The MCU - Marvel Cinematic Universe

[JNHFan2000 2,974]

New trailer tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edmilson 7,504]

According to Forbes, Disney spent $276 million on Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania after some tax reimbursement from the UK government. Since studios only take approx. half of a movie's box office, this means they had a $38 million loss on Quantumania.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/19/ant-man-and-the-wasp-quantumania-set-to-blow-its-budget-as-costs-surge-to-nearly-330-million/

[Tallguy 3,410]

I've been seeing that headline a lot lately. I don't get how a movie that came out last year is "set to blow its budget" now. Is the movie somehow doing worse than it did a year ago when it was a bomb?

[JNHFan2000 2,974]

 

[Edmilson 7,504]

I like that Wolvie now has comic-accurate suit, but tbh I think older Jackman looks a bit ridiculous in it. I dunno. Movie looks fun though. 

 

12 hours ago, Tallguy said:

I've been seeing that headline a lot lately. I don't get how a movie that came out last year is "set to blow its budget" now. Is the movie somehow doing worse than it did a year ago when it was a bomb?

This writer from Forbes has been revealing the massive budgets on many recent Hollywood movies over the last few months. Aside from the Quantumania I posted, there's another one from Indy 5 which I posted on the respective thread:

 

Plus another one from Universal's Fast X:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/17/universal-reveals-over-budget-fast-x-cost-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars/

 

And just to say she isn't completely negative, here she calculates the humongous profits that Infinity War and Endgame made for Disney despite their monstrous budgets:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/01/revealed-the-two-avengers-movies-that-made-14-billion-of-profit-for-disney/

 

Either way, the fact is that, partially due to filming during the pandemic, movie costs have grown exponentially over the last few years. It's no wonder Bob Iger wants to cut costs on the Disney productions.

[JNHFan2000 2,974]

There's a wider shot in the trailer where there are a lot of people standing in frame, there's some fun cameo's there that I didn't expect to see.

[Dr. Rick 1,157]

Time stamp?

[Edmilson 7,504]

Is this a giant Ant-Man helmet? If so, does that mean they went for an apocalyptic version of the main MCU universe in the future, where Ant-Man's giant armor is lying on the ground? 

 

 

Also, for a moment I thought this James McAvoy's version of Charles Xavier, but then re-watching it and this character is clearly a female. Maybe one of Doctor Strange's magicians? Since on the other scene they're going through a Dr Strange magic portal.

 

[JNHFan2000 2,974]

The wide shot I mentioned is posted above by Edmilson. You can see Lady Deathstrike & Azazel.

 

@Edmilson that's Cassandra Nova played by Emma Corrin. Xavier's twin sister.

It's been revealed.

[Edmilson 7,504]

Every cameo from the trailer:

 

https://comicbookmovie.com/deadpool/deadpool-wolverine/deadpool-wolverine-every-major-marvel-cameo-in-the-new-trailer---possible-spoilers-a210574

 

And 7 Easter Eggs and revelations:

 

https://comicbookmovie.com/deadpool/deadpool-wolverine/deadpool-wolverine-7-biggest-easter-eggs-reveals-and-spoilers-in-the-new-trailer-a210575

 

Spoilers in both links, so be careful.

 

Anyway...

Spoiler

On the second link people are speculating that the Wolverine from this movie is not the same from the Fox movies (whether it's the original timeline or the First Class timeline). Firstly because that one died in Logan, and also this "new" Wolverine is from a reality where he failed to save it from being destroyed or something - perhaps Cassandra Nova was the responsible? Also, people are saying it's from this reality that the Beats from the The Marvels post-credits scene is from.

 

[Jay 37,419]

[Edmilson 7,504]

Comic book writer Mark Millar said on Twitter that Ant-Man's giant dead body from the Deadpool & Wolverine trailer could be a nod to his comic Old Man Logan. That book is set in an alternate reality where the Marvel villains attacked at once, killed almost every hero and Wolverine (after being unintentionally responsible for the death of the X-Men, courtesy of Mysterio), retired to a quiet life until being brought back in action for a final mission.

 

Interestingly, elements of that book were already used in 2017's Logan. This means that Hollywood writers and directors working on superhero movies only read, like, the same three or four comics in their lives.

