Originally posted by quanchi112
Sepculation.
Quit crying.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
MOS was marketed with a 75th anniversary special. That's why my buddy bought it, and I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
And many people would have bought IM3 to have the complete collection of IM films, or even to have the whole Marvel collection. I have a friend who just thought it was "meh", but bought it for that reason. I'm sure he's not the only one.
At a time when Marvel is riding high and IM3 having had double the people seeing it in theatres, there's really no excuse for IM3 losing to MOS in Blu-Ray Sales. Except that MOS was a far more entertaining movie.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERIt was 20 some million more on DVD/blu Ray sales. When we factor in the totality iron man 3 blows it out of the water. Anyone who rants and raves about one portion of the total pie is biased.
Quit crying.And many people would have bought IM3 to have the complete collection of IM films, or even to have the whole Marvel collection. I have a friend who just thought it was "meh", but bought it for that reason. I'm sure he's not the only one.
At a time when Marvel is riding high and IM3 having had double the people seeing it in theatres, there's really no excuse for IM3 losing to MOS in Blu-Ray Sales. Except that MOS was a far more entertaining movie.
Totality it isn't close so please quit being biased and not looking at the bigger picture.
Originally posted by quanchi112Totality it isn't close so please quit being biased and not looking at the bigger picture.
And clearly you're missing the whole point.
More people WANTED to OWN MOS over IM3. Why? Because IM3 sucked.
Studios want box office, but those figures are more down to factors like Hype and Building up a franchise over years.
That's why TDKR made so much more than BB, even though BB is considered the far superior movie by almost everyone. Because BB began the brand building of that franchise. TDKR was the 3rd of a beloved franchise, and was going to make crap loads of money at your beloved box office no matter how bad it was. Just like IM3.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERI do not care about your speculative bs. More people saw ironman man 3 than man of steel. Period. It made a lot more money. A lot of people loved ironman 3. I am not one of them. You if doing the totality of the numbers shows me you're some biased dolt.
And clearly you're missing the whole point.More people WANTED to OWN MOS over IM3. Why? Because IM3 sucked.
Studios want box office, but those figures are more down to factors like Hype and Building up a franchise over years.
That's why TDKR made so much more than BB, even though BB is considered the far superior movie by almost everyone. Because BB began the brand building of that franchise. TDKR was the 3rd of a beloved franchise, and was going to make crap loads of money at your beloved box office no matter how bad it was. Just like IM3.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I do not care about your speculative bs. More people saw ironman man 3 than man of steel. Period. It made a lot more money. A lot of people loved ironman 3. I am not one of them. You if doing the totality of the numbers shows me you're some biased dolt.
Except whose talking about which movie made more money? Because I'm sure not. The fact that you're desperately trying to switch the conversation to financial success clearly shows who is the biased one here.
Imo IM1 is a far better movie than MOS. But MOS is a far better movie than IM3. Those are not the opinions of someone biased, but someone who judges each individual movie on their own merit. Unlike you Mr. "Make mine Marvel." 😂
The fact (you rightly pointed out) that more people saw IM3 than MOS makes it even worse for IM3 that less people wanted to own IM3 and more people wanted to own MOS.. Attempt to comprehend this point before you carry on this conversation with me please.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Nah. He tried changing the narrative. Total pie vs total pie not just one piece versus another, biased boy.
Incorrect. He wasn't talking about which movie made more money overall, since there is no argument there as numbers speak for themselves.
His point which you missed or are purposely dodging, is about something else entirely.
edit: Just saw Imp's request, so nevermind.
I just hope Will Smith doesn't f*ck this movie up. I hears a scary ass idea someone put forth. It was a rumor(or maybe confirmed now?) that one reason they cast Ben Afleck as Batman was so that Afleck could maybe direct future DC films. In other words he took the part so it would lead to him directing DC movies. This is what I've seen claimed, anyways.
Then someone wondered if maybe Will Smith took the part to cement his son Jaden a part in future DC movies. I just hope this person was wrong. *Images of 'After Earth' flash in head* Actually I PRAY the person was wrong, and I'm a friggin atheist.
Originally posted by marwash22
i love how the narrative is that Will Smith is now a terrible actor who can potentially fucc up a movie.🙄
Who said he was terrible? You don't need to be a bad actor to mess up a movie. Some actors aren't just right for certain roles. This doesn't mean he isn't.
But even if I did think he was terrible, okay? People have different opinions on different actors. But I don't think he is terrible, overall. He was god awful in "After Earth" though. Come to think of it, I'm actually struggling to remember the last time he starred in a good film. Hancock is the last good movie I can even recall, and that has to be 7-8 years old by now.