Avengers: Endgame [** SPOILERS FROM POST 613 **]

flazio

Zoe Saldana wins either way as she was in both.

Harry Palmr

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you count in ticket inflation then Avatar was never top either.

Oh sure, at least the hard numbers are known for that film, going back they get less reliable esp for "overseas" tallies. GWTW is still the top film in the USA when adjusted and by some distance (twice the amount)

Tazzimus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Oh sure, at least the hard numbers are known for that film, going back they get less reliable esp for "overseas" tallies. GWTW is still the top film in the USA when adjusted and by some distance (twice the amount)

Mainly due to being in the cinema forever.

Slydice

The IO9 headline for it

Film From Studio Acquired by Walt Disney Finally Beats Film From Studio Acquired by Walt Disney for Box Office Record
https://io9.gizmodo.com/film-from-studio-acquired-by-walt-disney-finally-beats-1836581329

ManOfMystery

So much cynicism lol.

Does the box office record really matter? Probably not. Won't make a difference to the average person.

But as a huge fan of comics growing up, I think it should be celebrated - for years and years, asides from the 'big' characters like Batman and Superman, a lot of comic based films through the 70s, 80s and 90s were low budget straight to DVD affairs. Spawn. The Shadow. Meteor Man. Nick Fury. Steel. Not really taken seriously. Even Batman as a character suffered with Joel Schumacher's neon-lit campy rubbish in the 90s.

That they've now gone to the other end of the spectrum and made it to the very top of the box office is only a good thing for comic book movie fans. Not only that, but getting mentioned in awards nominations for visual effects, scores, and so on.

Agent Coulson

Just reading there that Disney’s Acquisition of Marvel and the production costs of the 23 movies cost $8.7bn.

Total box office of those 23 films so far is $22.4bn.

Stop moaning ffs

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Just reading there that Disney’s Acquisition of Marvel and the production costs of the 23 movies cost $8.7bn.

Total box office of those 23 films so far is $22.4bn.

That’s an astounding amount of money

ManOfMystery

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Just reading there that Disney’s Acquisition of Marvel and the production costs of the 23 movies cost $8.7bn.

Total box office of those 23 films so far is $22.4bn.

It seemed like a crazy outlay at the time, but obviously a good business decision in hindsight.

p to the e

You can bet your arse that Avatar will get a re-release prior to the new Avatar and may take that record back.

pixelburp

Is Avatar 2 still happening, has it even started shooting?

Stop moaning ffs

pixelburp wrote: »

Is Avatar 2 still happening, has it even started shooting?

Been filming for ages and ages but release date push back more times than I can count.

And there’s 5 films planned apparently

Foxtrol

p to the e wrote: »

You can bet your arse that Avatar will get a re-release prior to the new Avatar and may take that record back.

I'd be doubtful about that. Even though Disney now own it, I would think they'd prefer to keep their baby at number 1.

Re-releasing it in theatres could also confuse audiences and mess with some of the hype for the sequels. I'd say more likely is that they'll put Avatar up on Disney + and leverage it for signups for people who want to rewatch it.

Can see Avatar becoming a massive failure though. It really seemed like a lot of its success was based on a perfect storm of tailwinds rather than huge love for it as a franchise. Emma Watts taking over leadership of it, who ran X-men into the ground, doesn't inspire confidence about directing the building of a larger world.

ManOfMystery

Foxtrol wrote: »

Can see Avatar becoming a massive failure though. It really seemed like a lot of its success was based on a perfect storm of tailwinds rather than huge love for it as a franchise. Emma Watts taking over leadership of it, who ran X-men into the ground, doesn't inspire confidence about directing the building of a larger world.

I agree, tbh whilst I enjoyed Avatar I never quite understood why it made as much money as it did. It's not a film I've wanted to rewatch over and over.

With that said, James Cameron is one of those directors (probably like Nolan/Tarantino and a few others) whose name alone can bring in a lot of money, and his movies have a way of becoming these juggernauts.

Loughc

ManOfMystery wrote: »

I agree, tbh whilst I enjoyed Avatar I never quite understood why it made as much money as it did. It's not a film I've wanted to rewatch over and over.

