Avengers: End Game w/SPOILERS

[MDC 5,890]

Seems like 40 superhero movies per year.  

Here’s where we are heading.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Just now, riversco said:

People don't pay $15 to see a low budget film.  Audiences expect amazing special effects and loud explosions for their money.

As if special effects and explosions weren't common fare the last several decades? And the only people watching movies now are people who only watch action movies?

[JustinCharge 2,397]

3 minutes ago, ZeroTolerance said:

As if special effects and explosions weren't common fare the last several decades? And the only people watching movies now are people who only watch action movies?

It changed recently.  You could draw big audiences with low budget films in the past.  Not today.

I think the last bow budget film to do really well was american beauty in 1999.

[Djgb13 2,338]

Don’t know why you guys are arguing about this. Some of the guys here are doing it for obvious trolling reasons. Others just honestly don’t care for them. Everyone has different tastes. And honestly a lot of guys here are so insignificant they try to make themselves feel important here. I just don’t give a sh1t anymore about the obvious idiots here who do the same sh1t in different threads. I’ve just got no more focks to give

 

 (FYI epic song and worth a listen) 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

There is a new genre coming:  Chinese films.  Wolf Warrior 2 made $874 million on a $30 million budget.  So there's that.  10 years from now, half of the films with the biggest box office might be these Chinese films.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

12 minutes ago, riversco said:

It changed recently.  You could draw big audiences with low budget films in the past.  Not today.

I think the last bow budget film to do really well was american beauty in 1999.

Why does a movie have to have a low budget to 'count'? You think a movie with a budget of 70 million automatically makes it just special effects and explosions (and thus, not a good movie)? The Passion of the Christ, $30 mil budget in 2004, 3rd in the box office. Right behind it was Meet the Fockers, which was a basic, non-special effects and explosions comedy movie but cost $80 million. 

 

2017, Moonlight. $4 million budget, grossed $65 million. Movies still exist that aren't special effects and explosions. Just like they existed in the 1990s. And if you go back to the 90s, for example, you will notice that, hey, the top of the charts back then was also action movies and movies with special effects. This isn't an insane new phenomenon.

[MDC 5,890]

I don’t care for superhero movies AND I am trolling.

Seriously I don’t care if adults want to watch that stuff. I do sort of feel stuff like the MCU movies, the Walking Dead and Game of Thrones being the dominant culture right now is a symptom of the infantalization of the American public. But I watch read listen to plenty of stuff that people would feel the same way about.

Mostly I’m a hipster dooshbag having fun with you guys. Don’t be so sensitive.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

I'm honestly not sensitive or offended, I'm not going to enjoy or not enjoy a show or a movie more or less because random people on an internet message board hate it or like it, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind some of these arguments from the guys who aren't just obviously trolling.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

14 minutes ago, ZeroTolerance said:

Why does a movie have to have a low budget to 'count'? You think a movie with a budget of 70 million automatically makes it just special effects and explosions (and thus, not a good movie)? The Passion of the Christ, $30 mil budget in 2004, 3rd in the box office. Right behind it was Meet the Fockers, which was a basic, non-special effects and explosions comedy movie but cost $80 million. 

 

2017, Moonlight. $4 million budget, grossed $65 million. Movies still exist that aren't special effects and explosions. Just like they existed in the 1990s. And if you go back to the 90s, for example, you will notice that, hey, the top of the charts back then was also action movies and movies with special effects. This isn't an insane new phenomenon.

I'm just saying, if you pitch a film made with a $4 million budget and hope to hit $65 million, they might ignore you.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

I think Spielberg is starting to shoot Indiana Jones 5 this month!

[ZeroTolerance 582]

I think you are just too focused on big budget films that have large success, which always existed. Just to glance at some random picks here.

