Wkd Box Office - 5•10-12•19 - Pikachu does like Ash and fails to be #1, Endgame's Arceus-like run slows, Tolkien can't Hustle audience interest

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,575
Yeah I honestly don't find Snoke that impressive. But I might be biased because I'm not a huge fan of his design.

Alita is probably the most impressive CG character this year. Though I still think Neytiri and Caesar are more convincing.
 

Cuburger

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,565
In all honesty, I'm glad that with box office threads being the only place where people care about making Avatar discussion, Endgame taking the crown will mean that we can all be spared of Jim Cam stans beating us over the head with Avatar talk for a good 2 and a half years at least.

I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
 

stealthyfrog

Avenger
Jan 6, 2019
11,090
Gollum moves around, body language and facial expressions conveying his mental state, feelings, etc. Snoke kind of just sits there and acts menacing. Not that impressive
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,005
USA
Gollum is leaps and bounds more impressive than Snoke. Snoke is a plot device of a character. And this is coming from someone that sees The Last Jedi as the best Star Wars film of all time. Snoke by itself isn't not even close of a highlight of that.
Again, this has nothing to do with how believable/impressive he is in the movie. It's about the implementation in regard to what Snoke was supposed to accomplish in the film, his CGI complimented him very well. The selling point is that he looks real and expressive, which is why Serkis was hired to do the role.

"But he sits in a chair and walks around" is a dumb rebuke of the way he's used in the film and what they were able to accomplish in terms of realism/expression. The fact that his character exists to develop Kylo doesn't change that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800
Not likely Cuburger.

I may even come in occasionally just to compare Cameron epics to Marvel movies I love just so no one gets too comfortable.
 
Dec 22, 2017
3,697
What does this have to do with how impressive a character is in terms of CGI/tech/implementation in the film. Gollum isn't an action star and many of his most famous scenes are just emoting and expression. He's still regarded as one of the most impressive CGI characters ever. This is a bad metric.
We are not talking about Gollum. And if we were we could easily discuss how he moves and interacts with the other characters and environments, which is impressive.

So sick of the Twitter shtick bullshit like “this is bad”. You posted hyperbole and I am free to disagree with it. Snoke is great CGI but he is a one note villain who never breaks his scowl or even leaves his chair. The mo-cap for Thanos, especially his facial expressions, is much better. The face he makes when Wanda destroys the soul stone, for example, is much more effective to me. I can see and feel Josh Brolin doing the acting behind that.
 

Cipherr

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,792
In all honesty, I'm glad that with box office threads being the only place where people care about making Avatar discussion, Endgame taking the crown will mean that we can all be spared of Jim Cam stans beating us over the head with Avatar talk for a good 2 and a half years at least.

I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Same.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,005
USA
We are not talking about Gollum. And if we were we could easily discuss how he moves and interacts with the other characters and environments, which is impressive.

So sick of the Twitter shtick bullshit like “this is bad”. You posted hyperbole and I am free to disagree with it. Snoke is great CGI but he is a one note villain who never breaks his
scowl or even leaves his chair. The mo-cap for Thanos, especially his facial expressions, is much better. The face he makes when Wanda destroys the soul stone, for example, is much more effective to me. I can see and feel Josh Brolin doing the acting behind that.
I never said anything was bad and already stated that I think Thanos/Hulk look great. I just said I think Snoke is a cut above both. I'm not sure what I posted that's hyperbolic, obviously my opinion is not a fact, I wasn't serious with that.

He leaves his chair and shocks Kylo Ren with lighting, so that's not true.

Anyway, I'm done posting about this so we don't derail any further.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800
It's always been dumb as eff stuff.

I feel lucky to live in an era in which Marvel flicks are even approaching Camerons certifiable mastery of film.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800
I just posted the Tuesday estimate numbers for the two biggest releases and no one even cared. LMFAO, this thread.

Come back, kswiston
We have important things to discuss!

Like how CG from 2008 transcends the progression of computer tech, and somehow through artistic excellence is more believable than 2019 CG... even if their cat eyes look like fake plastic jewels... love ya Sculli!
 

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,575
Nobody is saying Infinity War/Endgame doesn't look convincing.

I was throroughly convinced that Thanos was using the reality stone with a lot of the weird compositing throughout. It kept me guessing and even serviced the narrative. Based Marvel.
 

ZattMurdock

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,333
Earth 616
We have important things to discuss!

Like how CG from 2008 transcends the progression of computer tech, and somehow through artistic excellence is more believable than 2019 CG... even if their cat eyes look like fake plastic jewels... love ya Sculli!
You don't understand, Cameron team is kept in caves working for only Cameron and he actually did all the CGI by himself, with a box of scraps. It can't be matched and if you think so you don't know real kino.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800

Lifejumper

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,465

During World War II, a lonely German boy (Roman Griffin Davis) discovers that his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a young girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. Aided only by his idiotic imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi), Jojo must confront his naive patriotism.
The premise sounds hilarious.
 