With that said, James Cameron is one of those directors (probably like Nolan/Tarantino and a few others) whose name alone can bring in a lot of money, and his movies have a way of becoming these juggernauts.

I feel like the reason it made alot of money was the 3D it really was revolutionary at the time and it was used really well before it became a gimmick again....

Story wise there was nothing new there, and agree with the sentiment that it's not a movie you'd rush to watch again.

pixelburp

It was also one of the few films that shot in 3d, rather than performed after the fact via awful retroactive conversion that often left films darkened and blurry. To be fair, Cameron knew the technology and got the best out of it, making it one of the few occasions the 3D worked as intended.

Ethereal Cereal

ManOfMystery wrote: »

I agree, tbh whilst I enjoyed Avatar I never quite understood why it made as much money as it did. It's not a film I've wanted to rewatch over and over.

With that said, James Cameron is one of those directors (probably like Nolan/Tarantino and a few others) whose name alone can bring in a lot of money, and his movies have a way of becoming these juggernauts.

Titanic is one I dont get. How is that one of the highest ever grossing movie Its fine like, but I dont see why or how its at the top

Loughc wrote: »

I feel like the reason it made alot of money was the 3D it really was revolutionary at the time and it was used really well before it became a gimmick again....

Story wise there was nothing new there, and agree with the sentiment that it's not a movie you'd rush to watch again.

The story is a retelling of Pocahontas
They called the element they had to get, "unobtanium"... Unironically

Conall Cernach

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

Titanic is one I dont get. How is that one of the highest ever grossing movie Its fine like, but I dont see why or how its at the top

I worked in a cinema when it was released. There was a lot of repeat business where some women would come 4, 5 or more times. Then it was released again for Valentines Day and got another couple of weeks run.


I despise that movie. It was bad enough that it was terrible and near 3 hours long but the same women would stay to the very end of the credits listening to the terrible soundtrack. I have some sympathy with cinema workers when there's a Marvel film showing and all of us waiting for some poxy end credit scene.

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

It was also one of the few films that shot in 3d, rather than performed after the fact via awful retroactive conversion that often left films darkened and blurry. To be fair, Cameron knew the technology and got the best out of it, making it one of the few occasions the 3D worked as intended.

I think retrospectively it tends to be more and more disliked by audiences. Not sure if the pull is there for a sequel to be attractive to audiences...

pixelburp

Sigh. Damnit, just when I thought I'd got over the garbage time travel logic, I come across one of the "How it Should Have Ended" videos. Like, they're not wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vjs_0CoRs4

5star02707

Deleted scenes in End Game

https://twitter.com/usatodaylife/status/1154787642736893953?s=19

Mr Crispy

Full on cheese. Glad they chopped it.

Slydice

I might just have broken if that had been in the original i saw in the cinema

EagererBeaver

If anybody was interested, which they shouldn't be as it's very illegal and bold, I've heard some rumours that there are 1080p copies available for download.

Drumpot

Just watched it again, it’s growing on me like infinity war.

Love it at the end where WS says “I will miss you cap” or something like that. Didn’t click when I first saw it.

Really good fan service movie that’s got something for everybody.

AidoEirE

EagererBeaver wrote: »

If anybody was interested, which they shouldn't be as it's very illegal and bold, I've heard some rumours that there are 1080p copies available for download.

Been waiting ages for it seems like, just got it so time to bunker down for the next 3 hours:)

Calhoun

Drumpot wrote: »

Just watched it again, it’s growing on me like infinity war.

Love it at the end where WS says “I will miss you cap” or something like that. Didn’t click when I first saw it.

Really good fan service movie that’s got something for everybody.

WS ?

Slydice

Winter Soldier

Calhoun

Ah i was like thinking back who was there at the end, was like there was Bucky, Sam and Hulk. Was like what does WS stand for lol.

ziggyman17

Finally got around to seeing it last night....... Very disappointed with it, 3 hours of nothing... This particular story arc has been flogged to death,

sticker

ziggyman17 wrote: »

Finally got around to seeing it last night....... Very disappointed with it, 3 hours of nothing... This particular story arc has been flogged to death,

Couldn't agree more. Cannot fathom the critical acclaim of this one. This coming from a huge Marvel movie fan...

