@therealsilvermane

Geeks Worldwide, a reliable proven MCU insider source, has reported that a Shang-Chi sequel is in the works. But no official Disney announcement yet means there won't be a Shang-Chi sequel? Obviously Kevin Feige isn't going to go up on stage somewhere in the next week or so and blast the Shang-Chi 2 logo up on a screen and have the cast members old and new come out, only two months after the movie just came out and became the biggest hit of the pandemic era so far. Marvel is bringing on X-Men in the form of the X-Men '97 Animated Series on Disney+. Does Phase "Bore" for you include No Way Home, Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder, Quantumania, and Wakanda Forever? Obviously it must include The Marvels...obviously...

No. First, the fully costumed Black Knight debuting in the action-comedy genre Ant-Man films would be the height of silliness. Do you really want to see that? If Black Knight debuts before a hopeful Eternals sequel (fingers crossed), the post-credit scene seems to imply that Dane Whitman's Black Knight might be in the new Blade movie. Kang is reported to be the main villain in Ant-Man Wasp Quantumania. More evidence seems to be pointing towards Dr Doom making his debut in Wakanda Forever. Iron Man is done in the MCU, at least for a long time. The armored Avenger role will be filled by James Rhodes and Riri Williams' Ironheart. If Black Knight joins the Avengers, then so will Sersi (think 90's Avengers roster). Did we forget about Shang-Chi already? Bruce Banner and Carol Danvers already informally welcomed him to the club. And as always, whatever the new iteration of the next Avengers is going to be, Captain Marvel will most likely be installed as the new leader. Depending on where Sam Wilson's Captain America ends up.

Kinda how Star Wars fans typecast Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker? Wait, is that why Chalamet accepted the Wonka role?

Captain Marvel poops rainbow colored dollar signs that sing "We're in the Money!"

Well, the RT score of Ghostbusters Afterlife is dropping like "that last nugget" so maybe it'll end up with a lower RT score after all. Jason Reitman said he made Afterlife for people who wanted to be Ghostbusters. Maybe a lot of those critics had no such childhood desires. Personally, I think all critic aggregator sites are hooey and the world would be a better place without them. I say find a couple of critics that one likes and actually READ their reviews, instead of "blindly" looking at a number derived from 3rd grade math and a couple of office interns deciding if a review is all negative or all positive.

I hope Marvel Studios really is looking mainly at overall fan reaction to the movie, as Victoria Alonso said, and does greenlight a sequel. Perhaps with the origins out of the way, the sequel would have less flashbacks, which is what I think caused so many critics to give the film a lower review. As is, I'm not sure Eternals' cliffhanger could be resolved in another movie.

How about Eternals is a really good(great IMO) yet complicated MCU film that half of the critics are confused what to make of it? I doubt Ghostbusters: Afterlife is so complicated and complex a movie that there's a chance some of these critics just don't get it. A movie like Ghostbusters Afterlife is an easy review. Eternals not so much.

Nah. How about another review excerpt blasting the movie, though? From Screen Crush: 'GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE' - A Beloved Franchise Goes Bust The title Ghostbusters: Afterlife implies this franchise is already dead. Based on the film itself, maybe it is. At best, this series now exists only to give audiences a chance to bask in their warm memories of earlier, better movies. At worst, Afterlife is a coldly calculated exercise in nostalgiasploitation disguised as a love letter to a beloved work of cinema. Director Jason Reitman, paying homage to his father Ivan’s most famous work, remains dutifully faithful to the original Ghostbusters, at least in terms of its gadgets, costumes, special effects, and score. But he completely lost the first film’s anarchic comedy and rebellious vibe. The result plays like a technically proficient but soulless cover of a classic rock song. The notes are the same, but the meaning is missing.

And therein lies the problem with Rotten Tomatoes. No way this movie is cinematically more worthwhile than Eternals yet it has a higher RT score. As the media continues to write about Eternals, the critic's RT score continues to define their narrative as if that's all there is, fresh or rotten, ignorant of the fact that a vast majority of MCU fans love Eternals. RT is an inherently horrible aggregator that somehow has dominion over people's lives.

