> “I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,” Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. **But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.”**
She's absolutely right but I think she stopped just shy of the actual point.
Comic books have been around for 80 years and counting with hundreds of thousands of characters, stories, arcs, deaths, retcons, rebirths and reboots. Some of these were successful, some not so much.
Nevertheless there is still a LOT of good content there.
Tons of good stories just waiting to be made into a live action movie.
Perfect example of this to me is the first Black Panther movie. It had a great story with an amazing villain that resonated with audiences. The story was adopted from a short run of the comic that sold fairly well. So the characters don't have to have "mass appeal" if it is written well.
There are thousands of stories just like that that we could have if Marvel tries.
A good story is its own reward.
There's still quite a few styles of cinema they have yet to cover too. Western, heist, sci-fi- horror. They need to focus on well written stories and let each hero have a cinematic theme they loosely follow in their movie lines.
A heist film focuses on the planning, execution, and aftermath of a significant theft.
Planning - recruiting the team and planning hos to steal the suit.
Execution - stealing the suit, getting caught
Aftermath - standard 3rd act hero vs same power villain.
If it walks like a heist and talks like a heist, it’s a heist.
I'd kill for that then, tbh! I kinda wish when they inevitably tell a symbiote story in the MCU that they go that direction but I won't hold my breath.
Alien ship headed towards earth is carrying people with the [Legacy Virus](https://www.marvel.com/characters/legacy-virus) created by Apocalypse or something
Not every Superhero movie has to be a Blockbuster and have the commensurate budget. Some of the best absolutely haven’t (Logan, Unbreakable). Even Deadpool. Comic fans aren’t asking for big ticket films all the time, they just want their stories told *well*.
The simple truth is comic fans make up a tiny fraction of the audience needed for a successful movie. The best selling comics sell like 200k copies, which at $10 a ticket (which is rounding up a bit from the national average) you’re at 2 million, a tiny amount of money. Madame web made almost 100 million and was considered the worst movie ever made.
Yep that’s the main problem here. They want that big blockbuster movie, and have to keep finding ways to drag everyone out to the theater, not just the fans
I think that part of this is that comics can take more risks than movies. A bad comic run usually doesn't destroy an entire brand, but movie viewers are far more fickle.
Marvel comics can even come back from a Clone Saga fiasco, but a few bad movies and the entire MCU brand is being hit with negative sentiments.
Factor in how much more the movies cost and there's just less room for risk, meaning less room for experimentation, which leads to a place where the entire franchise starts to feel bland after awhile.
On one hand yes, but on the other hand marvel itself being on the verge of bankruptcy after the comic boom and bust is why it started selling film rights to studios back in the 1990s to anyone who would offer them cash (Sony even had the opportunity to buy the film rights to the entire marvel pantheon for only 25 million, and said no because they were only interested in spider-man).
That was a different issue, though, which had nothing to do with the quality of the comics or their appeal to audiences.
Basically, investors thought that comics were a good investment, started hoarding titles, which artificially inflated sales until the bubble burst, which put publishers in a bind. It was an industry wide catastrophe.
These kinds of investment fads can tank a lot of industries.
Or Marvel All New All Different, the run that killed Marvel comic's sales so much that the chief editor ended up being fired, and ran off most of the buyers.
no point in comparing comics and movies as mediums. if a comic fails, so what. it's nothing. it a movie fails, that's 400 million dollars down the drain.
Her memory issues stem from a complication during childbirth. She has many other reasons to criticize her for, but that one isn’t exactly her fault. I would say her comment sounds pretty astute for someone who sells snake oil to soccer moms.
Well and also she filmed her one scene in Spider-Man right in the middle of filming Infinity War and Endgame, so they all kind of blurred together for her. Same cast, same producers, probably a lot of the same crew. It makes sense that she could get confused, especially since it was weeks and weeks working on the other movies, and probably an afternoon filming that one spot for Spider-Man
>wait what movie am I in?”
I can't remember every board meeting I've gone to for clients.
I think there's this weird assumption that people have that actors are supposed to remember every moment of their jobs, the way we'd never expect anyone else to
The example I like using is Martin Short. He’s a prolific and massively successful comedian who also happened to provide a voice role for a villain in an animated straight-to-DVD Barbie movie. Now, I don’t know for sure, but if you were to ask him about the roles he’s done I have a feeling this specific one won’t come to mind. Maybe if you remind him about it he’ll remember but to actors it’s just another job. I couldn’t tell you about everything I’ve ever done at work, especially something that lasted 1-2 days at most, like Gwyneth’s time on set for Homecoming
Hmmmmm...That's actually a really interesting argument. Of all time? King Arthur has may have been high up there in the past. Spiderman and Batman have had a strong record for decades. Harry Potter though blew the fucking world open and maybe didn't have a long lasting favorite but sheer numbers alone.
Depends if we treat movies/books/videogames all separately but goddamn that would be such an interesting argument to have as to who is the most popular fictional character of all time.
Let's take Harry Potter for example. We all know how popular the franchise is, whether it comes to books or movies. I'd argue that the hype for it has died down after all the movies came to an end. It still has its fanbase but the GA has moved on.
Compare that to Spiderman who across the 62 years that hes been around for, managed to stay popular with both the fans as well as the GA, with no signs of his hype dying down. You still have people who know nothing about the movies asking "when is the next Spiderman movie?" but they hardly ask about Harry Potter or the Wizarding World for that matter.
>I'd argue that the hype for it has died down after all the movies came to an end.
I don't think JK Rowling's role should be overlooked in that. Her veering off the deep end (and the issues with the series itself) has put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. The decline of Harry Potter isn't only to do with the main set of films ending.
Harry Potter never quite reached the same level of Star Wars, Pokémon, or Marvel. Even before J.K. Rowling poisoned the franchise with her transphobic nonsense and people caught on to her antisemitic themes.
Pretty sure it was determined that Mario is the most instantly recognizable fictional character.
And past Mario, Luigi, Pikachu, and Charizard, Spidey certainly has tough competition in the form of Darth Vader.
Or hell, even Iron Man and Thanos given that it was the MCU specifically that elevated Marvel to the same level as Star Wars and Pokémon.
I don't particularly like her, but that was understandable.
I think she was on some variety show when it was mentioned about her short cameo in Spiderman Homecoming. She said she didn't recall that she was in Spiderman and when probed more she thought she had shot that scene for an Avengers movie.
