• snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am not spending movie theater prices to give a movie a chance. That’s why I only go once or twice a year for something that is guaranteed to be good.

    • hope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The title is pretty clickbaity, she’s really commenting on people sharing opinions online about the movie without seeing it.

      • snooggums
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That makes sense.

        The Marvels is on my watch list, so I’ll be giving it a try eventually. The slowness is more about Marvel stuff not being as entertaining for me as they used to be.

        • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Same. I actually just watched it recently and didn’t think it was bad. It may not have been great but I was entertained. I did also enjoy Ms. Marvel but I also think that actress just did a great job. Gave me early awkward Spider-Man discovering his powers coming of age vibes.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I watched it, I liked it. You don’t need to have watched all the various shows beforehand, but you need to have a rough idea of who all 3 marvels are going into it.

          But it was a good movie that dealt with some difficult topics and handled them pretty well. Iman Vellani is excellent in it.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Exactly, especially for a movie that you know will be on Disney plus soon. It costs me 3x for a movie ticket than the price of monthly Disney+

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think the gist of the OP was that plenty of people were dunking on the movie without ever having actually seen it.

  • Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I watched it on Disney plus and it was fine but I’d be pissed if I spent the £50-60 it would have cost at the cinema.

    There’s no way I’m spending money on something just to give it a chance if I’m already indifferent about it

    • Pronell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      8 months ago

      While I enjoyed it just fine that’s also one of the problems they’re facing:

      I already have Disney+. Why would I go see it in a theater when I can wait to see it at home on a service I’m already paying for?

      My own snacks, beer, and ability to pause will almost always beat having to leave the house and spend more money.

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can bring snacks and beer into theaters if you’re crafty enough. The real killer feature is pausing.

          • Cort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The theater near me closed during covid, but previously they allowed outside food within reason. I’d done sushi or fried chicken a couple times before they shot down for good.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know how theaters in the UK work, but here, for two people? $50 easy.

        Imax tickets locally are $22, x2 = $44 and that’s before popcorn and drinks.

        • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah I think the context of you buying tickets for 2 was missing from your first comment, but I completely agree.

        • Microw@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Are you forced to watch it in IMAX or is it possible in simple screening rooms as well?

          • meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            18-22 before tax per ticket imax, 16 basic matinee. Doesn’t make a diff. it’s still expensive as all fuck, and the mouse has a 75% take thanks to them strong-arming theater chains.

            Maybe if Disney lowered their take they could push more tickets and give theaters more room to breathe, but here we are.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Just looking at normal tickets at the local theater:

              Kung Fu Panda 4 3D: $12 x2 = $24.

              Love Lies Bleeding: $9 x2 = $18.

              Dune 2: $14.75 x2 = $29.50.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Odeon sells “all you can watch” tickets for £14 a month. £17 for the “all you can watch” with premium seats updates.

          £8.50 for a single film. That’s everything as we include all taxes.

          Why are you comparing to IMAX? That’s already accepting that you are going to be paying over the odds.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because somebody was confused over how movie tickets could be $50?

            I mean, don’t even get me started if you have kids to take…

          • Z3k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Odeon sells “all you can watch” tickets for £14 a month. £17 for the “all you can watch” with premium seats updates.

            These are only good if you are ghe kind of person who goes to the cinema allot. This isn’t me. Even before covid I could count on 1 hand the number of times I went in a year.

            Ironically the last 2 films I saw in a cinema was captain marvel and end game. Cap being a big reason why I was already indifferent.

          • Z3k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            If you want to get picky my nearest odeon is at least an £22 train ride away.

            My local cinema is £18.50 each plus snacks

            Edit.

            It’s also besides the point spending any amount of money vs just watching it at home would have annoyed me

              • Z3k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Like I said my nearest cinema is 18.50 a ticket. Ignoring the snacks that’s still a bawhair shy of 40 quid. And like I said I ain’t paying yhat for anything less than a film I’m hyped about beforehand.

                And again it’s kinda besides the point

                Edit you know what sod it.

                Their snacks are 13.50 for a box of popcorn and a drink. My wife and I split the popcorn and get an extra drink.

                So no the numbers ain’t silly.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I really enjoyed The Marvels! I don’t know why people are hating on it so much… It’s much better than the last few stinkers Marvel put out lol

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it was two things. First, there were a lot of people who were predisposed to hate it because they thought it was “woke” like the first Captain Marvel. You can’t ignore the insidious undertones of a lot of critics, but that doesn’t invalidate all of the criticisms.

      It wasn’t a great movie. None of the recent movies were great, but none were as bad as people made them out to be. Critics are just tired of Marvel movies. They have seen a lot of really bad superhero movies, and casual viewers don’t know differentiate between Aquaman, Madam Web, and Love and Thunder. So when the latter isn’t as good as Ragnarok, it’s “just another bad comic book movie” adding to the fatigue.

      So there exists a built-in set of anti-fans who feel validation when any of these movies is less than perfect. Deadpool will be fun, and then gird your loins for Captain America because that’s going to be a chew toy for all of the worst people.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I liked the first marvel film but thought this one was awful. just from memory, the singing planet made me want to jam pencils in my ears. The antagonist was inexplicably as powerful as all 3 marvels (come on, carol alone went toe-to-toe with thanos). And then she just… blew herself up. So good job, I guess? And the whole b-plot on the SWORD station with Fury and Ms Marvel’s family could have just been cut with nothing of value lost.

        • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          I agree the singing planet was the lowest point of the film. They could have left that out altogether, and it was the one moment in the movie where I audibly groaned lol I liked the rest of it pretty well though

    • Pronell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I agree. It was a solid movie, a lot better than the recent ones that struggled.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thats just it. Im fucking over Marvel.

      It could be the best thing they have done since Thanos snapped his fingers and I still wouldnt give a fuck. Its just done for so many people at this point.

      • mPony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        That finger-snap could have done away with half of the greenlit projects and everyone could have saved a lot of time.

  • cel922@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    I stopped going to nearly all movies at the cinema. I have a good-enough 5.2.1 sound system and large television with appropriate cinema seating distance, so why should I go out if all I need to do is wait 8-12 weeks and see it on a streaming subscription? For me, the movie would need to be compelling enough to warrant a drive of about 120 miles to see it in a Dolby Cinema theater, of which only Oppenheimer met in the past year.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    I thought it was about average for a Marvel film - which is good, because “about average” for many other franchises isn’t positive at all. Definitely doesn’t deserve the negativity.

  • mPony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    When these movies don’t do well, why on earth do they keep asking the actors about it?

    The actors didn’t write a boring script. The actors didn’t direct lackluster action sequences. The actors didn’t hack together a pile of nonsense.

    If you want to drag someone, at least drag the director.

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I mean, I understand wanting the movie you are starring in to do well, but all she is arguing is that people spent time and effort to make the movie and that people should watch it for that. Yeah well, that’s true for virtually every movie, or any work of art really.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      She’s arguing that critics should watch it before they criticize it, out of respect for the people who spent time and effort to make it.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I can totally relate to that. I mean, to be in a big superhero move that you think is really good and see it not find a strong reception probably feels terrible.

      It’s not her fault. But from the movie trailers it looked badly constructed. I can’t give two hours of my time for something I’m convinced is going to be a disappointment for me.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Saw it in the theater, bought the 4K disc for home… it’s largely unobjectionable. It’s fine. It’s very safe. Doesn’t really do much interesting. Some of the visual effects are pretty bad, but not as bad as, say Black Panther’s big fight at the end.

  • esc27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I enjoyed it more than Barbie, which was unexpected since I had high expectations for Barbie and none for the Marvels.