Kevin Feige disbands Marvel's CREATIVE COMMITTEE 3 3

[paqart]

On 10/2/2024 at 7:38 AM, fantastic_four said:

Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame, and No Way Home are four of the top 15 superhero films of all time.  What is it that's ruining it for you--is it really the political elements they started working in beginning with that one scene in Civil War you mentioned that I'll quote below?  Those are VERY minor elements in all of the MCU films you're referring to, so you're carrying your own bias into these films if that's what ruined it for you.

 

Yep. When Tony Stark stops behaving like Tony Stark, and Thor lets people make him the butt of every joke, and Ms. Marvel suddenly becomes Captain Marvel without a personality, I stop liking the movies. The woman accosting Stark would have been fine if he had correctly pointed out that he wasn't at fault and wasn't about to accept responsibility for something he didn't do. Even if he had let it slide, if he had gone back to normal after that scene, it would have been fine. As it is, the strength of the MCU pre-Civil War was that the characters were rock solid representations of the best versions of those characters in the comics. After that moment, they became less rigorous. For the sake of cheap laughs with Thor, for fake humility with Stark, fake nobility with Captain America, etc. The only new characters that came out well were Doctor Strange (the new Tony Stark) and Scarlet Witch.

[paqart]

On 10/2/2024 at 7:38 AM, fantastic_four said:

Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame, and No Way Home are four of the top 15 superhero films of all time.  What is it that's ruining it for you--is it really the political elements they started working in beginning with that one scene in Civil War you mentioned that I'll quote below?  Those are VERY minor elements in all of the MCU films you're referring to, so you're carrying your own bias into these films if that's what ruined it for you.

 

I forgot to comment on your list of films. First: not interested in box office. Frankly, I find the high BO perplexing for many of the late MCU movies like Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and Civil War. Those movies are really awful from my perspective.

Infinity War makes sense, as does Endgame (though it had some pretty stupid moments). No Way Home, like the other SM movies, was good, but produced in part by Sony. I don't consider those fully MCU films for that reason.

[paqart]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:52 AM, drotto said:

I would argue Feige working basically alone in a vacuum is a massive issue with MCU, not just he is not as good at TV. Through Endgame, the MCU had basically been mapped out by the Story group, as well as other individuals that have been slowly pushed out of marvel. I think Feige was far less of a creative mastermind, but more of a good manager that was able to pull together then best ideas presented for the first 3 phases. He did this job extremely well. This is proven by the clear decline in the MCU with him essentially acting as the sole creative force starting in phase 4. Feige works best when others are double checking him, and willing to speak up to oppose some of his natural tendencies. He received a disproportionate amount of the accolades for the success of the MCU, leading Disney to the falsely believe (and general public perception)  that he was the sole reason for the success of the MCU. Through phase 3 it was much more of a collaborative success, built by many other such as John Favreau, Ike Perlmutter, The Russo Brothers, and many others. 

 

This idea that other people's  input is needed and it is not all Feige is illustrated by the movies that have worked.  Spider-Man No Way home worked, because Feige while having a lot of control still had to deal with Sony's input. Deadpool and Wolverine worked, but this was almost all Ryan Reynolds and his creative team. See a trend? Lately the less Feige the better.  This is not to say he was not a key component to the success of the MCU, but it is clear that allowing new ideas and more varied creative input then happened during Phases 4 and 5, is needed to give it a chance to come back. 

This is why I think Kirby and Ditko were both better when working with Stan Lee. It might have seemed like they did all the heavy lifting, but whatever Lee added, the stories were better for it.

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 4:25 PM, paqart said:

were Doctor Strange (the new Tony Stark)

This is a great observation that I didn't put together until now, but it makes perfect sense. 

He's quite literally the new Tony Stark with the confidence, brevity and authority that Stark had. 

Wild. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 4:33 PM, paqart said:

This is why I think Kirby and Ditko were both better when working with Stan Lee. It might have seemed like they did all the heavy lifting, but whatever Lee added, the stories were better for it.

Beetlejuice! 