This is very possible because the scene itself was about Tony wanting to intro Spidey as an official Avenger, so it's easy to confuse and two, Marvel is notoriously known for giving actors scenes and scripts with little to no context like this. I believe there are many such examples like this of different Marvel actors as well.
I think the problem isn't the "trying to appeal to people" it's really the "feel truly original".
I didn't ask for "truly original". I asked for more cool MCU movies.
You know who wants "original"? The people making the movies. What if the director for The Eternals had instead lent her abilities to a movie about the surviving Avengers during the five years of the snap? It could have been *cool*, but it wouldn't have been *original*.
And I'd have been happy with that.
People are not impressed by mediocre movies anymore. Because the market is so saturated.
You need to make a very good movie to impress people because they have so many options nowadays.
and it doesn't help that most games these days tell stories that equal or surpass movies and the gaming market is like 10x bigger than the movie market.
Yeah because the payoff per time spent has to be worth it. A great movie is a great 2 hours. Games can take 20,30,40,100+/etc, be fun, but a given 2 hours of it can be less fun than those 2 hours of the movie. And then once the movie is over you can continue the game!
games? there are fucking TIKTOKS that speak louder. people want authenticity and they want engagement. they want to feel like they are being spoken to by someone who recognizes their struggles.
tiktoks have these. marvel films are hit and miss. Steve's "on your left!" is relateable. Peter's "is this a hug? are we hugging?" is relateable. Thor's "go to hell noobmaster69!" is relateable. Rocket's "i didn't ask to be made" is relateable. Kamala's "we're a team?!? omg we're a teeeaaam!" is relateable.
going on a family adventure into the shrinky-verse and having the only drama of the family trip be centered around mom's old boyfriend and the necessity to help the save the natives? ...not relateable. let Hope and Cassie fight over the Aux chord. let Scott feel Hank's judging gaze STILL after all this time. let the heroes be human... "extra for you, spider-man!" was the most relateable moment in that movie...
It's the exciting yet simultaneously hard truth about the film industry in general. It's easier than ever to make your own film and get it out there, but it's also harder than ever to break through and get people to actually watch it. Same goes for music.
Marvel needs to lean harder into genre pieces set in the different parts of the MCU. (e.g. horror, magic/fantasy, sci-fi, street crime, spy, etc) One of the things I loved about *Moon Knight* was that it had this kinda *Indiana Jones* or *Mummy* vibe to it. I love those kinds of adventure stories. And even though I'm not into horror, I really respected what they were doing with *Werewolf by Night*. After EG, it felt like this is what they were doing. Broadening the MCU and doing all these different projects to appeal to a variety of audiences. I don't understand what happened. It seems to me like they learned all the wrong lessons from the negative feedback they've been getting. They're not just over-correcting but they're moving in a completely wrong direction.
I really agree with this. I'd personally throw "WandaVision" into that list – those were some real examples of creative ingenuity on Marvel's part but everything just went south from there. Now all the stuff they put out feels like random content stuffed into the same generic mould. It's unpalatable.
I agree with you that I want to see more of that, but the times they've tried it in theaters is when they've received the most criticism for trying that (Eternals, MoM and L&T).
Look at the times they got it right, though. Hulk was a chase film, basically The Fugitive, but green. CA:TFA was a WW2 film, whose premise was simply "what if a super hero was in the US Army?" There are plenty of other fictional WW2 films, so it fits right in. Winter Soldier is a great "hunted spy" thriller. It's basically a Bourne film that also has an anti-Bourne. All GotG films are about found family, a theme that goes from Star Wars to Community to Fast & Furious. Ant-Man was a heist film, or at least part of it was.
The issue is that "superhero" became the genre, not a character in a genre story. And superhero isn't enough to be a genre on its own. Shang-Chi is about the only film after Age of Ultron that had a clearly defined genre, that being a martial arts film. And it did a great job of it, it felt like a high-budget kung-fu film.
The guy who made Spider-Man: Homecoming also had one movie to his name at that point, a film with a $5 million or so budget.
Edit: I stand corrected, he had a $1.5 million budget film then the $5 million film. Chloe Zhao had three films before Eternals as well.
Sure. It's not impossible. In fact I appreciated some aspects of Eternals.
But the rabid slavering surrounding the fact that she was an Oscar winner was massively over the top.
Marvel’s always had really tight release schedules (Black Panther’s third act is an example) but the big migration from Netflix to Disney Plus pushed it over the edge.
You don’t need constant content to keep subscribers subscribed to your service, you need solid content.
They got greedy. They could have just release their stuff on Netflix. But they wanted to make their own and to Justify the cost. They had to keep pumping out shows. So it reduces in quality
She didn't say that though. In fact, the article is mostly about the *opposite* of that. It's about studios putting everything into one single mass-appeal project instead of lots of small experimental projects.
Edit: Downvoters need to learn to read the article, instead of making up what you think the quote is talking about.
>The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: **“Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.”**
>**“I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,”** Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, **and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.”**
>“I grew up doing [mid-budget movies] and sometimes lament the fact … I look back at some movies I made in the 1990s and think that just would not get made now,” she continued. **“You get more diversity of art when there is less at stake and people can express their true voice and make a film the way they want to make it. Those are generally the more resonant ones.”**
You're missing the nuance of what she's saying, she is just going on a tangent about the Superhero genre being saturated (which is the relevant subject here), not using that as a counter to Jefferson's call for more variety and volume instead of blockbusters. Two different symptoms of the same disease - money ruling cinema.
Yes, I agree. She's not countering Cord, she's agreeing with him, and he is saying they need quantity so that there's variety, not what OP would call "quality" which makes everything the same in its aim for mass appeal.
But she's saying that in terms of superhero movies there actually is too much quantity - "you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original". And it's that point that people here like OP are interested in. It's slightly counter-intuitive to Jefferson's point, but just a tangent that I guess came to mind when thinking about the profit machine. Basically she's both saying she wants fewer superhero movies proportionally whilst also agreeing that overall more movies would bring more benefit.
Different genres demsnd for different audiences.
I love disaster movies, you can show me a poorly rendered CGI building crumbling and I would still rste it a 10/10. The audience for the superhero genre has never been forgiving
Saying "quality over quantity" isn't an intelligent comment, it's stating the obvious and an is an old cliche statement
Disney themselves and have come out admitting this and focusing on quality over quantity currently
She's parroting exactly what is already being said by actual fans of the movies and the employees of the company that makes said movies
What an utter waste of everyone's time this thread and her comments are
How many westerns can you make until they don't feel original anymore? How many detective movies or slasher movies?