Relikk

Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Not a bad movie, but not great one either. Nowhere near as good as Infinity War and the whole time travel and alternate universes/timelines shtick, whether it's movies or TV, is boring and has been boring for a long time. I have zero interest in what's coming in "Phase 4", also.

sticker

Relikk wrote: »

Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Not a bad movie, but not great one either. Nowhere near as good as Infinity War and the whole time travel and alternate universes/timelines shtick, whether it's movies or TV, is boring and has been boring for a long time. I have zero interest in what's coming in "Phase 4", also.

Yeah... infinity war was near prefect... a huge drop to Endgame.

The Golden Miller

Why didn't Bucky become Captain America?

Captain Marvel is beautiful

AidoEirE

The planned line up of the next films doesnt drag me in.
Im all marvel'd out i think.

To be fair, i watched this again last night and still enjoyed it. Thanos is such a brilliant villan. Brolin does him superbly.

Got goosebumps in the cinema when cap gives the "Avengers.............Assemble" and i got it again last night. Loved that ****

Stop moaning ffs

To be fair This was 21 or 22 films leading to this film. That’s a pretty substantial achievement both in story telling and audience engagement. Over ten years.

Mileage may vary on how the finale paid off for each of us. Very differently it seems.

That said I think they should let it rest for a few years. The same talent arent involved in the next phase. And people even hardcore fans might need a breather after endgame. And how it ended.

I dunno.

AidoEirE

Problem is i think after rewatching, they've lost two of the most genuine characters in Cap and Ironman, and two bloody good actors who portayed the rolea perfectly.

Problem is
Captain America and Iromman are finished and do i really give a **** about the rest of the group. The dynamic between those 2 tied this whole phase together.

So it will be hard to get me invested again in the next phase after those 2 dying/living on

Kermit.de.frog

It's just fan service.

When you see as many "easter eggs" in one film you know it's to cover a bad plot and story.

This is not an ok film. It's a bad film only held up by what went before and hype. On it's own it's dreadful.

With Cap, ScarJo and Ironman gone I might bail on this at this point tbh.

El Duda

ziggyman17 wrote: »

3 hours of nothing

Some people do not deserve films

johnny_ultimate

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s a pretty substantial achievement both in story telling and audience engagement. Over ten years.

I've hard this a lot and I'm not entirely convinced by it TBH. It's primarily an achievement of logistics and raw corporate financial investment above all else.

The MCU is actually fairly rudimentary when it comes to long-form or serialised storytelling. The vast majority of entries are essentially standalone with limited character development or major narrative stakes carrying over from film to film. That might seem harsh, but you can fairly easily dip into any of the films (Endgame arguably aside since it's part two of a two part story) and get a good grip on everything that's important. Sure, some details do payoff over multiple films (and Endgame is heavier on callbacks than any of the others), but they're pretty straightforward. Even if you take Captain America's arc in terms of his relationship with Peggy - one storyline that does legitimately echo across several of the movies - there are multiple films where that's at best an afterthought and often completely insignificant.

If you contrast it to serialised storytelling in TV, it's a whole different thing. You can't dip into an episode of a long-form, multi-series 'prestige' drama easily - watch episode 8 of Breaking Bad season 4 and you'll lose most of the nuance even if you grasp a vague idea of the current conflict. Watch Avengers: Infinity War without having seen Iron Man 3 or Black Panther and you'll be grand.

Obviously TV and film are different mediums so they're hardly going to be the same thing, but I don't really believe the MCU so far has been a particularly complicated form of multi-part storytelling even with that in mind. The only substantial link many of the films have to each other is a post-credits teaser. I mean, a certain amount of credit is due for getting all these A-list actors in the same place for large amounts of time reasonably regularly, and releasing two dozen films in such quick succession fairly efficiently (a few eyebrow raising cases of dropped directors aside). But as said I feel that's more of a logistical achievement than an artistic one - and I did not get anywhere near the same thrill from the climactic 22nd Marvel film as I did from, say, seasons of careful, complex build up coming to a head in Breaking Bad or The Shield.