[Bosco685]

On 10/2/2024 at 4:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Oh, I know they're out to get me. 

Just keep trucking on. It will all work out.

[CGC Mike]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:58 PM, VintageComics said:

Well, that's annoying. I had a long post typed and it disappeared. 

I'm using Mozilla, Windows and it was the only window I had opened.

@CGC Mike

Any suggestions on why this keeps happening???

I am sorry but, I do not know why this happens.  For long posts, I do recommending copying it before hitting submit.  If it happens before hitting submit, there is rarely a chance for recovery.  I can look and see if I can find something wrong.  

[bc]

On 10/2/2024 at 8:12 PM, CGC Mike said:

I am sorry but, I do not know why this happens.  For long posts, I do recommending copying it before hitting submit.  If it happens before hitting submit, there is rarely a chance for recovery.  I can look and see if I can find something wrong.  

This has been happening forever and it's likely due to a standard networking/application timeout threshold being reached.

Yes, anything more than a few minutes of effort should be copied.

-bc

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 8:16 PM, bc said:

This has been happening forever and it's likely due to a standard networking/application timeout threshold being reached.

Yes, anything more than a few minutes of effort should be copied.

-bc

Does this mean the software is timing out on it's own? To save bandwidth, or whatever?

[bc]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:20 PM, VintageComics said:

Does this mean the software is timing out on it's own? To save bandwidth, or whatever?

No, it's just a standard networking protocol or application level timeout. 

Not sure if you do any internet banking or not, but most financial sites will timeout (and cause you to re-authenticate) after a certain period of inactivity.

I've lost several long posts, it sucks. So if I'm going to post anything prolific, I usually first compose it in Word and then paste it here.

-bc

[CGC Mike]

I checked and could not find any timeout feature in any of the settings.  

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:23 PM, bc said:

No, it's just a standard networking protocol or application level timeout. 

Not sure if you do any internet banking or not, but most financial sites will timeout (and cause you to re-authenticate) after a certain period of inactivity.

I've lost several long posts, it sucks. So if I'm going to post anything prolific, I usually first compose it in Word and then paste it here.

Thanks. I'm not very tech savvy, so I'm not sure if I'm asking properly. 

With banks, it's a security issue so that's understandable.

I assume with Invision it has something to do with the Invision software needing pages to time out to keep operational speed and functionality efficient? Something along those lines?

The reason I ask, is because my Inbox times out often when searching for PM, Mike is constantly archiving old threads and in general it seems this software just needs a lot of maintenance to keep it running smoothly and quickly. 

Not sure if that makes sense or not. I'm trying to articulate a thought about something I know little about.

Edited Thursday at 01:31 AM by VintageComics

[bc]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:31 PM, VintageComics said:

Thanks. I'm not very tech savvy, so I'm not sure if I'm asking properly. 

With banks, it's a security issue so that's understandable.

I assume with Invision it has something to do with the Invision software needing pages to time out to keep operational speed and functionality efficient? Something along those lines?

The reason I ask, is because my Inbox times out often when searching for PM, Mike is constantly archiving old threads and in general it seems this software just needs a lot of maintenance to keep it running smoothly and quickly. 

Not sure if that makes sense or not. I'm trying to articulate a thought about something I know little about.

 All good man.

Not really a security issue, just a basic web based (HTTP) application timeout.

The HTTP protocol has numerous timeouts just so the server (the Invision software) can clean up any unused connections to maximize efficiency for the active sessions.

The maintenance is not just to the Invision app, there is also hardware firmware updates, operating system updates (Invision is just an app that runs on an Operating System), firewall updates, router/switch updates, load balancer updates, storage array updates, etc., etc. that have to be regularly tested, patched and documented.

-bc

[CGC Mike]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:31 PM, VintageComics said:

Mike is constantly archiving old threads

So, I do not archive any threads.  3 years ago, Dena and I looked into this archiving, which was something new.  We found the setting, which was set to archive a thread that has not seen any posts in 5 years.  We changed the setting to 12 years.

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:41 PM, bc said:

The HTTP protocol has numerous timeouts just so the server (the Invision software) can clean up any unused connections to maximize efficiency for the active sessions.