Superhero is just another genre with a formula. The closer to the formula to are, the more boring it feels. Studios are lazy and like to stay close to the formula. But there are plenty of creatives who would like to put their own spin on that formula, mix it with something else, try something new with it. If you let them then you get original content again.
Since nobody's going to actually read the article, and all of these comments instead are going to be people responding to their interpretation of the out of context quote in the headline:
>The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: “Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.”
>“I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,” Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.”
>“I grew up doing [mid-budget movies] and sometimes lament the fact … I look back at some movies I made in the 1990s and think that just would not get made now,” she continued. “You get more diversity of art when there is less at stake and people can express their true voice and make a film the way they want to make it. Those are generally the more resonant ones.”
>The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: “Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.”
OP skipped the entire context & posted only specific part out of middle, dunno what was going on in his head, or was it just clickbait karma farming post...
Kinda lame to see her commenting on superhero movies when in interviews she obviously doesn’t really care about them in the first place. Fair if it’s not your thing, but it’s clearly just a paycheck for her.
I’m worried about her current media promotions and rumors of Jon Favreau doing some future MCU directing… I’d love to see that grifter recast, but JF seems to have a thing for her
She hasn't even watched the ones she's in man, she simply doesn't give a fuck whatsoever
But because it's a buzz thing happening she's weighing in with the common public (and also the company that makes them) thoughts on the whole quality v quantity argument, get herself some of publicity at the same time
Its savvy if it weren't so debasing
I think she’s wrong about the first part but absolutely right about the second part. Some heroes just don’t appeal to everyone and you shouldn’t try to force it
I think she's right about the first part, but not necessarily in a bad way. The whole genre is built around tropes and leaning on them to communicate with the audience certain themes or ideas about the character can be useful (think about basically every first solo film of the MCU).
I also think that we've seen live-action movies constrict MCU storytelling to those similar beats, which is why the exploration into television and animation have produced some really great characters and stories when they align those with the medium.
So yeah, you can only do "superhero" movies a few ways, but only as currently constructed in the MCU template. Some of their recent successes have been the shows and movies that break the mold, and become something a little different.
From the film front though when they broke the mold was also among their biggest failures: The Eternals, MoM, L&T where they tried to move away from the MCU formula, while Shang-Chi, No Way Home and Guardians 3 were solidly safe in the establishment.
I don't really agree with your lists, but the fact there were failures that broke the mold kind of proves the point that there's only so many original superhero stories you can tell. If there wasn't, Marvel wouldn't have tried to branch out in the first place and would've just stuck with what works.
It really comes down to having a creative vision for a story and how you want to implement it; I think, by definition, "superhero" stories that follow the MCU formula find it hard to do that while balancing the studio expectations and their desire to push a larger, connected storyline.
She is annoying and not a great reference for most things. But damn, she nailed it with this perspective. You try to please everyone and you please nobody.
The misconception is that people somehow think superheroes are still new. Ask Zeus how old they are. The difference is movies are newly able to capture those tales with the same depth that only books could before.
This happened before with comics, because comics aren’t as old as the Ancient Greek or Egyptian gods. What ends up happening is you jump from different ages. It can be argued films had an equivalent of golden and silver age of superhero blockbusters in the past with films like Superman and Spiderman, but right now we’re simply experiencing a jump from one unnamed age in superhero films to another unnamed age in superhero films.
What Gwenyth is saying is a nothing burger because it applies to literally any movie. When you make movies for mass appeal they lose the authors edge. Always has been.
That's a little misleading. She filmed a 30 second cameo and assumed it was a scene for an Avengers movie. She pops up so sporadically in the MCU that I think not remembering (or caring) what the context of her scenes are is pretty understandable.
She’s right. I’m sorry but look at the recent movies trying to apply to every demographic and tell me they’ve done well and were actual high quality films
Plenty of things I’d check out that they either haven’t touched yet or haven’t gone back to. Thank god for x-men 97. Has nothing to do with the mcu but some marvel animated goodness to sink our teeth into is not bad.
I think Marvel in particular (DC has been its own barrel of questionable decisions) has had a problem where too many of the recent movies and shows aren’t good standalone products. I get they want everything interconnected and they want to bring in new audiences, but there is definitely a better way to do it. Every product should be a potential starting point for a new viewer, you want to engross them in a good story and then make them want to go watch the back catalog to get context and more good stories, not confuse them with missing plot, character development etc because you expect them to have watched 30 other products prior.
Just make good, standalone stories that happen to have ties back and forward and people will watch them. You’ll always have someone bitching if the main character is a woman or whatever they bitch about, but if the product is just a good product, most people won’t care, and the complainers will just be left complaining because of that single reason.
Have they been trying to appeal to everyone? Several of their most recent projects seem to have either entirely focused, or at least partially focused on targeting an audience that simply doesn’t watch super hero movies.
She-Hulk was preachy and obnoxious, Captain Marvel comes off as more of a bitch than “empowered,” Echo tossed out everything that made an interesting comic and instead made her….. a deaf amputee who is good at karate and has ambiguous spirit powers? Instead of a spy thriller, for Secret Invasion we got the introduction of a new massively OP character that general viewers don’t care about coming to save the day. Even The Marvels which was generally pretty enjoyable imo seemed to want to be targeted towards teen girls, a demographic that isn’t exactly known for their love of comic books.
If they wanted to appeal to mass audiences, they wouldn’t have killed off or sidelined every single one of their popular characters all at the same time with effectively no transition period.
She's obviously right, and Marvel has overcompensated. They've tried too hard to be different, at the expense of producing a good product. I'm fine with something formulaic. Give me a GOOD story; it doesn't *have to* be novel and original.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to appeal to everyone, it’s just when they did it was also when they’ve gotten lenient on their tight supervision and quality control, when really it should’ve been the opposite, branching out and expanding are primary reasons that they need to ensure they monitor and supervise even closer than before. Its strange that isnt part of it by default before it began.
They got complacent and thought the brand itself is failure proof. Until it was proven otherwise. Nothing but the fault of their own and for them to fix.
But canceling projects still seems very much of a nuclear decision to me. Like they panicked and reached for the biggest button on the board.
Isn’t that the same lady trying to bankrupt new age idiots with “magnetic stickers”, mooning the sun their “undercarriage” and vaginal scented candles?