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've hard this a lot and I'm not entirely convinced by it TBH. It's primarily an achievement of logistics and raw corporate financial investment above all else.

The MCU is actually fairly rudimentary when it comes to long-form or serialised storytelling. The vast majority of entries are essentially standalone with limited character development or major narrative stakes carrying over from film to film. That might seem harsh, but you can fairly easily dip into any of the films (Endgame arguably aside since it's part two of a two part story) and get a good grip on everything that's important. Sure, some details do payoff over multiple films (and Endgame is heavier on callbacks than any of the others), but they're pretty straightforward. Even if you take Captain America's arc in terms of his relationship with Peggy - one storyline that does legitimately echo across several of the movies - there are multiple films where that's at best an afterthought and often completely insignificant.

If you contrast it to serialised storytelling in TV, it's a whole different thing. You can't dip into an episode of a long-form, multi-series 'prestige' drama easily - watch episode 8 of Breaking Bad season 4 and you'll lose most of the nuance even if you grasp a vague idea of the current conflict. Watch Avengers: Infinity War without having seen Iron Man 3 or Black Panther and you'll be grand.

Obviously TV and film are different mediums so they're hardly going to be the same thing, but I don't really believe the MCU so far has been a particularly complicated form of multi-part storytelling even with that in mind. The only substantial link many of the films have to each other is a post-credits teaser. I mean, a certain amount of credit is due for getting all these A-list actors in the same place for large amounts of time reasonably regularly, and releasing two dozen films in such quick succession fairly efficiently (a few eyebrow raising cases of dropped directors aside). But as said I feel that's more of a logistical achievement than an artistic one - and I did not get anywhere near the same thrill from the climactic 22nd Marvel film as I did from, say, seasons of careful, complex build up coming to a head in Breaking Bad or The Shield.

I feel you’re really speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. I don’t get how you claim to accept that TV and films are different mediums but then judge the complexity of the MCU blockbuster to two of the most critically acclaimed shows in history. You also seem to see it as a negative that it is possible to dip into most of the MCU movies without the requirement of watching all of the others. Are Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul also ‘pretty straight forward’ because you can easily enjoy the latter without necessarily watching the former?

Attempting to downplay the link between many of the movies to a ‘post-credit teaser’ is just wrong. I agree each movie has a differing impact on the MCU but characters regularly cross paths throughout, their actions impact the universe they all live in, these impacts drive the narratives of later movies, items that appear in earlier movies become key in later movies (e.g. infinity stones and quantum realm), and we see characters develop throughout the movies.

Your chose of comparison in your argument to the shows you chose actually says it all about the achievement of the MCU. They’ve managed to succeed in doing what many in the film industry failed in the past, despite many previous efforts working with smaller worlds and better known and relatable characters than the MCU. Just because the complexity doesn’t reach the levels of top TV shows doesn’t lessen the acheivement in storyteling and audience engagement.

johnny_ultimate

Foxtrol wrote: »

I feel you’re really speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. I don’t get how you claim to accept that TV and films are different mediums but then judge the complexity of the MCU blockbuster to two of the most critically acclaimed shows in history.

I don't think the MCU should be 'TV, but films', don't get me wrong - but equally don't really feel it's taken advantage of being a long-form, multi-faceted story in any particularly interesting way beyond regular crossovers of escalating scale

You also seem to see it as a negative that it is possible to dip into most of the MCU movies without the requirement of watching all of the others.

This goes both ways in my view. Sometimes it's cool that they're standalone - I have no problem with Black Panther or Thor Ragnarok being somewhat their own things. Other times - like Captain Marvel or Thor 2 - I find it frustrating. I guess from my perspective it's a two-fold problem: 1) that they don't diverge enough from each other to be completely unique, interesting standalone entities and 2) that they don't combine in interesting enough ways to justify what's often stylistic and structural homogeneity. What you're left with is sort of a bland middle ground.

Are Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul also ‘pretty straight forward’ because you can easily enjoy the latter without necessarily watching the former?

