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

[paqart]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:06 PM, Straw-Man said:

i see you find shang-chi superior to endgame.  do you, like g.a.tor, also believe wuerffel superior to elway?

I didn't say anything about whether one film was "superior" to another. I was commenting on what I liked or didn't like. There is a big difference. I thought I made this clear by pointing out that the films are all good technically. I'll add here that artistically they are also all good. What I like or don't like are completely separate issues. There are movies that are technically poor that I enjoy, while other films that are "superior" by most measures, I don't like.

For instance, the movie "Ticket to Heaven" is not particularly good in many ways but I think it is so interesting that I've watched it around ten times, maybe more. In contrast, any of the Pirates of the Caribbean films are "superior" to most other movies artistically and technically but I still haven't been able to sit through more than about ten minutes of any of them. I found them irritating to watch, though my wife loves them.

Endgame was a tour de force technically and artistically. I do not fault it on any technical grounds. However, there were two scenes in the movie that killed it for me. The first was the scene where Captain Marvel saved Tony Stark and Nebula. I did not like the deus et machina solution to the problem. It was too easy to be satisfying. This narrative blunder was compounded during Captain Marvel's interaction with Thor. She was not only annoying but Thor uttered a line fit only for Loki by saying "I like this one" in reference to Captain Marvel. I found her appearance so annoying that it took some half hour or so before I stopped thinking about it while watching the rest of the film unfold. I started to enjoy the film but then, right at the end, Captain Marvel saved the day again by smashing through Thanos' ship in one blow. Not content with rendering everyone in the film irrelevant, she then posed in a gratuitous and statistically-unlikely grouping of female superheroes. I could have forgiven Endgame for the initial scene featuring Captain Marvel but not both. This is particularly true because in both scenes, Captain Marvel swooped in and solved seemingly impossible or difficult problems without effort. To my eyes, it was a classic example of lazy writing combined with poor casting. 

The only thing I didn't like about Shang-Chi was the casting of Awkwafina. Eventually, she grew to be less irritating to the point where she was tolerable, unlike Brie Larsen, who never achieves that status. 

I disliked Ragnarok because Thor was treated so disrespectfully. It was like watching a "struggle session" from the communist Cultural Revolution in 1960's China. Black Panther contained many story elements that I disliked. Chief among them were the blend of "cultural traditions" associated with warlord governments and technological sophistication that is impossible within a warlord-governed society. I also found it strange that outside of T'Challa and Forest Whitaker, the Black Panther's tribe appeared to be entirely comprised of beautiful young women. The Wakandan males all belonged to other tribes, or so it seemed. I really disliked Civil War's sappy "virtuous victim" perspective, best illustrated by Tony Stark's self-emasculation. Despite these criticisms, all of these films are excellent examples of filmmaking craft. I just don't like them. To me, they are the equivalent of a well-written poem concerning close relatives, wherein each of these close relatives is portrayed in a dramatically incorrect or insulting way. It's hard to enjoy that kind of product no matter how well-made it is.

[Straw-Man]

and danny v. john?

[Bosco685]

All that star power, and yet 4th on the list.

[PunisherPunisherPunisher]

Still haven't watched this movie yet, I'll wait a while 

[media_junkie]

On 12/22/2021 at 4:06 PM, PunisherPunisherPunisher said:

Still haven't watched this movie yet, I'll wait a while 

I'll watch it when it hits Disney+ in early 2022.

[Bosco685]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:59 PM, media_junkie said:

I'll watch it when it hits Disney+ in early 2022.

You better before it goes back in The Vault again forever. (*)

* Or until the 5K, 6K, 7K disc release takes place over the years where all of those will also go back in The Disney Vault forever.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 12/20/2021 at 5:15 PM, paqart said:

Endgame was a tour de force technically and artistically. I do not fault it on any technical grounds. However, there were two scenes in the movie that killed it for me. The first was the scene where Captain Marvel saved Tony Stark and Nebula. I did not like the deus et machina solution to the problem. It was too easy to be satisfying. This narrative blunder was compounded during Captain Marvel's interaction with Thor. She was not only annoying but Thor uttered a line fit only for Loki by saying "I like this one" in reference to Captain Marvel. I found her appearance so annoying that it took some half hour or so before I stopped thinking about it while watching the rest of the film unfold. I started to enjoy the film but then, right at the end, Captain Marvel saved the day again by smashing through Thanos' ship in one blow. Not content with rendering everyone in the film irrelevant, she then posed in a gratuitous and statistically-unlikely grouping of female superheroes. I could have forgiven Endgame for the initial scene featuring Captain Marvel but not both. This is particularly true because in both scenes, Captain Marvel swooped in and solved seemingly impossible or difficult problems without effort. To my eyes, it was a classic example of lazy writing combined with poor casting.

