Yeah, that's cool. Nice way to gain back some cost.
I've never tried selling a digital code before, though. Only tried Disc + Digital because the Target exclusive didn't include a 4K copy. I usually get those for MCU movies when I can.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Marvel Cinematic Universe | We had a good run, and now it's over
- Thread starter Deleted member 1248
- Start date
- Status
I've never tried selling a digital code before, though. Only tried Disc + Digital because the Target exclusive didn't include a 4K copy. I usually get those for MCU movies when I can.
There's a very reputable Buy/Sell/Trade here that i've never had any issues with and have sold/purchased several codes from.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/bu...ew-rules-in-the-op.454/page-452#post-25111888
Just thought i'd let you know in case you ever decide to do it in the future.
1 gift from utricularEwe001
Giveaway
Restrictions:
Hello, I am bot! I come bearing 1 gift from
utricularEwe001!
utricularEwe001!
This is a day raffle that will expire in 24 hours. The winner will be drawn at random! Any prizes leftover after the deadline will become available on a first-come first-serve basis.
utricularEwe001 said:
These are our awesome prizes:
I don't think this deal is sustainable long term, but we'll see. In 2-4 years we'll be doing the same dance. This dance will end with either Disney acquiring the license in full or Sony yanking the property to go on their own IMO.
Problem with "getting their own Feige" is that Feige is a genius savant. Not easy to replicate. And the problem with your last sentence is how to share profits and ownership. Why would Marvel and Disney help develop another Cinematic Universe if they don't have an ownership stake in it, at the very least? Or don't get compensated appropriately? You're better off using Feige to expand the MCU even further with TV shows and 4 movies a year and/or expand the Star Wars universe where you get all the proceeds.
Can they? Yes. Will they? No.
The license is worth A LOT more to Sony than it is to Disney. If the situation was reversed (i.e. worth more to Disney than Sony) then the license would have been bought. To a lesser extent it's the same situation as Hulk and Universal, it's worth more to Comcast to keep it from Disney than it is for Disney to pay for it. Same with the theme park rights. Same with Indy rights from Paramount.
When Disney wanted something, they overpaid (at the time) and got it, i.e. Paramount distribution rights.
Charlie's Angels looks just okay and without the charm that DIaz, Liu, and Berrymore brought. Naomi Scott got some name recognition and charm due to Aladdin, but not enough to make it a hit. Jumanji still needs to prove itself as a franchise and might suffer the 2nd movie nostalgia remake drop that SW, Jurrasic, etc suffered. Sony is going to double down on Spidey even more IMO. I think they should just rid themselves of this division and double down on PS. They can't compete. They could also double down like CBSViacom is doing, but choices for that are getting more and more limited.
The closest comparison I could think of is the Bond 50 box set, which was 22 Bond films and had a MSRP of $299
The MCU property right now is, of course, hotter than Bond was when that box set released. So I'm gonna predict $300-$400 for the Infinity Saga box set.
either way that's a lot of Canadian dollars ; _ ;
EDIT: OH GOD WAIT IT'S CONFIRMED
THAT SPINE ART IS FUCKING GODLY
$549 ; _ ;
FUCK IT IM GOING INThe closest comparison I could think of is the Bond 50 box set, which was 22 Bond films and had a MSRP of $299
The MCU property right now is, of course, hotter than Bond was when that box set released. So I'm gonna predict $300-$400 for the Infinity Saga box set.
either way that's a lot of Canadian dollars ; _ ;
EDIT: OH GOD WAIT IT'S CONFIRMED
THAT SPINE ART IS FUCKING GODLY
$549 ; _ ;
OH BUT I WANT IT ON AMAZON
BEZOS PLZ
Still haven't seen season 2, but uhhhh DAYUM! Elizabeth Hurley still got it, good lord.
That box set is kinda perfect for me. I already own most of the MCU via steelbook, but most are not 4K. This is the quickest and easiest way to get those 4K discs and save a bunch of shelf space.
I have no use for digital copies so that doesn't bother me. Ripping blu rays ain't hard.
Hardest pill to swallow is the price with this Canadian dollar. fuck me.
I have no use for digital copies so that doesn't bother me. Ripping blu rays ain't hard.
Hardest pill to swallow is the price with this Canadian dollar. fuck me.
I have a select few MCU films digitally, & I have enough Google credit to get whatever I want on digital. Assuming that the PS5 can play 4K Blu-Ray discs, I'll need to upgrade my MCU collection to 4K anyway.
lol he's Martin fuckin' Scorsese, not some mouth-breathing tribalist Zack Snyder fanboy. he has the right to dislike the MCU as much as he wants, frankly
Disliking something is very different from claiming that it isn't cinema. It just sounds incredibly petty. It also reminds me when some directors claim that movies that don't release on movie theaters are simply "below" the others.
It's just a dumb statement plain and simple.
It's less an issue that he holds this particular statement - and more that he paints all 23 movies with that brush when he admits he's only watched a few of them. Has he even seen the Guardians movies? Possibly not, so I'd be a little hurt too if I were James Gunn.
Pretty much. Just because he's Martin Scorsese doesn't mean he should be able to gatekeep. All he's done with this arbitrary argument is provide confirmation bias to a bunch of film snob wannabes.
Here's the thing: you can be highly regarded and revered in your specific field, and still have a bad take. No one is immune to having bad opinions or thoughts about something. His movies may be considered masterpieces, which means that many people will give his opinions more clout, but it's still wrongheaded, and goes too far to make his point.
This goes back to the concept of who decides what is and isn't art. No one decides that. All visual art IS "Art", for example. The question shouldn't be the if, but the quality. Whether it's a good example or a bad one. People might overwhelmingly think the Mona Lisa is an example of good art, and see some canvas with random splotches of paint on it and think that's bad art. That's fine. But they are both art.
