MCU's THE ETERNALS (11/6/20) 8 8

[media_junkie]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:35 PM, paperheart said:

Aquaman ever show a profit?

Didn't it make like a billion dollars?  Shouldn't it have made a profit?

[drotto]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:35 PM, paperheart said:

Aquaman ever show a profit?

David Prowse claimed he never made residuals for being Darth Vader, because the OT Star Wars never officially made money.

[paperheart]

On 11/14/2021 at 3:49 PM, media_junkie said:

Didn't it make like a billion dollars?  Shouldn't it have made a profit?

someone here didn't think so

Deadline calculated it made $260MM of profit

[Jaydogrules]

On 11/14/2021 at 3:35 PM, paperheart said:

Aquaman ever show a profit?

I don't know.  Did it make more than 400MM after spending that much to make, market and release? 

-J.

[drotto]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:06 PM, paperheart said:

someone here didn't think so

Deadline calculated it made $260MM of profit

Movies are basically set up so they never show a profit so they can get tax write offs.  It a dirty little trick.  The jist of it is all movies are made under a new company.  If you are making movie X, it would be movie X LLC. The LLC shoulders all of the production costs and sellers for making the movie. That LLC then contracts with say Disney to promote, distribute, and finance the film.  Disney charges movie X LLC so much money for these services that the LLC will always show a loss. Then Disney, who actually owns the LLC, files taxes stating the LLC lost money and uses those refunds to offset some of what the parent company made.  I know I do not understand all of how this is done. But that is the idea.

[NewWorldOrder]

Just saw Eternals.

I have to admit I went in with low-expectations.......

Came out thinking this was one of the best MCU movies of all time!  

Everyone in the theater came out happy! 

It's not so much that this movie made me want to go out and read the 70’s Eternals (even though I might now), its more how in-depth the story was and how good the character development was.  Also the feeling that I was reading an Infinity Gauntlet tie-in issue from the Silver Surfer 90’s Ron Lim era.

I really have not read what others have said, but IMO this was an outstanding movie that expands the MCU to places we all want them to go next!

I thought Shang Chi was very forgettable, but Eternals set-up so much I feel like I am 12 years old again!

Edited November 15, 2021 by NewWorldOrder

[musicmeta]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:53 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Just saw Eternals.

I have to admit I went in with low-expectations.......

Came out thinking this was one of the best MCU movies of all time!  

Everyone in the theater came out happy! 

It's not so much that this movie made me want to go out and read the 70’s Eternals (even though I might now), its more how in-depth the story was and how good the character development was.  Also the feeling that I was reading an Infinity War tie-in issue from Silver Surfer 90’s Ron Lim era.

I really have not read what others have said, but IMO this was an outstanding movie that expands the MCU to places we all want them to go next!

I thought Shang Chi was very forgettable, but Eternals set-up so much I feel like I am 12 years old again!

Gonna watch it next weekend.  I hope I like it.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:01 PM, musicmeta said:

Gonna watch it next weekend.  I hope I like it.

Again I don't want to give anyone unrealistic expectations, but for me this movie delivered!  Besides the cover art of some of these characters I really didn't know much past the cliff notes on the Eternals and the Deviants, but by the end of the movie all the characters I thought would be tough to keep track of their names, but it was very easy.  Again its showing the comic book audience a good taste of what probably is to come in the future. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by NewWorldOrder

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/13/2021 at 5:10 PM, Finhead said:

Slightly? Mid October they predicted $82-102 Million and if fell bellow the first 2 movies of Phase Bore. 

God-level nickname.

[fantastic_four]

On 11/14/2021 at 11:29 AM, Number 6 said:

On 11/14/2021 at 11:23 AM, fantastic_four said:

Saw the film yesterday.  Lots of questions that need to bubble up.

First one that's rather broad and my primary one I'm pondering--how close is this story to the comics?  I don't recall this idea of Celestials gestating in the womb of inhabited planets before this film.

I’m hardly an expert on this and it’s been a long time since I read the series, but I’m pretty sure Earth X covers that point and that the gestating Celestial is what Galacticus is actually consuming. There may be something prior to Earth X but again I’m not that up on the subject. 

It appears you're right that Earth X is the origin of the idea of the Celestials using planets as eggs to gestate Celestial embryos, although that was a dystopian different universe than the 616.  I can't say I'm a fan yet of them choosing to start delving into the Celestials with that particular story because it makes the idea of what their goals are VERY confusing.