Thanks. That's sort of what I was trying to say.

On 10/2/2024 at 9:42 PM, CGC Mike said:

So, I do not archive any threads.  3 years ago, Dena and I looked into this archiving, which was something new.  We found the setting, which was set to archive a thread that has not seen any posts in 5 years.  We changed the setting to 12 years.

Gotcha! Thanks, Mike!

[mattn792]

On 10/2/2024 at 7:09 AM, fantastic_four said:

I generally agree.  That's the fatal flaw of Endgame; you can't introduce travelling back in time into virtually ANY story and have it make sense.  Back to the Future is pure fantasy; you can't go back and just change a few events and have just a few minor changes to the future.  Every single one of the infinity of individual moments, objects, people, and events that you interact with in the past changes the future, and it will change the future in large and completely unpredictable ways.  Ray Bradbury's short story "A Sound of Thunder" illustrates this well--someone goes back to the Cretaceous age to hunt a T-Rex at the moment of death it was already going to have, accidentally steps on a butterfly, and when they return to the future EVERYTHING about human society is COMPLETELY changed.  Every action you take in every microsecond--every breath you take, every bacteria your lungs take in, EVERYTHING--changes the future.  It just doesn't work at all, and when you have characters doing as many impactful things as the characters do in Endgame then it's just ludicrously implausible.

For now our understanding of the physics of time suggests going backwards is impossible, but if we ever do figure it out then using it AT ALL will become the most powerful weapon we could possibly conceive of.  Going to the past at all isn't like shaking a snow globe where everything settles back down to the way it was; it's FAR more similar to subjecting the place you're going to the 10-mile wide Chicxulub meteor that slammed into Earth and caused the extinction event that carved out parts of the Gulf of Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs.  But we all suspend disbelief about plenty of story elements in all fantasy and science fiction, so fine, let's just ignore that everything the Endgame Avengers do in the past would have completely changed the future far beyond what was shown in the film.  It's pretty easy to ignore so it's still a great film.

The multiverse is a good thing to have in a universe of serialized fiction as large and complex as the MCU or DC universe, so I'm completely fine with it being there.  I enjoy parallel universes like Miller's Dark Knight, Marvel's Old Man Logan, or Marvel's Miles Morales and the Spider-Verse, so it's great to use a multiverse to vary the storytelling.  But to base ALL of your content on it, and more importantly to use it as your excuse for why the actors keep shuffling in and out of your serialized films--NO, a thousand times NO.  It makes for content that even superfans can't relate to as well.  We all live in one universe in one timeline, and in serialized fiction we mostly want to see characters who experience that same existence.

Feige thinks that the multiverse makes his casting more consistent without doing the classic actor replacements like we're all used to in serialized fiction such as Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc etc...and sure, yes, it certainly does.  But he's losing the audience's ability to relate to the character within the limited context that all life lives within.  He's prioritizing the audience's relationship with the actors over the audience's relationship with the character itself, and he's wrong.  We want continuity, not a universe shuffle because RDJ or Chris Evans are ready to quit the A-list Marvel roles like Iron Man or Captain America.

Casting RDJ as Doom suggests that Feige hasn't learned that he just needs to replace actors as they come and go yet, but I'm suspending judgement until we see what he does with it.  

This post is brilliant.

Though I won’t withhold judgment on RDJ as Doom.  I think it’s lazy casting aimed at generating a quick buzz to try and ultimately fail at pumping up yet another bit character that no one cares about.  Who that bit character will be and what beef that character will have with Doom is what remains to be seen for me.

[VintageComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:46 PM, mattn792 said:

This post is brilliant.

Though I won’t withhold judgment on RDJ as Doom.  I think it’s lazy casting aimed at generating a quick buzz to try and ultimately fail at pumping up yet another bit character that no one cares about.  Who that bit character will be and what beef that character will have with Doom is what remains to be seen for me.

It really is brilliant, and that was the post I was replying to when my long post disappeared. 

Still trying to find the mojo to type it up again.