Excerpt review from The Globe and Mail: "Everyone would have saved a lot of time and money and frustration had Jason simply written his father a nice note (“Congrats, pop, on making such a fun movie. See you in the car!”) and then digitally nuked, proton-blast-style, all traces of Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters reboot. Instead, we have Afterlife. Which, for its first ghost-free first hour, promises a fine enough little family dramedy that apes Steven Spielberg’s peak Amblin era. Once the film introduces its first big ghost moment – a Slimer-esque critter named Muncher, so called because, um, he munches on stuff – the film embraces its destiny as a sloppy serving of wan call-backs and eye-rolling fan service. And what is new – a kid called Podcast (Logan Kim), so called because, um, he likes podcasts – is uninspired to the point of cinematic malpractice. This is not a film delicately peppered with Easter Eggs – cute little references to be hunted down by obsessive fans in the margins. This is a movie that is one giant Easter Egg, cracked and rotten and sulphurous in its stink. Unlike the 1984 and 1989 movies...Afterlife forgets to build the basics. Characters don’t tell each other crucial information, the big set-pieces arrive too late, and there is no corporeal villain to root against (god, this film could use a dose of legendary 1980s big-screen jerk William Atherton; Jason, if you chose to bring nearly everything back from the first movie, why not EPA agent Walter Peck? I’d even take Peter MacNicol’s Vigo the Carpathian acolyte!). The film is conceptually, artistically, spiritually empty. Somebody call a Ghostbuster. Because this thing is dead."

Mild Spoiler Alert...even though I'm not sure folks care much at this point... Katy is important to the story and adds an important assist to their comic book fantasy adventure. Early in the movie, she calls herself the Asian Jeff Gordon and shows it as she skillfully handles a Ferrari and helps Shang-Chi out as she drives the runaway bus through San Francisco. These driving skills come in handy at a crucial part of their adventure as she drives our heroes out of Wen Wu's compound and takes them through the bamboo maze. Probably nobody but her could have done that. Katy also serves as the movie's everyman/woman, the non-powered supporting character who witnesses the story's events and acts like a member of the audience. Every Marvel movie has one. Ned Leeds in Spider-Man. Luis in Ant-Man. Agent Ross in Black Panther. What makes Katy a little more interesting is that she has her own character arc. In the beginning of the movie, she is badgered by her family for having no purpose and herself complains she's not good at anything. Throughout the movie, though, she does find purpose and learns she actually is good at some things and they make a difference to the story's outcome. In addition, she's as funny a supporting character as any other character from any other Marvel movie, even Luis from Ant-Man. I think you're being a little unfair to Katy.

Eternals is tops in 3D IMAX, although I actually saw it twice in 3D XD (Cinemark's large format screen). I tried to see it a third time in the format this past weekend but I couldn't find the time and now it's gone from the theater as of today. Oh well. I'll try to check it out the third time at my local real IMAX theater this week.

I agree this topic has gone on a little long. As a last word from me, Chu Chin Chow seems to be a pretty obscure film so you probably won't find a lot of modern analysis on it. And it's not necessarily about whether it's racist or not. The point is that a 1934 British film with the name Chu Chin Chow or a movie that includes a comic book alien dragon named Fin Fang Foom probably will not be allowed to show in the tightly controlled Chinese media because it will probably be deemed offensive by its censors. Again, a lot of western depictions of China culture could be deemed offensive today whether it's Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's or even a harmless alien dragon's name from a 1960's Marvel Comic even though they weren't meant to be offensive at the time.

I'm quite sure Stan Lee wasn't intending to mock Chinese language or be racist when he invented the name Fin Fang Foom in the 1960's. A lot of things we did or said in the past aren't really acceptable today. I guess it isn't official if Fin Fang Foom is considered offensive to China today, but there's a good chance it would. I have a feeling that if Michele Yeoh's character said with all seriousness that a dragon's name was "Fin Fang Foom", people in the theater would laugh. It's a silly name and an outdated western version of Chinese phonetics and language. There's a very good chance Disney would be in even more trouble with China then they are now had they included Fin Fang Foom in Shang Chi. Either way, it's moot. Shang Chi will probably never see the light of day in China outside of pirating.

It's not the dragon or the story itself that's the issue. The monster could be an interdimensional being that BAMFS from one dimension to the next and it wouldn't matter. It's the name that's the issue. Fin Fang Foom. Chu Chin Chow. Fu Manchu. It's a dated western "Chinese" name and now deemed offensive to modern China. Just to be clear, I could care less about the Fin Fang Foom name and I even have a shirt with the character on it with the name in big letters that I'll probably wear tomorrow. I'm just discussing why Fin Fang Foom is probably deemed offensive to China as Shang-Chi star Simu Liu noted in an interview earlier this year.