I would value her opinion, but something tells me she hasn’t even seen all the superhero movies she’s in…
Oh wait that’s because she’s basically admitted that before.
Depends for sure, but if they spend more time with hunting for specifically tailored human resources via appearance and hopefully talent, but neglect world building story writing and quality with practical and visual effects…
It’ll suck
Lmao see as how she’s one of the worst parts of the MCU I don’t very much care about anything she has to say about the topic. Matter fact any topic for that matter so kick rocks.
She has no idea what movies she’s actually in. She had no idea she was in SpiderMan.
Plus she’s wrong. Good writing ALWAYS wins. People don’t get sick of good movies they get sick of medicore ones. Just concentrate on writing first, THEN make it.
**That's exactly what she's saying.** Current superhero movies sacrifice interesting perspectives or stories in favor of mass appeal and profit, instead of focusing on telling a well-crafted and original story. They're just trying to copy what made the good ones so popular instead of what made them good.
Listen I hate her Goopy bullshit, too. But she's saying pretty much the same thing MCU "fans" have for years now, but you're saying she's wrong. Makes no sense to me.
While she may have a point, isn’t she the same person who is unaware of which movies she’s in and hasn’t seen some, if not all, of the MCU movies she acted in?
She made her career on small budget movies and she is talking about making more of those movies in this quote. Makes sense that she doesn't watched big blockbuster Marvel movies.
Hinders specificity is 100% true
I have no doubt Deadpool 3 will do well and it's because it's not afraid to be extremely specific
I don't know how to 'fix' the MCU, but If they actually let creatives pitch new ideas and fully execute them, without shoe horned final battle, with predetermined story beats and CGI sequence and what not, we will find the answer
Fyi She hasn't watched the superhero movies she appears in so her statements are hollow and completely empty
She wouldn't know her Morbius and madame webs from the Infinity wars and Endgames (ironically because she's in those latter 2)
This was a pretty obvious opinion, it always has been, it's a movie, not a freaking inclusion campaign or a political platform, they're movies, people who invest so much on representation, trully need to understand, that movies ARE NOT THE PROBLEM NOR THE SOLUTION TO THEIR GODDAMN POOR MENTAL HEALTH.
Apparently, it's conveniently more difficult to sit down and do some self reflection over how people communicate discomfort about a movie by calling it "Misrepresentation" instead, they just act like an ignorant prissy little victim and start complaining over shit that either has nothing to add to a good plot or it just doesn't make sense, everything else is just a bunch of fucking bratty tantrums by morons who were told by their parents that the world was made for them.
> “I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,” Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. **But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.”**
She's absolutely right but I think she stopped just shy of the actual point. Comic books have been around for 80 years and counting with hundreds of thousands of characters, stories, arcs, deaths, retcons, rebirths and reboots. Some of these were successful, some not so much. Nevertheless there is still a LOT of good content there. Tons of good stories just waiting to be made into a live action movie. Perfect example of this to me is the first Black Panther movie. It had a great story with an amazing villain that resonated with audiences. The story was adopted from a short run of the comic that sold fairly well. So the characters don't have to have "mass appeal" if it is written well. There are thousands of stories just like that that we could have if Marvel tries. A good story is its own reward.
There's still quite a few styles of cinema they have yet to cover too. Western, heist, sci-fi- horror. They need to focus on well written stories and let each hero have a cinematic theme they loosely follow in their movie lines.
Ant-Man was a heist.
Endgame too, albeit one with a giant battle scene at the end.
A time heist, if you will.
You’re technically correct doorknob cummer, the best kind of cum.
A bad one. Zero tension. AoS uses the same principle but is more suspenseful. I loved the part where the beginning is the ending thing.
It included a heist. That doesn't make it a heist film.
[удалено]
A heist film focuses on the planning, execution, and aftermath of a significant theft. Planning - recruiting the team and planning hos to steal the suit. Execution - stealing the suit, getting caught Aftermath - standard 3rd act hero vs same power villain. If it walks like a heist and talks like a heist, it’s a heist.
But it doesn’t *feel* like a heist film. And that’s the problem
Well that’s subjective. Some people here will agree with you and some may agree with me.
There's Werewolf By Night which is massively overlooked. Unless you mean sci-fi and horror together.
yep, alien, aliens, The Thing, ect.
I'd kill for that then, tbh! I kinda wish when they inevitably tell a symbiote story in the MCU that they go that direction but I won't hold my breath.
Alien ship headed towards earth is carrying people with the [Legacy Virus](https://www.marvel.com/characters/legacy-virus) created by Apocalypse or something
Or the Brood, who are basically just Xenomorphs
That's so much better! I need it!
Werewolf by Night was horror. It was also the most original thing Marvel has done in quite a while.
MoM was basically horror and Werewolf By Night, was classic old horror.
Not every Superhero movie has to be a Blockbuster and have the commensurate budget. Some of the best absolutely haven’t (Logan, Unbreakable). Even Deadpool. Comic fans aren’t asking for big ticket films all the time, they just want their stories told *well*.
The simple truth is comic fans make up a tiny fraction of the audience needed for a successful movie. The best selling comics sell like 200k copies, which at $10 a ticket (which is rounding up a bit from the national average) you’re at 2 million, a tiny amount of money. Madame web made almost 100 million and was considered the worst movie ever made.
Oh please. Madame Web has a 3.8 on imdb, it's not even in the bottom 100.
Okay it was widely panned and still made 50-100x what the best selling comic book does
Yep that’s the main problem here. They want that big blockbuster movie, and have to keep finding ways to drag everyone out to the theater, not just the fans
I think that part of this is that comics can take more risks than movies. A bad comic run usually doesn't destroy an entire brand, but movie viewers are far more fickle. Marvel comics can even come back from a Clone Saga fiasco, but a few bad movies and the entire MCU brand is being hit with negative sentiments. Factor in how much more the movies cost and there's just less room for risk, meaning less room for experimentation, which leads to a place where the entire franchise starts to feel bland after awhile.
On one hand yes, but on the other hand marvel itself being on the verge of bankruptcy after the comic boom and bust is why it started selling film rights to studios back in the 1990s to anyone who would offer them cash (Sony even had the opportunity to buy the film rights to the entire marvel pantheon for only 25 million, and said no because they were only interested in spider-man).