I listened to some critics discussing the film after I saw it, and they were confused in a completely understandable way by thinking that the entire goal of the Celestials was to just use planets to create new Celestials, but I think the film hinted at--but never really explained in any amount of depth to understand--that usually Celestials didn't do that at all on planets but instead helped to develop new sapient life on them.  The Eternals kept repeating that by killing the Celestial embryo they would be dooming countless billions of potential new life forms, but really it would be QUADRILLIONS of sapient life forms, wouldn't it, spread across dozens, hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of worlds?  Arishem noted that once every million or so years a new Celestial would be born that apparently takes a few thousand years to gestate, but that still leaves a million years where the Celestials do what they do and aren't destroying planets to create new Celestials.  The film implied that between-births time period must exist yet didn't delve into what happens in that vast expanse of time, but that SHOULD have been the film's focus.  Because they focused on Celestial births we're now all left thinking they don't care about life at all beyond how it serves them in creating new Celestials.  Instead of the Celestials being as nurturing gods for life in the universe they appear more in the MCU at this point as conquerors who exploit worlds and their life for their own ends with no regard for that life.

And also because they didn't focus on what Celestials typically do it didn't really serve as the back story for mutants on Earth as it did in the comics.  The film did end with Arishem taking Sersi with him presumably to search her mind looking for whatever value she and Ajak saw in humans, so it's possible he or other Celestials return and do what Celestials usually did in the comics with helping to advance sapient life on Earth, but in the comics that happened millions of years in our past so I don't see how they'd ret-con those past events in now that didn't happen since they intended Earth to be an egg.  It's possible to still have them guide life on Earth in a similar way that they do in the comics, but it would have to be via ENTIRELY different methods that don't tie into evolution as well as the comics do, and that just seems nuts given how well Kirby wove evolution into what the Celestials did on planets.  

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

I also wonder what Arishem could possibly find in Sersi's mind that's so special about humanity.  Are we really that unique?  The MCU is clearly already full of sapient life like the Kree, Skrulls, Asgardians, Xandarians, Zen-Whoberisians (Gamora's species), Titans, Luphomoids (Nebula's species), etc.  Aren't humans just another sapient species like all the others the Celestials have seen for billions of years, only we're far behind some of the more evolved species with far more advanced civilizations than ours?  The idea that we're special somehow seems like an oddly narcissistic story idea.  

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

So many other open questions from the film that need answering.  I'll start with a simple one--Eros (Starfox) explicitly referred to himself as an Eternal, correct?  And Pip announced him as the brother of Thanos, so there's the obvious open question--is Thanos also an Eternal, or is he an Eternal/Deviant mix as he was in the comics?  I imagine they will leave us hanging on that one for a while.

Kro eventually became an Eternal/Deviant mix before Thena summarily executed him, so I'm left wondering if the development of Kro is a template for how Thanos would have come about if he is an Eternal/Deviant mix.

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four

[Axelrod]

One has to believe that they would not have dropped that end credit scene without already having an explanation in mind

Spoiler

(1) for how Eros could be Thanos' "brother" - given what we are told about the origins of the Eternals in this movie, and (2) How Thanos could be an "Eternal" at all.  I recall Pip saying that Eros was from Titan, so, perhaps they are setting up the idea that there are/were at least one group of "Eternals" who were not created the same way as this film's Eternals, or possibly that there was a group of Eternals who broke away from the Celestials a long time ago and have been developing/acting independently.    

The question is how the relatively poor reception this film has received will impact future plans.  I doubt they will just drop them completely, given how connected they are trying to make everything in this cinematic universe, but they definitely might scale them back a bit.

[fantastic_four]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, Axelrod said:

(1) for how Eros could be Thanos' "brother" - given what we are told about the origins of the Eternals in this movie, and (2) How Thanos could be an "Eternal" at all.  I recall Pip saying that Eros was from Titan, so, perhaps they are setting up the idea that there are/were at least one group of "Eternals" who were not created the same way as this film's Eternals, or possibly that there was a group of Eternals who broke away from the Celestials a long time ago and have been developing/acting independently. 

In the comics the Eternals help to develop sapient life on every planet that contains it, not just ones serving as a Celestial egg.  So I presume that's what it is and Starfox is an Eternal of that type, but who knows since this film mixes the alternate Earth X universe with this one.    Eternals presumably serve some role during those million-year gaps between Celestial births, so the odds seem good Starfox was created for whatever that reason is whether it matches the role of the Eternals from the comics or not.