[Edmilson 7,504]

Chris Hemsworth Takes Blame for ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ Failure: ‘I Got Caught Up in the Improv and the Wackiness’ and ‘Became a Parody of Myself’

 

It's not his sole fault. Waititi tried to be the most wacky and silly and stupid he could be and the movie became Ace Ventura with Superheroes.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,597]

Remind me again.

LOVE AND THUNDER.

Is that the one where Banner gets stranded on some planet, and is forced to fight?

[Tallguy 3,410]

23 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Remind me again.

LOVE AND THUNDER.

Is that the one where Banner gets stranded on some planet, and is forced to fight?

 

No, that's Ragnarok.

 

I continue to be baffled by the people that loved Ragnarok, but thought L&T was awful. Other than Ragnarok had Loki and Banner, what's the difference?

[Faleel 5,380]

30 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

No, that's Ragnarok.

 

I continue to be baffled by the people that loved Ragnarok, but thought L&T was awful. Other than Ragnarok had Loki and Banner, what's the difference?

Mark Mothersbaugh. And Led Zeppelin

[ddddeeee 262]

The humour in Ragnarok is almost always about character. 

 

In Ragnarok, there's a play depicting Loki's death. It's hilarious, but it tells you absolutely everything you need to know about Loki: he craves affection from his brother and father and has no idea how to go about it. Loki's arc and relationships are completely set up in that scene.

 

In Love and Thunder, there's a play scene depicting the events in Ragnarok because...people found the play scene funny in Ragnarok.

 

To me, the difference in those two scenes sums up the movies. Ragnarok is never laughing at Thor. He has a good story, learning to not make the same mistakes of his father while learning to lead. Loki, Valkyrie, Korg and Banner/Hulk's little arcs all revolve around Thor - he helps them all to become better people.

 

Love and Thunder laughs at Thor. He takes nothing seriously and is completely inept a lot of the time. The style of humour is similar in both movies, but the context is entirely different.

[mstrox 6,654]

I liked Love and Thunder a bit more than most, I think - but my biggest “problem” with it was that it was very episodic, so not extremely cohesive as a two hour movie. I also didn’t like the Olympus stuff, didn’t think it clicked as interesting or fun. 

[Mr. Who 920]

7 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

The humour in Ragnarok is almost always about character. 

 

In Ragnarok, there's a play depicting Loki's death. It's hilarious, but it tells you absolutely everything you need to know about Loki: he craves affection from his brother and father and has no idea how to go about it. Loki's arc and relationships are completely set up in that scene.

 

In Love and Thunder, there's a play scene depicting the events in Ragnarok because...people found the play scene funny in Ragnarok.

 

To me, the difference in those two scenes sums up the movies. Ragnarok is never laughing at Thor. He has a good story, learning to not make the same mistakes of his father while learning to lead. Loki, Valkyrie, Korg and Banner/Hulk's little arcs all revolve around Thor - he helps them all to become better people.

 

Love and Thunder laughs at Thor. He takes nothing seriously and is completely inept a lot of the time. The style of humour is similar in both movies, but the context is entirely different.

I agree completely with this. While I prefer a more serious tone for Thor, I think ragnarok was great for the reasons stated above. In Love and Thunder Thor is an idiot whose character development is completely removed and he acts more like in the first film before he became worthy, destroying a whole city (in the prologue) because he’s an idiot etc.

[Edmilson 7,504]

46 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

No, that's Ragnarok.

 

I continue to be baffled by the people that loved Ragnarok, but thought L&T was awful. Other than Ragnarok had Loki and Banner, what's the difference?

I'm not a fan of either of them. Ragnarok was decent but I don't think it is in the upper echelon of MCU movies like most people think.

[Dr. Rick 1,157]

Here's a good video summing up the differences between the two.  Why one worked and the other did not.

 

 

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,610]

2 hours ago, mstrox said:

I liked Love and Thunder a bit more than most, I think - but my biggest “problem” with it was that it was very episodic, so not extremely cohesive as a two hour movie. I also didn’t like the Olympus stuff, didn’t think it clicked as interesting or fun. 

 

It was definitely missing something... like THIS scene inexplicably left on the cutting room floor!

 

Yavar

[Naïve Old Fart 9,597]

2 hours ago, Faleel said:

Mark Mothersbaugh. And Led Zeppelin

 

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO had Led Zep, and that was awesome.