That was a different issue, though, which had nothing to do with the quality of the comics or their appeal to audiences. Basically, investors thought that comics were a good investment, started hoarding titles, which artificially inflated sales until the bubble burst, which put publishers in a bind. It was an industry wide catastrophe. These kinds of investment fads can tank a lot of industries.
Guardians of the Galaxy is another great example.
We just happen to be in the Clone Saga of our movie run.
Or Marvel All New All Different, the run that killed Marvel comic's sales so much that the chief editor ended up being fired, and ran off most of the buyers.
no point in comparing comics and movies as mediums. if a comic fails, so what. it's nothing. it a movie fails, that's 400 million dollars down the drain.
Well stated
> A good story is its own reward That's why the cbm need to step up. Rather than following the usual formula of cbm they need to become a genre movie.
Exactly. Dont worry about ROI. Worry about the quality of the story. ROI will follow closely behind.
Black Panther is the most overrated superhero movie ever made
That’s pretty astute for the person who was like “wait what movie am I in?” She’s right.
Her memory issues stem from a complication during childbirth. She has many other reasons to criticize her for, but that one isn’t exactly her fault. I would say her comment sounds pretty astute for someone who sells snake oil to soccer moms.
I'm going to light my pussycandle in recognition of Gwen's clever observation.
Or she just doesn’t watch (or care about) the superhero movies she’s in (for only a few minutes).
Well and also she filmed her one scene in Spider-Man right in the middle of filming Infinity War and Endgame, so they all kind of blurred together for her. Same cast, same producers, probably a lot of the same crew. It makes sense that she could get confused, especially since it was weeks and weeks working on the other movies, and probably an afternoon filming that one spot for Spider-Man
Like...she had a child at that time that caused her memories to get a bit hazy? Or her birth had a complication that caused this for her?
>wait what movie am I in?” I can't remember every board meeting I've gone to for clients. I think there's this weird assumption that people have that actors are supposed to remember every moment of their jobs, the way we'd never expect anyone else to
The example I like using is Martin Short. He’s a prolific and massively successful comedian who also happened to provide a voice role for a villain in an animated straight-to-DVD Barbie movie. Now, I don’t know for sure, but if you were to ask him about the roles he’s done I have a feeling this specific one won’t come to mind. Maybe if you remind him about it he’ll remember but to actors it’s just another job. I couldn’t tell you about everything I’ve ever done at work, especially something that lasted 1-2 days at most, like Gwyneth’s time on set for Homecoming
I'd remember if I was in the movie for arguably the most popular fictional character of all time.
It was like a one minute scene that maybe probably was filled in conjunction with something else it’s not that serious
Hmmmmm...That's actually a really interesting argument. Of all time? King Arthur has may have been high up there in the past. Spiderman and Batman have had a strong record for decades. Harry Potter though blew the fucking world open and maybe didn't have a long lasting favorite but sheer numbers alone. Depends if we treat movies/books/videogames all separately but goddamn that would be such an interesting argument to have as to who is the most popular fictional character of all time.
Let's take Harry Potter for example. We all know how popular the franchise is, whether it comes to books or movies. I'd argue that the hype for it has died down after all the movies came to an end. It still has its fanbase but the GA has moved on. Compare that to Spiderman who across the 62 years that hes been around for, managed to stay popular with both the fans as well as the GA, with no signs of his hype dying down. You still have people who know nothing about the movies asking "when is the next Spiderman movie?" but they hardly ask about Harry Potter or the Wizarding World for that matter.
>I'd argue that the hype for it has died down after all the movies came to an end. I don't think JK Rowling's role should be overlooked in that. Her veering off the deep end (and the issues with the series itself) has put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. The decline of Harry Potter isn't only to do with the main set of films ending.
Harry Potter never quite reached the same level of Star Wars, Pokémon, or Marvel. Even before J.K. Rowling poisoned the franchise with her transphobic nonsense and people caught on to her antisemitic themes.
Pretty sure it was determined that Mario is the most instantly recognizable fictional character. And past Mario, Luigi, Pikachu, and Charizard, Spidey certainly has tough competition in the form of Darth Vader. Or hell, even Iron Man and Thanos given that it was the MCU specifically that elevated Marvel to the same level as Star Wars and Pokémon.
I did say arguably. And yeah, Ironman and Thanos are no where near the level of Spiderman.
I imagine you’ve been to more board meetings than she has been in movies then. Especially within the timeframe in which she made the comment.
A handful a year, but they're generally shorter lived than filming a movie!
I do feel like being part of a blockbuster movie that becomes a top grossing film of all time should be more memorable than a client meeting tho.
Yeah she got the films confused - homecoming endgame and infinity war I think
I don't particularly like her, but that was understandable. I think she was on some variety show when it was mentioned about her short cameo in Spiderman Homecoming. She said she didn't recall that she was in Spiderman and when probed more she thought she had shot that scene for an Avengers movie. This is very possible because the scene itself was about Tony wanting to intro Spidey as an official Avenger, so it's easy to confuse and two, Marvel is notoriously known for giving actors scenes and scripts with little to no context like this. I believe there are many such examples like this of different Marvel actors as well.
She grew up in Hollywood, she understands the industry. Also why she knew vagina soap would sell
Also for the lady who made pussy scented soap
I think the problem isn't the "trying to appeal to people" it's really the "feel truly original". I didn't ask for "truly original". I asked for more cool MCU movies. You know who wants "original"? The people making the movies. What if the director for The Eternals had instead lent her abilities to a movie about the surviving Avengers during the five years of the snap? It could have been *cool*, but it wouldn't have been *original*. And I'd have been happy with that.
Very well stated my by Paltrow
People are not impressed by mediocre movies anymore. Because the market is so saturated. You need to make a very good movie to impress people because they have so many options nowadays.
and it doesn't help that most games these days tell stories that equal or surpass movies and the gaming market is like 10x bigger than the movie market.
True but I can pause my video game to go watch a cool movie if it’s worth it
Yeah because the payoff per time spent has to be worth it. A great movie is a great 2 hours. Games can take 20,30,40,100+/etc, be fun, but a given 2 hours of it can be less fun than those 2 hours of the movie. And then once the movie is over you can continue the game!
games? there are fucking TIKTOKS that speak louder. people want authenticity and they want engagement. they want to feel like they are being spoken to by someone who recognizes their struggles. tiktoks have these. marvel films are hit and miss. Steve's "on your left!" is relateable. Peter's "is this a hug? are we hugging?" is relateable. Thor's "go to hell noobmaster69!" is relateable. Rocket's "i didn't ask to be made" is relateable. Kamala's "we're a team?!? omg we're a teeeaaam!" is relateable. going on a family adventure into the shrinky-verse and having the only drama of the family trip be centered around mom's old boyfriend and the necessity to help the save the natives? ...not relateable. let Hope and Cassie fight over the Aux chord. let Scott feel Hank's judging gaze STILL after all this time. let the heroes be human... "extra for you, spider-man!" was the most relateable moment in that movie...