2018 - three movies I can see off of the bat that had budgets under $40 million and made $170 million or more including A Quiet Place at just $17 million

2017 - Get Out, $4.5 million budget, Universal Studios, made $176 mil (Split also made $138 on a budget of $9 million)

Several more in 2016, etc. Studios are still making movies on lower budgets, and there are still movies making plenty of money on lower budgets. If anything, superhero movies aren't some massive new dynamic that has turned all of the movie industry on it's head, they are simply the current fad of action films (and that is also nothing new...the 1970s were completely loaded with big budget disaster films, the 1980s were loaded with big budget sci-fi action films, etc).

[Cdub100 3,380]

Oh good you guys let the slap d1cks troll you and now the thread is rooned 

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

All i know...i dont care about cgi...i want a good story

Avengers and all 22 films were great stories

[wiffleball 4,640]

4 hours ago, riversco said:

It changed recently.  You could draw big audiences with low budget films in the past.  Not today.

I think the last bow budget film to do really well was american beauty in 1999.

Pitch Perfect.

Get out.

There are more.

[wiffleball 4,640]

4 hours ago, riversco said:

I think Spielberg is starting to shoot Indiana Jones 5 this month!

I want to know what the hell happened to James Cameron. Dude has gone all Apocalypse Now with Avatar sequels.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

8 hours ago, ZeroTolerance said:

I think you are just too focused on big budget films that have large success, which always existed. Just to glance at some random picks here.

2018 - three movies I can see off of the bat that had budgets under $40 million and made $170 million or more including A Quiet Place at just $17 million

2017 - Get Out, $4.5 million budget, Universal Studios, made $176 mil (Split also made $138 on a budget of $9 million)

Several more in 2016, etc. Studios are still making movies on lower budgets, and there are still movies making plenty of money on lower budgets. If anything, superhero movies aren't some massive new dynamic that has turned all of the movie industry on it's head, they are simply the current fad of action films (and that is also nothing new...the 1970s were completely loaded with big budget disaster films, the 1980s were loaded with big budget sci-fi action films, etc).

Making $170 million on $40 million sucks, especially since the advertising budget is traditionally the same as production costs.  So they spent $80 million to net $90 million.  They just don't care about those kind of numbers anymore.  Studios want to spend $300 million and gross $2.5 billion. 

I'm just saying, they aren't going to be making anything but action blockbusters and horror films pretty soon.  Anything else goes straight to netflix.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

15 minutes ago, riversco said:

Making $170 million on $40 million sucks, especially since the advertising budget is traditionally the same as production costs.  So they spent $80 million to net $90 million.  They just don't care about those kind of numbers anymore.  Studios want to spend $300 million and gross $2.5 billion. 

I'm just saying, they aren't going to be making anything but action blockbusters and horror films pretty soon.  Anything else goes straight to netflix.

Guess me going to the theatre maybe once a year thing will go to zero then. I'd rather watch movies at home anyway. 

[Djgb13 2,338]

45 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Guess me going to the theatre maybe once a year thing will go to zero then. I'd rather watch movies at home anyway. 

Honestly I think just about everyone hits that point when they get older. I saw where they were asking people if they would spend a little extra money to stream a new movie that was released at home. Like $20-$30 to stream a movie on its opening weekend. Depending on the movie, I wouldn’t mind doing that. Cause if you have two people like my wife and I then you’re spending about that much already on tickets and more if you get popcorn and a drink like we do. I think they should do that honestly cause who wouldn’t want to watch the movie in the comfort of their own home 

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

10 hours ago, ZeroTolerance said:

I'm honestly not sensitive or offended, I'm not going to enjoy or not enjoy a show or a movie more or less because random people on an internet message board hate it or like it, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind some of these arguments from the guys who aren't just obviously trolling.

Wait, we don't have to take these contrary opinions as gospel?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

44 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Honestly I think just about everyone hits that point when they get older. I saw where they were asking people if they would spend a little extra money to stream a new movie that was released at home. Like $20-$30 to stream a movie on its opening weekend. Depending on the movie, I wouldn’t mind doing that. Cause if you have two people like my wife and I then you’re spending about that much already on tickets and more if you get popcorn and a drink like we do. I think they should do that honestly cause who wouldn’t want to watch the movie in the comfort of their own home 

I would much rather do that. Sit on my couch with no pants and eat my own food and watch it or fight traffic and crowds of and get gouged. 

