Spilner not on board with this version of TCTTS the Conqueror.
Life is better with a beagle
Brian Earl Spilner said:
It blows my mind you thought this was better than Eternals. To me this movie is the quintessential example of "CGI gobbledygook".
The Porkchop Express said:
Also, big shoutout to the theater for showing the following trailers
Family-friendly GOTG3
Family-friendly Shazaam 2
Family-friendly Super Mario Bros.
Child-horrifying Stephen King's The Boogieman.
thought the same thing...luckily we were running late and only caught the last 30 seconds of the SK trailer. it was enough to make me do a double-take to make sure we were in the right theaterSaxsoon said:The Porkchop Express said:
Also, big shoutout to the theater for showing the following trailers
Family-friendly GOTG3
Family-friendly Shazaam 2
Family-friendly Super Mario Bros.
Child-horrifying Stephen King's The Boogieman.
I was like yo! Wtf is this doing here at my AMC in Dallas (I love horror but holy crap that was a poor choice
given how many people are legitimately upset that Michael Pena was not in this movie, that's honestly the only thing I would have done differently.TCTTS said:
Yeah, no where in all the multiverse is this even close to a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact, I thought it was actually pretty decent, if not legitimately good at times. I doubt I ever watch it again, but at no time did I ever think, "I would have done that differently." I don't know that I would have made *this* the plot of the third Ant-Man movie, but given what we got, I have next to no complaints. If anything, it's better than most of Phase 4, better than three of the four Thor movies (even Love and Thunder, which I found so much more uninteresting than this), and better than The Incredible Hulk, Captain Marvel, and Eternals, along with probably a few others.
that would have been awesomeSaxsoon said:
Could you imagine Quaz reading Luis' mind
Saxsoon said:
Could you imagine Quaz reading Luis' mind
jackie childs said:given how many people are legitimately upset that Michael Pena was not in this movie, that's honestly the only thing I would have done differently.TCTTS said:
Yeah, no where in all the multiverse is this even close to a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact, I thought it was actually pretty decent, if not legitimately good at times. I doubt I ever watch it again, but at no time did I ever think, "I would have done that differently." I don't know that I would have made *this* the plot of the third Ant-Man movie, but given what we got, I have next to no complaints. If anything, it's better than most of Phase 4, better than three of the four Thor movies (even Love and Thunder, which I found so much more uninteresting than this), and better than The Incredible Hulk, Captain Marvel, and Eternals, along with probably a few others.
one of the ringer pods (maybe the midnight boys?) suggested that Luis should have walked into the room and also got sucked into the QR. i don't think that would have made a ton of sense, but hearing him explain to the other Ex-Con guys what the QR was like would have been incredibly entertaining.
the other thing i suggested earlier was to have a B story set in San Fran where Luis and the Ex-Con guys had to do something to help the rest.
again, i don't personally think it was needed, but it was a bold choice not to feature one of the most universally beloved bits of ant-man (or really any MCU movie).
Sex Panther said:
I kind of want to change my TexAgs handle to CGI Gobbledygook
I asked my boys this same exact question. Their answer was that Scott was in a different part of the Quantum Realm which is why time went by differently for him.The Porkchop Express said:
My wife missed the movie out sick and I was telling her about it and she made a really interesting point that kinda seems like a plot hole. Scott was stuck in the QR for 5 years that seemed like 5 hours to him during the events of Infinity War/ End Game. If Janet was stuck there for 30 years, shouldn't it only have felt like 30 hours to her? Although Paul Rudd is seemingly ageless, Scott Lang shows no signs of having aged despite those 5 years going by, so why is Janet the age she would have been over time on Earth when she re-emerges?
The Porkchop Express said:
The connection between Scott and Cassie was where the movie really fell flat for me.
I would argue that Scott's reuniting with teenage Cassie in Endgame is the best moment not involving Steve and a certain hammer.
He finally gets her back and then seems to be spending very little time with her just a few years later - doesn't know she's working with Hank, doesn't know she's been arrested more than once. Calling her peanut a couple of times in the final battle doesn't make up for a lack of chemistry throughout the film. She even calls Scott out on what he's doing with his time since the defeat of Thanos. It's really unfaithful to Scott's character from the first 2 films and Endgame that spending as much time with Cassie as he could wouldn't be his #1 priority.
They should have at least written in a scene or 2 where he tries to do that and she's too busy for him. As someone who has never heard of Kathryn Newton before yesterday, it also really makes no sense why they wouldn't use the actress from Endgame in this movie. She's the right age and she was fantastic in that reunion scene. Plus it sounds like she found out from a news report that she was being replaced in the role, which really sucks.
jackie childs said:
Did you forget ragnarok or do you not like it?
gotcha, not gonna flame, i was just curious. ragnarok might be the one i've seen the most and is probably one of my top 2-3 MCU films.Cromagnum said:jackie childs said:
Did you forget ragnarok or do you not like it?
Already been flamed for my opinion, but I don't like any of the standalone Thor movies, especially Ragnarok and Love & Thunder.