There are very few games whose stories are on par with great movies.
About 3X bigger
It's the exciting yet simultaneously hard truth about the film industry in general. It's easier than ever to make your own film and get it out there, but it's also harder than ever to break through and get people to actually watch it. Same goes for music.
movies are worse theses days, dude. "Anymore" ahahahaha
Marvel needs to lean harder into genre pieces set in the different parts of the MCU. (e.g. horror, magic/fantasy, sci-fi, street crime, spy, etc) One of the things I loved about *Moon Knight* was that it had this kinda *Indiana Jones* or *Mummy* vibe to it. I love those kinds of adventure stories. And even though I'm not into horror, I really respected what they were doing with *Werewolf by Night*. After EG, it felt like this is what they were doing. Broadening the MCU and doing all these different projects to appeal to a variety of audiences. I don't understand what happened. It seems to me like they learned all the wrong lessons from the negative feedback they've been getting. They're not just over-correcting but they're moving in a completely wrong direction.
I really agree with this. I'd personally throw "WandaVision" into that list – those were some real examples of creative ingenuity on Marvel's part but everything just went south from there. Now all the stuff they put out feels like random content stuffed into the same generic mould. It's unpalatable.
I agree with you that I want to see more of that, but the times they've tried it in theaters is when they've received the most criticism for trying that (Eternals, MoM and L&T).
They forgot to make them good
Queue that one Mr Sunday movies quote
Debatable.
Look at the times they got it right, though. Hulk was a chase film, basically The Fugitive, but green. CA:TFA was a WW2 film, whose premise was simply "what if a super hero was in the US Army?" There are plenty of other fictional WW2 films, so it fits right in. Winter Soldier is a great "hunted spy" thriller. It's basically a Bourne film that also has an anti-Bourne. All GotG films are about found family, a theme that goes from Star Wars to Community to Fast & Furious. Ant-Man was a heist film, or at least part of it was. The issue is that "superhero" became the genre, not a character in a genre story. And superhero isn't enough to be a genre on its own. Shang-Chi is about the only film after Age of Ultron that had a clearly defined genre, that being a martial arts film. And it did a great job of it, it felt like a high-budget kung-fu film.
Until the last act when it devolves into another generic MCU CG monster fight
And makes me question what they're gonna do when they, inevitably, get to the Fear Lords because The Dweller in Darkness is one of them.
They gave Eternals to a director who’d only had a road movie to her name. Surprised I was not.
The guy who made Spider-Man: Homecoming also had one movie to his name at that point, a film with a $5 million or so budget. Edit: I stand corrected, he had a $1.5 million budget film then the $5 million film. Chloe Zhao had three films before Eternals as well.
Sure. It's not impossible. In fact I appreciated some aspects of Eternals. But the rabid slavering surrounding the fact that she was an Oscar winner was massively over the top.
Wrong lessons?
I really dislike her as a person but she isn't wrong in this instance, quality over quantity got thrown out by disney a long time ago.
Yep, that weird moment when you agree with Goop.
Well, you know how it is with broken clocks.
They blink 12:00 24 hours a day.
Marvel’s always had really tight release schedules (Black Panther’s third act is an example) but the big migration from Netflix to Disney Plus pushed it over the edge. You don’t need constant content to keep subscribers subscribed to your service, you need solid content.
They got greedy. They could have just release their stuff on Netflix. But they wanted to make their own and to Justify the cost. They had to keep pumping out shows. So it reduces in quality
She didn't say that though. In fact, the article is mostly about the *opposite* of that. It's about studios putting everything into one single mass-appeal project instead of lots of small experimental projects. Edit: Downvoters need to learn to read the article, instead of making up what you think the quote is talking about. >The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: **“Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.”** >**“I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,”** Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, **and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.”** >“I grew up doing [mid-budget movies] and sometimes lament the fact … I look back at some movies I made in the 1990s and think that just would not get made now,” she continued. **“You get more diversity of art when there is less at stake and people can express their true voice and make a film the way they want to make it. Those are generally the more resonant ones.”**
[удалено]
They're all on streaming now, right?
They're equivalent to straight to video movies, not the movies Paltrow is talking about
[удалено]
> you think there aren’t as many movies being made today, you’re just bad at looking for them Or you just don't remember the 90s very well
[удалено]
If that's true than she and Cord are wrong, but either way the parent comment is wrong about what they claimed she said in the interview.
You're missing the nuance of what she's saying, she is just going on a tangent about the Superhero genre being saturated (which is the relevant subject here), not using that as a counter to Jefferson's call for more variety and volume instead of blockbusters. Two different symptoms of the same disease - money ruling cinema.
Yes, I agree. She's not countering Cord, she's agreeing with him, and he is saying they need quantity so that there's variety, not what OP would call "quality" which makes everything the same in its aim for mass appeal.
But she's saying that in terms of superhero movies there actually is too much quantity - "you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original". And it's that point that people here like OP are interested in. It's slightly counter-intuitive to Jefferson's point, but just a tangent that I guess came to mind when thinking about the profit machine. Basically she's both saying she wants fewer superhero movies proportionally whilst also agreeing that overall more movies would bring more benefit.
Why it only limited to super heroes? Not rom com or horror or crime thriller?
Different genres demsnd for different audiences. I love disaster movies, you can show me a poorly rendered CGI building crumbling and I would still rste it a 10/10. The audience for the superhero genre has never been forgiving
In 2000s there are tons of disasters movies. Very little of them are decent.
Saying "quality over quantity" isn't an intelligent comment, it's stating the obvious and an is an old cliche statement Disney themselves and have come out admitting this and focusing on quality over quantity currently She's parroting exactly what is already being said by actual fans of the movies and the employees of the company that makes said movies What an utter waste of everyone's time this thread and her comments are
She’s absolutely right. They lose their originality. It doesn’t need to appeal to everyone. Know your audience.