Another question coupled with a complaint--at one point during the film we see this large army of Eternal constructs from which Earth's Eternals were created.  Why the hell were they all humanoid?    In the comics the Celestials evolve life as it exists on that planet, so sometimes they might be humanoid, but mostly they wouldn't be.  I hope they're not inadvertently perpetuating the same human-centric vision of life on all planets that sci-fi movies tend to do...Kirby didn't do that, so I don't know why the MCU writers would.  

[fantastic_four]

I'm also pretty confused about Thanos and Starfox to begin with.  I've seen the comics and now the film state that Eternals were explicitly created by the Celestials as fully-formed adults.  The comics further state that the Eternals can't have kids.  Yet somehow Starfox and Thanos are an exception to that born on Titan to Eternal parents.  Did the comics ret-con the Eternals not having kids thing at some point?  Googling it you can find alternate versions of this story idea saying both that Eternals can't have kids and Eternals can have one kid every 1000 years or so, so I'm guessing this is a story point various authors have altered over the last few decades of Marvel canon.

Which begs the question of Phastos's son in the film.  Adopted, I presume?  Or is that kid actually the son of an Eternal?

[NewWorldOrder]

On 11/15/2021 at 5:39 AM, fantastic_four said:

I also wonder what Arishem could possibly find in Sersi's mind that's so special about humanity.  Are we really that unique?  The MCU is clearly already full of sapient life like the Kree, Skrulls, Asgardians, Xandarians, Zen-Whoberisians (Gamora's species), Titans, Luphomoids (Nebula's species), etc.  Aren't humans just another sapient species like all the others the Celestials have seen for billions of years, only we're far behind some of the more evolved species with far more advanced civilizations than ours?  The idea that we're special somehow seems like an oddly narcissistic story idea.  

Most human beings generally are narcissistic. 

Social media has proven that. 

Taking the comic book element out of the Eternals, one could feel the movie was influenced from Prometheus and 2001 A Space Odyssey. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by NewWorldOrder

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:39 AM, NewWorldOrder said:

Most human beings generally are narcissistic. 

I was considering saying this. Earth tends to be the focal point of most stories for a reason, primarily to be relatable.

[fantastic_four]

Humanity being worthy of saving as a story idea just because it appeals to narcissism in the MCU audience is a sheet idea.  I hope that's not really it, but it certainly is my first guess as well that I haven't been able to rule out.    The screenwriters certainly did offer a bit more than that, though.  Ajak referred to how Tony Stark was able to re-assemble the Infinity Stones and reverse what Thanos did as the beginning of her belief that humanity shouldn't be destroyed.  Is there something to that, or is that, too, just more pandering to the audience?  

Infinity War is a near-masterpiece and easily one of the top ten superhero films ever made, but one of the hokier ideas it depends upon is that so many of the stones were on Earth.  What?  In a universe filled with countless galaxies, and among those countless galaxies filled with billions of stars these six unique stones just happened to be mostly on Earth, or not that far from Earth?  And that's what makes humanity unique, because we managed to assemble these stones half of which were already on the planet at some point?  It's a too-unlikely idea built on top of another too-unlikely idea, yet it's what makes us unique among sapient life in the universe and worth more than the life of a Celestial?  I'm not seeing it... 

[TupennyConan]

I've been waiting on FF. He's one of the best thinkers of this stuff.

I look forward to seeing Eternals again.

[fantastic_four]

By the way...my first impression was that I generally enjoyed the film, but there were enough unresolved ideas in it for me to think I could reverse that later.  All movies have flaws, even masterpieces, so just because there are problems doesn't rule out a film being great.  I left the theater under the impression that they wanted the story to be that humans are special because their audience is all humans, but I wasn't sure of it--and even if that's why they did it I don't see that it's necessarily a fatal flaw, I'm just trying to determine if that was indeed their thinking.

It took me months to think through the more complex story elements of Prometheus after I saw it before I ultimately decided if I liked it, which I ultimately did.  The whole Engineer story is far more complex and stimulating than that of the xenomorphs, although certainly the xenomorphs are far more emotionally visceral and satisfying in their own way in their better films, particularly Cameron's "Aliens."  So I anticipate it'll be a few months before I ultimately decide how much I enjoyed Eternals, too.

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four