[Djgb13 2,338]

1 hour ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

I would much rather do that. Sit on my couch with no pants and eat my own food and watch it or fight traffic and crowds of and get gouged. 

From my understanding they are looking in to that currently. Would be SO much better than having to deal with movie theaters. Of course it might put them out of business but who knows. There is DEFINITELY a market for it 

[Mookz 1,287]

What was the Stan Lee cameo?  I heard there was one. 

[Djgb13 2,338]

20 minutes ago, Mookz said:

What was the Stan Lee cameo?  I heard there was one. 

During the time travel. He was in a car that road by and said “make love not war” 

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

55 minutes ago, Mookz said:

What was the Stan Lee cameo?  I heard there was one. 

It was hard to see as it was in the background, but he was curb-stomping Jack Kirby.   

[MDC 5,890]

49 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

During the time travel. He was in a car that road by and said “make love not war” 

CGI or was it a Weekend at Bernie’s thing?

[Djgb13 2,338]

24 minutes ago, MDC said:

CGI or was it a Weekend at Bernie’s thing?

It was filmed before he died. 

[Mookz 1,287]

42 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

It was filmed before he died. 

Ah, credit to the director for that decision. 

[kutulu 1,545]

29 minutes ago, Mookz said:

Ah, credit to the director for that decision. 

Excelsior! 

[DonS 3,067]

On 4/26/2019 at 5:38 PM, Cdub100 said:

You would love a scene in the final battle where it screams girl power

I just saw it and came into this thread to mention this. So focking lame. "Menstruation Squad assemble!!!" 

And Gwenyth Paltrow was only there because her hubby gave her a suit as a present...

Was I the only one looking at Scarlet Witch's cleavage when Thanos had her pinned down? 

[Djgb13 2,338]

6 minutes ago, DonS said:

I just saw it and came into this thread to mention this. So focking lame. "Menstruation Squad assemble!!!" 

And Gwenyth Paltrow was only there because her hubby gave her a suit as a present...

Was I the only one looking at Scarlet Witch's cleavage when Thanos had her pinned down? 

That scene was SO forced that you could hear people groaning in the theater over it. Like wtf is Mantis gonna do out there in the front line? Only part of the movie that was straight dumb. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

On 4/27/2019 at 10:09 PM, Djgb13 said:

Good movie. Was awesome. Lived up to the hype. Now taking the wife to grab some after movie tacos before heading home. Hope everyone is enjoying their Saturday night instead of sitting at home on the computer posting here constantly 

And he proceeds to keep posting on that very Saturday night. Lol. 

[DonS 3,067]

25 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

That scene was SO forced that you could hear people groaning in the theater over it. Like wtf is Mantis gonna do out there in the front line? Only part of the movie that was straight dumb. 

Totally forgot about Mantis.  Is she going to massage the oncoming enemies temples and make them go to sleep? 

[Djgb13 2,338]

22 minutes ago, DonS said:

Totally forgot about Mantis.  Is she going to massage the oncoming enemies temples and make them go to sleep? 

Haha not sure. But everyone hated how forced it was. That seems like it backfired for a lot of people 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

So I got my kids a happy meal today. The tie in was the Avengers. Must be nice to know the movies you watch are marketed towards 5 year olds. Lol. 

[cbfalcon 824]

12 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So I got my kids a happy meal today. The tie in was the Avengers. Must be nice to know the movies you watch are marketed towards 5 year olds. Lol. 

I’m more taken aback to learn that there is someone that would have kids with you

[Cdub100 3,380]

13 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So I got my kids a happy meal today. The tie in was the Avengers. Must be nice to know the movies you watch are marketed towards 5 year olds. Lol. 

Those are some cool toys