Definitely not straightforward, because they're both interesting, ambitious and complex pieces of work, and BCS is designed to be its own thing while also expanding on the world of BB in rich and fascinating ways. I don't think a prequel like Captain Marvel tells us anything much of substance about the other films, in comparison.

Attempting to downplay the link between many of the movies to a ‘post-credit teaser’ is just wrong. I agree each movie has a differing impact on the MCU but characters regularly cross paths throughout, their actions impact the universe they all live in, these impacts drive the narratives of later movies, items that appear in earlier movies become key in later movies (e.g. infinity stones and quantum realm), and we see characters develop throughout the movies.

I guess we're bound to disagree here - I will happily admit to my major problem with the MCU is that most of the films IMO aren't particularly good, and certainly none of them are great (Black Panther and Ragnarok being the closest). I've just never really felt the events of the individual films complicate what comes next in anything other than a surface level way. Sure, McGuffins, characters and plot details are shared to varying degrees, no doubt about that. But to take one example: I don't really feel any of the films after Civil War really expand on the conflicts or dynamics that emerge at the end of that film - everything's tidied up rather nicely by the time Infinity War and Endgame roll about (credit, to be fair, to Endgame for finding the time for stuff on Tony Stark meeting his father - one of the few worthwhile advantages of the time travel gimmickry).

Just because the complexity doesn’t reach the levels of top TV shows doesn’t lessen the acheivement in storyteling and audience engagement.

Audience engagement, sure - my personal view that most of the films are a bit meh is a minority one given the passionate following they've garnered. Some of that is surely helped by the infinite marketing budget (much of the MCU is the result of *staggering* amounts of money), but I also don't doubt the sincerity of many fans' fondness for the films. And sure, other 'shared universes' have fallen flat on their faces (still chuckle occasionally at the 'Dark Universe' :P). Storytelling, though... I'll have to agree to disagree with out there

batgoat

Think you're pretty much spot on Johnny, that one about the impact of Civil War particularly. It came out the ideal time given the situation in the US but didn't manage to continue that politicised narrative around it. And the comics did have that to some extent. Instead it just rapidly progressed into hero unit back together.

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't think the MCU should be 'TV, but films', don't get me wrong - but equally don't really feel it's taken advantage of being a long-form, multi-faceted story in any particularly interesting way beyond regular crossovers of escalating scale

Again, to me when you accept that they are a different mediums, with different requirements, then it is completely unfair to grade MCU blockbusters against the complexity of the most acclaimed TV shows. You are entitled to feel that it hasn’t met what you think is possible but it doesn’t downplay the achievement of what they accomplished.

This goes both ways in my view. Sometimes it's cool that they're standalone - I have no problem with Black Panther or Thor Ragnarok being somewhat their own things. Other times - like Captain Marvel or Thor 2 - I find it frustrating. I guess from my perspective it's a two-fold problem: 1) that they don't diverge enough from each other to be completely unique, interesting standalone entities and 2) that they don't combine in interesting enough ways to justify what's often stylistic and structural homogeneity. What you're left with is sort of a bland middle ground.

I understand that some have issues with the stylistic and structural content of the MCU, but this issue is completely different to what you disagreed with in your OP.

Definitely not straightforward, because they're both interesting, ambitious and complex pieces of work, and BCS is designed to be its own thing while also expanding on the world of BB in rich and fascinating ways. I don't think a prequel like Captain Marvel tells us anything much of substance about the other films, in comparison.

Many of the complaints thrown at MCU movies can be used against those two shows - at times only surface level connection to each other, unnecessary characters forced in for fan service, pointless easter eggs, ability to dip into one show and not the other… To me it is hypocritical to look at only the positives in one and the negatives in the other.

I’d argue there is plenty of substance added in Captain Marvel – it introduced us to a key new character that would become pivotal in later movies, expands on the backstory of other characters we did know, and looks to have set up key elements of Phase 5 and beyond.