If Scorsese said that the MCU movies aren't what he thinks of when he thinks of cinema, that would be one thing. Or if they were bad examples of cinema. People would disagree with him, naturally, but you can respect that take. Not everything is for everyone. But to dismiss it entirely, as if it doesn't even qualify to be called a movie, is disrespectful of the hundreds of people who made these films, as well as the medium itself. It's another person trying to gatekeep an art form which doesn't need it.
Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon are all worth around $1tn with gaming ambitions. You want Sony to sell its film division and take that $20bn and...go into a bidding war with any of the aforementioned players for a gaming publisher? Sony needs diversification, if the PS5 is not as successful as the PS4, they are screwed.
Anywho, I have no interest in buying a boxset, but I was thinking of going back and seeing the MCU films I skipped, AoU and Ant-Man 2. I hear AoU is meh though and I can't get excited about AM2 (and I like Rudd!).
I never said anything about purchasing a publisher, though that is an option they should pursue. The latter three companies that you mentioned have been having gaming ambitions for as long as I can remember, and Stadia is the only time I see something half serious from them. Let's see how long that lasts, we know how Google is quick to drop low margin units.
None of the companies you mentioned have gone all out on gaming except Microsoft and the only time they were competitive with Sony was in the 360 days......and even then the PS3 outsold the 360. Microsoft has always had a 10x+ market cap over Sony, and that hasn't mattered. Not sure why you're bringing up market cap. If any of those companies were going to go into gaming to kill Sony, they would have, but they are not. Diversification sometimes is a fools dream. We all know the bread and butter of the near 1T companies you mentioned, and it ain't gaming.
If you want Sony to diversify so bad then should want them to go back to robotics. They were way ahead of the game on that one in the early 2000s and that's a serious goldmine to whoever can get that right in the next 10-20 years in the consumer, manufacturer, or corporate space. Or maybe have phones in carriers in the US, that would be nice eh? Or having impressive laptops, tablets for consumers and not sell them like they did Vaio?
Anyways, I know how passionate you are about SPE, and you know how bearish I am on SPE's movie division, so let's agree to disagree.
Good idea, but based on recent interviews and sentiment, it seems he will be continuing work with DC and other Studios.
I thought the bad blood with Marvel was buried with Whedon?
Sony is more interested in non-Tech diversification though, such as corporate services.
Pictures makes a tiny profit for Sony but they are more likely to find a suitor than its loss-making Telco division, which continues to bleed money and doesn't have any IP that would interest its competitors.
Don't know why so many are getting angry at Scorsese's comments, he admitted himself he doesn't even watch the damn movies, imagine if some random on Twitter said the MCU isn't cinema without watching the movies, they'd be accused of trolling or fanboyism
Last edited:
Someone trolling without having seen the movies seems like a legitimate reason to be angry about. He's one of the best directors of all time but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel.
Just wanted to say, i lurk this thread a lot and it is refreshing how positive its tone generally is for the most part.
Counter to peeps elsewhere that would say otherwise. 🙂
Counter to peeps elsewhere that would say otherwise. 🙂
That's true but he also made it clear he tried to watch 'them' at some point but doesn't anymore. Which means when he's saying they're not 'cinema' he's doing it with an incredibly narrow view of what he's talking about, having not actually seen the films. I love Scorsese, he's a phenomenal director but it was an atrocious take and I do think people are right to criticise it, it's not like it can't be wrong.
Instead of getting angry I'd just disregard his comments and then keep it moving,, but since this debate has been going on for the past 3 days with no end in sight I'm in the minority I suppose
He's not the first highly director/writer/actor to say these things about the MCU, and he definitely won't be the last, so instead of making a fuss every time, I'm just gonna enjoy riding the MCU train while it's riding high, which is gonna be for a long, long, long, long, long, while yet, no matter how many media outlets are licking their chops for the faintest hint of superhero/MCU movie fatigue, so, I suppose Scorsese's just gonna have to get used to these "theme parks" dominating for the forseeable future, hell, Disneyland seems to still be going strong :P
The more I think about The Thunderbolts the more I'm convinced they'll be the Dark Avengers of the MCU. Right now there's no official Avengers team assembled and that leaves a void. That's the perfect opportunity for someone like General Ross, who was deeply involved with the Sokovia Accords (and I presume has close ties with the UN) to step in and take the lead. Of course an Avengers team made of
some sort of villains doesn't make much sense but I think they'll find a way to justify it. I can totally see Yelena being a member of it.
God damn I just want movies focused in villains.
some sort of villains doesn't make much sense but I think they'll find a way to justify it. I can totally see Yelena being a member of it.
God damn I just want movies focused in villains.
OP
OP
How can these movies not be cinema when the word 'cinematic' is literally in the name?
Got 'em.
Got 'em.
They also directly call her an inhuman. I really wonder how are they gonna be handled in the MCU proper.I think Marvel's Avengers game is going to give a pretty good look into how Kamala's powers are gonna look live-action.
I think Marvel's Avengers game is going to give a pretty good look into how Kamala's powers are gonna look live-action.
I think that's the best footage from the game so far. I wish she looked a tad younger.
Last edited:
the game is more based on comics than MCU in terms of lore
they could still avoid making her an inhuman in the movies if they wanted to.
I'm not a fan of the face (or any of the faces) but otherwise, she looks great. Kamala is currently the only reason I'm interested in the game.
From someone who knows absolutely nothing about her the hands just looks ridiculousI think the Marvel's Avengers game is going to give a pretty good look into how Kamala's powers are gonna look live-action.
- Status