Okay, so Stan Lee allegedly stated that Fin Fang Foom's name was inspired by a 1930's American film called Chu Chin Chow. Again, a lot of western depictions of China are filtered through a stereotype lens, including Lee's inspiration for Foom's name.

I loved Shang-Chi, but yes, I loved Eternals more. I admit I was a slight bit disappointed with Black Widow.

Oh I get it, you meant as if Stan Lee is twisting his famous catchphrase and implying something more like "That's enough chatter from you." Ah okay. 'Nuff said.

Fin Fang Foom started as a short monster story in a pre-superhero Silver Age Marvel story. Later, the dragon teamed up with the Mandarin to fight Iron Man. The dragon would sometimes appear in Iron Man comics after that, which is why it's considered an Iron Man villain, along with Mandarin.

Although it wasn't meant to be offensive when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the character, the name Fin Fang Foom, meant to sound "oriental" as the dragon was from Asia, is still a western depiction of "the Orient" in the 60's which was often filtered through stereotype views in western literature and yes, comic books. The story itself was harmless from a sociological standpoint I believe. It's just an alien monster yarn.

I really liked the movie's use of dragon scale as a kind of power source/armor. While not totally original, it was a nice heavy-hitter Vibranium-like fantasy-adventure element to add to Shang-Chi's development as a super-hero (in addition to the Ten Rings) who will soon be fighting alongside the likes of Captain Marvel and Thor.

I can't believe you used a Stan Lee gif as a positive response to a post expressing dislike of a Marvel movie. The Man may have actually twitched in his grave from that...

As far as being a good movie vs a mediocre film, again, I think it's a good film, and not just because I liked the story or the characters. Shang-Chi and the Ten Rings gives us a hero who goes through a character arc. A "prince" running away from his family legacy, whether it's his father's(power, crime) or his mother's(responsibility), and who has to face those legacies when they come looking for him and his sister. At the same time, the hero has enough moments of humor, tragedy, action, and enlightenment to make the journey more or less entertaining for the audience. Even Katy goes through a character arc in a fantasy adventure super-hero movie sense. The movie has a three act plot structure for its characters to journey through with good tension provided by a strong villain, Shang-Chi's father. For me, Wen Wu is a strong villain because the movie establishes his ruthlessness throughout the movie while also throwing a monkey wrench in the melodrama by making him the hero's father. A Darth Vader type dad/villain. The movie does give way to a more Avengers-level threat villain, an interdimensional monster, but that also seems to be the theme in Phase Four. Regarding the movie's plot, I detected no discernable plot holes. The filmmakers added nice attention-to-detail elements, particularly Asian-American/China culture details, like Shang-Chi removing his shoes at Katy's family door or the breakfast scene with Katy's family. About the acting, Simu Liu did fine for his role and Tony Leung was incredible as Wen Wu. For me, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings checked off a lot of boxes for what I would rate a good/decent superhero comic book movie.

Not agreeing with a movie's story choices doesn't make it a bad movie, either. I get it, you wanted a more grounded martial arts based action thriller like Captain America or Black Widow, instead of the more fantasy adventure genre movie we got. I think Marvel wants Shang-Chi playing more with the big hitters like Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel, and Thor instead of being a street level pure martial arts hero.

A majority of MCU fans worldwide love Shang-Chi. Marvel can't please everybody obviously. About the original comics source material, Marvel Studios could only take so much from the Shang-Chi comics. Essentially, those older stories were Chinese and Chinese-American culture filtered through the eyes of non-Chinese writers and artists who were getting their inspiration from Bruce Lee movies and dated western literature about the "Orient", i.e. Fu Manchu. For Shang-Chi to be a modern movie that accurately represented today's world, the movie really needed to be its own thing and separate itself from those outdated elements from the comics. In this global world we live in and as China became more global over the past twenty years, it's understandable that Disney and other movie studios practice cultural sensitivity as it moves into these markets. Unfortunately, China seems to be in a reverse global trend right now and is canceling anything and everything that doesn't appeal to the new hardline nationalist policy of the current Chinese government. It couldn't come at a worse time for Disney since they just made two films in particular, Mulan and Shang-Chi, that it hoped would find a large audience in China, but only resulted in China banning both of those movies. It seems only China is allowed to make movies about China now.