialogue entirely and just change the character they're playing on every level. That's not in their control, and that's not what their job is. Other people are there to write their lines and give them stage directions etc. and those people may be very well acquainted with the source material.

Now, that doesn't mean that's the only way to do things, or that it works for every production. There's other directors/actors that go the complete opposite and will spend months buried in the materials until they understand every single line. They practice their craft differently, and create their originality in different ways. And there's also projects that will require more familiarity with the source material, for example historical pieces that examine specific events or biopics and so on, where ignoring the "source" is probably not a good idea because the project is directly connected to specific facts and circumstances.

At the end of the day, these are just different creative techniques. You can't just treat them unequivocally, no matter how attractive of a clickbait line "HE NEVER READ THE BOOK?!" makes for.

(And of course let's not forget that sometimes people also, you know, lie about this. So when a director goes "oh, the book? naaah never read it" in a publicity interview, don't just automatically believe that)

Waititi didn't write the script for Thor: Ragnarok, for instance. Also, let's recall he was brought in for Ragnarok specifically because the prior two Thor films were eh to meh and they really needed to try and make the character stand out. Rejecting what had already been done and taking a new approach all his own was the specific reason he was there to direct.