Nov 30, 2017
2,130
Feel sorry for the people that spend hours upon hours of their lives staring at a radiated screen trying to bring these characters to life only for people on a forum to rip it to shreads to win a dick waving contest as if they created them themselves lol. Like it even matters.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,228
Casting is essential for the X Men. Whatever one may say about the FOX X Men, the casting of Charles, Magneto and Wolverine was GOAT. Those 3 carried the franchise (even the younger Magneto/Charles).

I hope MCU gets someone good for Cyclops. Someone like Evans for Cyclops. Cyclops is such a core part of X Men it's kinda lame that he has been sidelined so hard in the movies.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800
For like 90% of his history Cyke was a suck up that thought the clone of his first girlfriend wasn't someone who suspiciously looked exactly, down to the fingerprint, like his first girlfriend. He didn't become an interesting character until he got with everyone's favorite BDSM inspired telepath.

And yeah, Ian Mckellan was insanely inspired casting. Diminutive frame, larger than life presence.
 

Cuburger

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,565
For like 90% of his history Cyke was a suck up that thought the clone of his first girlfriend wasn't someone who suspiciously looked exactly, down to the fingerprint, like his first girlfriend. He didn't become an interesting character until he got with everyone's favorite BDSM inspired telepath.
I wonder if Marvel Studios will not even have Jean and instead skip to Emma Frost and Cyclops as a couple.

Given that Fox has already done the Phoenix Saga twice now and she was a big part of the original trilogy, I could see them taking a similar approach that they did with Spider-Man Homecoming and just ejecting any elements that have been overdone in previous films.

I could see something like no Beast, no Magneto, no Mystique, and no Wolverine at first.
 
Oct 25, 2017
800
Lol how bad we talking?

I agree the casting is essential. I also think the starting roster is really important too. The ‘92 X-Men animated roster is what I would go with, maybe have Rogue with the Brotherhood in the first movie
My focus would be on the Joe Kelly run. Iceman, Maggott, Cecilia Reyes, Marrow, Joseph. Every awesome thing that happened before happened offscreen, 90% of the movie exposition about it.
 

ZattMurdock

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,333
Earth 616
I wonder if Marvel Studios will not even have Jean and instead skip to Emma Frost and Cyclops as a couple.

Given that Fox has already done the Phoenix Saga twice now and she was a big part of the original trilogy, I could see them taking a similar approach that they did with Spider-Man Homecoming and just ejecting any elements that have been overdone in previous films.

I could see something like no Beast, no Magneto, no Mystique, and no Wolverine at first.
I doubt it.

I think they will go for the actual classical formation:

Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Beast and Angel. Or something like the original Ultimate formation:

Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Colossus, Storm and Wolverine. I expect Kitty Pryde to show up soon as well.
 

ZattMurdock

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,333
Earth 616
You were also the second person to post those numbers, so no one commented on it because it was old news.

And I can't wait for Endgame's run to be over so we can actually talk about box office in this thread again.
I didn’t see stealthyfrog ’s post despite looking it up before posting it. Other than the franchise wars I’m over the moon following Endgame’s box office run. Runs like that don’t come very often, and while I definitely recognize Avatar’s importance for blockbuster cinema, I feel like the highest grossing record will be in good hands once Endgame tops it.
 
Last edited:

vhoanox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,656
Vietnam
Imagining the meltdown when EG stops at 2.75B. I think its a possibility.
I love EG but I prefer something like Avatar, non-sequel "original" work on top!
 

T'Chakku

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,994
My focus would be on the Joe Kelly run. Iceman, Maggott, Cecilia Reyes, Marrow, Joseph. Every awesome thing that happened before happened offscreen, 90% of the movie exposition about it.
It would be awesome if they totally skipped characters like Magneto/Xavier/Wolverine/Cyclops/Jean/Beast.

I'm not gonna lie, it's honestly irritating to me that when fans talk about MCU X-Men, they're adamant that it has to be about those characters that star. Nevermind that the property is a whole big universe with a shitton of other options to choose from. No, it must be the ones that have been in half a dozen fucking movies and tv shows.
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,082
It would be awesome if they totally skipped characters like Magneto/Xavier/Wolverine/Cyclops/Jean/Beast.

I'm not gonna lie, it's honestly irritating to me that when fans talk about MCU X-Men, they're adamant that it has to be about those characters that star. Nevermind that the property is a whole big universe with a shitton of other options to choose from. No, it must be the ones that have been in half a dozen fucking movies and tv shows.
That's because to an X-Men fan, those characters (minus perhaps Wolverine) have never been in a movie or a TV show. Poor half-assed shades with their names have been, but the MCU will deliver the actual goods we've waited all this time to see. So you better fucking believe I want to see Cyclops, Jean, Storm, and the rest of the team done up right for once. I'd like to see the MCU hold off on Wolverine for a while and let the X-Men team as a unit gel and shine, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.