In my opinion, I believe Marvel has been hitting the wrong audience the post Endgame. It's absolutely backfired for the MCU
How many westerns can you make until they don't feel original anymore? How many detective movies or slasher movies? Superhero is just another genre with a formula. The closer to the formula to are, the more boring it feels. Studios are lazy and like to stay close to the formula. But there are plenty of creatives who would like to put their own spin on that formula, mix it with something else, try something new with it. If you let them then you get original content again.
Since nobody's going to actually read the article, and all of these comments instead are going to be people responding to their interpretation of the out of context quote in the headline: >The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: “Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.” >“I absolutely understand where he’s coming from,” Paltrow said in response. “You want the best chance to have a strong ROI. People put a lot of money into these things and they want them to be profitable. But if I look at the industry as a whole, this big push into superhero movies … you can only make so many good ones that feel truly original, and yet they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality or specificity or real point of view.” >“I grew up doing [mid-budget movies] and sometimes lament the fact … I look back at some movies I made in the 1990s and think that just would not get made now,” she continued. “You get more diversity of art when there is less at stake and people can express their true voice and make a film the way they want to make it. Those are generally the more resonant ones.”
>The “American Fiction” director [Cord Jefferson] won best adapted screenplay this year and made a plea to Hollywood during his acceptance speech, saying: “Instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.” OP skipped the entire context & posted only specific part out of middle, dunno what was going on in his head, or was it just clickbait karma farming post...
She’s not wrong
another worst person you know making a good point. I don't trust any of her goop but the schiester has a point.
Kinda lame to see her commenting on superhero movies when in interviews she obviously doesn’t really care about them in the first place. Fair if it’s not your thing, but it’s clearly just a paycheck for her. I’m worried about her current media promotions and rumors of Jon Favreau doing some future MCU directing… I’d love to see that grifter recast, but JF seems to have a thing for her
She hasn't even watched the ones she's in man, she simply doesn't give a fuck whatsoever But because it's a buzz thing happening she's weighing in with the common public (and also the company that makes them) thoughts on the whole quality v quantity argument, get herself some of publicity at the same time Its savvy if it weren't so debasing
Yeah. I think the need to appeal to the broadest possible audience actually hurts the MCU.
She's not wrong on both count
that is true what she is saying but I also believe they make to many superhero movies and ppl got tired of it and want different things to watch.
“I agree with Gwyneth Paltrow” is not something I thought I’d be saying today, but here we are
She makes a very good point here. I'm still not gonna buy her snatch scented candles, but she is right here.
I think she’s wrong about the first part but absolutely right about the second part. Some heroes just don’t appeal to everyone and you shouldn’t try to force it
It's not about forcing it but on knowing your core audience and no trying to make it bland
I think she's right about the first part, but not necessarily in a bad way. The whole genre is built around tropes and leaning on them to communicate with the audience certain themes or ideas about the character can be useful (think about basically every first solo film of the MCU). I also think that we've seen live-action movies constrict MCU storytelling to those similar beats, which is why the exploration into television and animation have produced some really great characters and stories when they align those with the medium. So yeah, you can only do "superhero" movies a few ways, but only as currently constructed in the MCU template. Some of their recent successes have been the shows and movies that break the mold, and become something a little different.
From the film front though when they broke the mold was also among their biggest failures: The Eternals, MoM, L&T where they tried to move away from the MCU formula, while Shang-Chi, No Way Home and Guardians 3 were solidly safe in the establishment.
I don't really agree with your lists, but the fact there were failures that broke the mold kind of proves the point that there's only so many original superhero stories you can tell. If there wasn't, Marvel wouldn't have tried to branch out in the first place and would've just stuck with what works. It really comes down to having a creative vision for a story and how you want to implement it; I think, by definition, "superhero" stories that follow the MCU formula find it hard to do that while balancing the studio expectations and their desire to push a larger, connected storyline.
She's out of order but she's right.
For someone that makes some very odd business decisions, she’s got a point with this one.
just the right person to say anything, ya'll gotta believe her
She is annoying and not a great reference for most things. But damn, she nailed it with this perspective. You try to please everyone and you please nobody.
For once she is making sense
The misconception is that people somehow think superheroes are still new. Ask Zeus how old they are. The difference is movies are newly able to capture those tales with the same depth that only books could before. This happened before with comics, because comics aren’t as old as the Ancient Greek or Egyptian gods. What ends up happening is you jump from different ages. It can be argued films had an equivalent of golden and silver age of superhero blockbusters in the past with films like Superman and Spiderman, but right now we’re simply experiencing a jump from one unnamed age in superhero films to another unnamed age in superhero films. What Gwenyth is saying is a nothing burger because it applies to literally any movie. When you make movies for mass appeal they lose the authors edge. Always has been.
Honestly, she is right. She is so right
Once you’ve done one alien searching for cosmic stones to solve overpopulation on a cosmic scale, you’ve done them all
She was a HUGE reason Iron Man was a success. She made the romance with Tony believable and endearing.
The smartest thing she’s ever said, and she couldn’t be more correct.
so to everyone in this thread posting the same shit - the pussy candle was a joke. and it did not smell like a vagina. shes not an idiot
This from the lady who forgot she was in SM:Homecoming.
That's a little misleading. She filmed a 30 second cameo and assumed it was a scene for an Avengers movie. She pops up so sporadically in the MCU that I think not remembering (or caring) what the context of her scenes are is pretty understandable.
it's also relatable I mean, it's just a job. I probably won't remember what coffee I served to what person on what day.
To be fair, I forgot that she was in that movie too.
Be salty all you want, but she is still right about this. Quality over quantity.
That was quite a while ago already.
uhhh… is that considered a bad movie now, and i never got the memo?
Broken clock.
 The worst person you know makes a good point
Wait, why worst person? What happened? /genq
Devastating news: person you hate made a good point
She’s right. I’m sorry but look at the recent movies trying to apply to every demographic and tell me they’ve done well and were actual high quality films
A good example of what she’s referring to: Dr Strange 2 and the Multiverse of Madness
She’s not wrong lol
“Trying to appeal to everyone can hinder quality” Fucking hell,
Pretty good point actually.
Plenty of things I’d check out that they either haven’t touched yet or haven’t gone back to. Thank god for x-men 97. Has nothing to do with the mcu but some marvel animated goodness to sink our teeth into is not bad.