I guess we're bound to disagree here - I will happily admit to my major problem with the MCU is that most of the films IMO aren't particularly good, and certainly none of them are great (Black Panther and Ragnarok being the closest). I've just never really felt the events of the individual films complicate what comes next in anything other than a surface level way. Sure, McGuffins, characters and plot details are shared to varying degrees, no doubt about that. But to take one example: I don't really feel any of the films after Civil War really expand on the conflicts or dynamics that emerge at the end of that film - everything's tidied up rather nicely by the time Infinity War and Endgame roll about (credit, to be fair, to Endgame for finding the time for stuff on Tony Stark meeting his father - one of the few worthwhile advantages of the time travel gimmickry).

The impact of Civil War was in no way nicely tidied up by IW and Endgame. The Avengers were completely fragmented, some on the run and others under house arrest, and there was clearly continuing animosity between characters right into Endgame. Civil War itself is a great example of how the events of the other movies impact well beyond the surface, with the arcs that IM and CA take across several movies driving their actions and the world itself - Tony’s carefree days before he put on the suit in IM1 to becoming increasingly paranoid through Avengers, IM3, and AoU; CA’s yearning to follow orders in CA1 to becoming distrusting of power through Avengers, CA2, AoU, and a world that originally saw Iron Man as a hero in IM1 but throughout the later movies become increasingly worried about the collateral damage the ‘heroes’ have caused.

Audience engagement, sure - my personal view that most of the films are a bit meh is a minority one given the passionate following they've garnered. Some of that is surely helped by the infinite marketing budget (much of the MCU is the result of *staggering* amounts of money), but I also don't doubt the sincerity of many fans' fondness for the films. And sure, other 'shared universes' have fallen flat on their faces (still chuckle occasionally at the 'Dark Universe' :P). Storytelling, though... I'll have to agree to disagree with out there

Yeah, it’ll definitely be agreeing to disagree. I don’t see how a person, even one who may have liked things done differently, doesn’t see storytelling at a scale never before seen in film, and likely never again in our lifetimes, as not being an achievement.

Dades

I finally watched this recently.

I'll fess up, though, I'm worn out with superhero movies, and just wanted to complete the set. They've been to the well too many times for me.

Black Panther was different, Ragnarok was great and Infinity War was a spectacle. Endgame was really just more of the same though we're being coaxed into believing this is some sort of emotional finale. It's well made. But there's way too many characters to give a crap about.

I'm bemused at the high profile critics/fans talking openly about the amount of times they cried. Crying during a superhero movie? Really? That said, Toy Story 3 did it for me.

To each their own!

EagererBeaver

Foxtrol wrote: »

I feel you’re really speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Some people take this **** way too seriously.

Foxtrol

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Some people take this **** way too seriously.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think it's a pop at Johnny, cos, you know, imagine having an opinion on the largest film series on the planet, spanning 50+ hours of story and character. Crazy stuff :rolleyes:

Joao Cancelo

Dades wrote: »

I finally watched this recently.

I'll fess up, though, I'm worn out with superhero movies, and just wanted to complete the set. They've been to the well too many times for me.

Black Panther was different, Ragnarok was great and Infinity War was a spectacle. Endgame was really just more of the same though we're being coaxed into believing this is some sort of emotional finale. It's well made. But there's way too many characters to give a crap about.

I'm bemused at the high profile critics/fans talking openly about the amount of times they cried. Crying during a superhero movie? Really? That said, Toy Story 3 did it for me.

To each their own!

Ragnorak was spoiled by trying too hard to be funny, Valkyrie flipped from a badass antagonist to a comic relief character faster than you can snap your fingers!

Dades

Joao Cancelo wrote: »

Ragnorak was spoiled by trying too hard to be funny, Valkyrie flipped from a badass antagonist to a comic relief character faster than you can snap your fingers!

The humour was what made it for me. I'm tired of poe-faced lads in capes being all Lawrence Olivier whilst chasing a cartoon bad-guy who's trying to find jewels for his magic gauntlet.

El Duda

You can tell when people have started watching new releases via dodgy, poor quality download can't you?

Its funny when there is a sudden spat of negative reviews miraculously appearing inbetween the end of the cinema run and the release of the DVD. It happens in most threads on here.