• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    30·
    3 months ago

    A movie that lots of people wanted to see made more money than two movies that no one cared about. How about that?

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
    221·
    3 months ago

    Not to be a clit…but that is kind of a low bar to set. Because the two movies might have been good on streaming but have no place getting compared to Ryan Renolds and Hugh Jackman. and I say that as I am not a fan girl.

    • shnizmuffinAEnglish
      14·
      3 months ago

      I agree, low bar. Let’s see how it did against Deadpool, Deadpool 2, and movies with wolverine in them as the lead:

      • Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) – $205M opening [TBD domestic]
      • Deadpool (2016) – $132.4M opening/$363M domestic
      • Deadpool 2 (2018) – $125.5M opening/$324.5M domestic
      • Logan (2017) – $88.4M opening/$226.2M domestic
      • X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) – $85M opening/$179.8M domestic
      • The Wolverine (2013) – $53.1M opening/$132.5M domestic

      Source.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    3 months ago

    I mean, they spent enough on marketing. I can’t take a shit in a toilet without RR and HJ popping out of the trashcan to run a skit. People are making cakes, printing out 18" tall lego figures, tractor trailers and fireworks shows, it’s EVERYWHERE!

    • PhreakyByNature@feddit.ukEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      As someone who avoids trailers and such to go in as blind as possible I’ve had a tough time escaping it.

  • Microw@lemm.ee
    12·
    3 months ago

    So… why are we comparing it exactly to these two movies? There are a few other Marvel and Marvel-adjacent movies one could compare.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      192·
      3 months ago

      Being uncharitable: Because woke women movie bad and not woke men movie good.

      Being charitable: it shows the wavering quality of superhero films in recent years as Disney keeps trying to push more and more movies and shows out the door pushing their vfx houses beyond their limits chasing perpetual unsustainable profit growth.

    • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.mlOP
      122·
      3 months ago

      Because they were the two most recent Marvel movies (even if one of them was made by a different studio).

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        5·
        3 months ago

        Ah, I see. I think Madame Web isnt a good comparison anyway, since its a Sony flick.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      Because those were the last two comic book movies and the ones that started the whole “comic book fatigue” dialog.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        6·
        3 months ago

        That “fatigue” conversation started way way earlier, at least with Eternals

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    2·
    3 months ago

    And that’s just from Thursday/Friday/Saturday.

    Sunday could add another $50 to $75 million domestic.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    53·
    3 months ago

    I’ve never even heard of the marvels until this year and madame web never at all. I’m never super excited about comic based movies, but ones I’ve never heard of even less. Plus I always feel like I would have to know a whole bunch of backstory from comics or past movies to know what is going on.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 months ago

      They were going to do a sequel to Captain Marvel and then decided to shoe-horn in two Captain Marvel adjacent characters from the Disney+ shows WandaVision and Ms. Marvel and call it “Marvels”.

      It probably would have been better if they had just done Captain Marvel as space Superman on her own.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.worldM
      5·
      3 months ago

      You really don’t. Most are designed to be watched without the full context of other films behind them or it you need context they will fill you in.

      If course if you’ve seen everything then it is beneficial.

      Although, oddly enough, Deadpool REALLY is made for those that grew up with the Fox Marvel films.