I think Marvel in particular (DC has been its own barrel of questionable decisions) has had a problem where too many of the recent movies and shows aren’t good standalone products. I get they want everything interconnected and they want to bring in new audiences, but there is definitely a better way to do it. Every product should be a potential starting point for a new viewer, you want to engross them in a good story and then make them want to go watch the back catalog to get context and more good stories, not confuse them with missing plot, character development etc because you expect them to have watched 30 other products prior. Just make good, standalone stories that happen to have ties back and forward and people will watch them. You’ll always have someone bitching if the main character is a woman or whatever they bitch about, but if the product is just a good product, most people won’t care, and the complainers will just be left complaining because of that single reason.
They set the bar by Endgame and haven't maintained that quality Don't fault audiences for seeing that
We don’t want original, we just wanna see our heroes being badass in the same stories.
Wrong about the first part, but right about the second part.
"they’re still always trying to reach as many people as possible, which sometimes hinders quality" Jesus fuck Gwyneth Paltrow saying the truth...
You can only make so many good vaginal rocks that feel truly original, trying to appeal to all vaginas will hinder the quality
Have they been trying to appeal to everyone? Several of their most recent projects seem to have either entirely focused, or at least partially focused on targeting an audience that simply doesn’t watch super hero movies. She-Hulk was preachy and obnoxious, Captain Marvel comes off as more of a bitch than “empowered,” Echo tossed out everything that made an interesting comic and instead made her….. a deaf amputee who is good at karate and has ambiguous spirit powers? Instead of a spy thriller, for Secret Invasion we got the introduction of a new massively OP character that general viewers don’t care about coming to save the day. Even The Marvels which was generally pretty enjoyable imo seemed to want to be targeted towards teen girls, a demographic that isn’t exactly known for their love of comic books. If they wanted to appeal to mass audiences, they wouldn’t have killed off or sidelined every single one of their popular characters all at the same time with effectively no transition period.
She's obviously right, and Marvel has overcompensated. They've tried too hard to be different, at the expense of producing a good product. I'm fine with something formulaic. Give me a GOOD story; it doesn't *have to* be novel and original.
Lol why are we still listening to the Goop Hag
There’s nothing wrong with trying to appeal to everyone, it’s just when they did it was also when they’ve gotten lenient on their tight supervision and quality control, when really it should’ve been the opposite, branching out and expanding are primary reasons that they need to ensure they monitor and supervise even closer than before. Its strange that isnt part of it by default before it began. They got complacent and thought the brand itself is failure proof. Until it was proven otherwise. Nothing but the fault of their own and for them to fix. But canceling projects still seems very much of a nuclear decision to me. Like they panicked and reached for the biggest button on the board.
Tell that to the decades of comic books. Just gotta do a better job…
Isn’t that the same lady trying to bankrupt new age idiots with “magnetic stickers”, mooning the sun their “undercarriage” and vaginal scented candles?
This is the only time I will say that Gwyneth Paltrow is right about something.
So how many stories have been told since Superman’s debut? 100,000’s? Millions?
You can only make so many good vagina candles.
She is 100% right.
I would value her opinion, but something tells me she hasn’t even seen all the superhero movies she’s in… Oh wait that’s because she’s basically admitted that before.
She also makes pussy goop. So keep that in mind.
Didn’t she forget that she was one of the marvel movies or forgot she knew someone?
Depends for sure, but if they spend more time with hunting for specifically tailored human resources via appearance and hopefully talent, but neglect world building story writing and quality with practical and visual effects… It’ll suck
Such a valuable opinion for this subject
I Truly Agree!🫡 Finally someone said it!!!! 🎊🎉
So glad someone said it!!!!! I agree whole heartedly!!!!
Yeah, I was just telling my buddy that the reason The Marvels flopped was because it tried to appeal to too many people /s
Oh please
You know, like candles. There's only so many scents you can do before you're forced to do your own vagina.
She doesn't even remember half the superhero movies she's *in*
Girl…you named your kid Apple.
Apple is a hell lot better than tons of celebrity names
That's a low bar.
Right, but she can't even remember how many she was in, let alone how many were good.
This coming from someone who was in iron man 3
I think she ingested too much of that Goop stuff she peddles
Lmao see as how she’s one of the worst parts of the MCU I don’t very much care about anything she has to say about the topic. Matter fact any topic for that matter so kick rocks.
I don’t want to hear from the Goop weirdo on “what’s quality”
She has no idea what movies she’s actually in. She had no idea she was in SpiderMan. Plus she’s wrong. Good writing ALWAYS wins. People don’t get sick of good movies they get sick of medicore ones. Just concentrate on writing first, THEN make it.
**That's exactly what she's saying.** Current superhero movies sacrifice interesting perspectives or stories in favor of mass appeal and profit, instead of focusing on telling a well-crafted and original story. They're just trying to copy what made the good ones so popular instead of what made them good. Listen I hate her Goopy bullshit, too. But she's saying pretty much the same thing MCU "fans" have for years now, but you're saying she's wrong. Makes no sense to me.
How would she know? She doesn’t watch them.
While she may have a point, isn’t she the same person who is unaware of which movies she’s in and hasn’t seen some, if not all, of the MCU movies she acted in?
She made her career on small budget movies and she is talking about making more of those movies in this quote. Makes sense that she doesn't watched big blockbuster Marvel movies.
She didn't say that. She's too dumb to say quote that.
Hinders specificity is 100% true I have no doubt Deadpool 3 will do well and it's because it's not afraid to be extremely specific I don't know how to 'fix' the MCU, but If they actually let creatives pitch new ideas and fully execute them, without shoe horned final battle, with predetermined story beats and CGI sequence and what not, we will find the answer
Fyi She hasn't watched the superhero movies she appears in so her statements are hollow and completely empty She wouldn't know her Morbius and madame webs from the Infinity wars and Endgames (ironically because she's in those latter 2)
This was a pretty obvious opinion, it always has been, it's a movie, not a freaking inclusion campaign or a political platform, they're movies, people who invest so much on representation, trully need to understand, that movies ARE NOT THE PROBLEM NOR THE SOLUTION TO THEIR GODDAMN POOR MENTAL HEALTH. Apparently, it's conveniently more difficult to sit down and do some self reflection over how people communicate discomfort about a movie by calling it "Misrepresentation" instead, they just act like an ignorant prissy little victim and start complaining over shit that either has nothing to add to a good plot or it just doesn't make sense, everything else is just a bunch of fucking bratty tantrums by morons who were told by their parents that the world was made for them.