I get it. You don't like Captain Marvel or Brie Larson. However, I think you're being a little unfair by calling her place in Endgame's story a deus ex machina or lazy writing, in comparison to other parts of the film.

Nick Fury called Carol Danvers at the end of Infinity War because he had an idea of the impossible stakes involved, that the Avengers had failed, and that he needed the ace in the hole "Superman" he had in his pocket. Yes, Captain Marvel is the MCU's Superman. So there's that. She's in the story because Nick Fury called her up.

Now, about the Tony Stark and Nebula situation at the beginning of Endgame. Yes, it was a difficult situation for our two heroes to open the film. However, it was a problem that could have been solved any different way, but it didn't really matter how it would be solved because Tony Stark and Nebula being marooned in space wasn't the main problem. Rocket could have built a new spaceship to go find them, or maybe Thor's new hammer might have transported him to wherever they were, a surviving Kree scout ship could have found them, whatever. The point was the story just needed to get Stark and Nebula on Earth so that we could move on to the bigger picture: finding Thanos and trying to restore the universe. As it was, Carol used her unique ability to fly in space and found them tracing the Benatar's distress signal. So the story element of Nick Fury calling in his ace-in-the-hole has now paid off in a small way and has helped move the story along so we could get to the bigger problem.

About the finale battle when Captain Marvel takes out Thanos's mothership, the Sanctuary. Again, Nick Fury called up Carol Danvers because she is a big gun, so she needed to pay off in a big gun kind of way. Anton Chekov allegedly said if you show a gun hanging on a wall, then you must fire that gun in the next chapter. Nick Fury's big "gun" fired in the next chapter by taking out Thanos's big gun was that was raining fire on our heroes and gave them a breather to, again, get to solving the bigger problem. Carol's action was no more a deus ex machina in Endgame's final battle than Dr. Strange whipping up the tidal wave into a water spout, or Wanda nearly killing Thanos forcing him to change his battle plan and rain fire on everyone even his own minions, or Steve Rogers magically wielding Mjolnir thus saving Thor, or Stark wielding an Infinity Gauntlet and ending the battle with a snap. Everyone played their part to the level of their super-powers. Strange is a big gun wizard, so he was able to save everyone from the big tidal wave. Rogers has a big gun heart so he was able to lift Mjolnir and save Thor. Stark has a big gun technical mind so he was able to build a Gauntlet that could match Thanos's. And Danvers has big gun energy powers which allows her to basically be a living Infinity Stone level missile. Everyone played their part so that Stark could save the day in the end. 

Captain Marvel was absolutely not a deus ex machina in Endgame. At least, no more than any other superhero in the movie.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[paqart]

On 12/26/2021 at 11:58 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

I get it. You don't like Captain Marvel or Brie Larson. However, I think you're being a little unfair by calling her place in Endgame's story a deus ex machina or lazy writing, in comparison to other parts of the film.

Nick Fury called Carol Danvers at the end of Infinity War because he had an idea of the impossible stakes involved, that the Avengers had failed, and that he needed the ace in the hole "Superman" he had in his pocket. Yes, Captain Marvel is the MCU's Superman. So there's that. She's in the story because Nick Fury called her up.

Now, about the Tony Stark and Nebula situation at the beginning of Endgame. Yes, it was a difficult situation for our two heroes to open the film. However, it was a problem that could have been solved any different way, but it didn't really matter how it would be solved because Tony Stark and Nebula being marooned in space wasn't the main problem. Rocket could have built a new spaceship to go find them, or maybe Thor's new hammer might have transported him to wherever they were, a surviving Kree scout ship could have found them, whatever. The point was the story just needed to get Stark and Nebula on Earth so that we could move on to the bigger picture: finding Thanos and trying to restore the universe. As it was, Carol used her unique ability to fly in space and found them tracing the Benatar's distress signal. So the story element of Nick Fury calling in his ace-in-the-hole has now paid off in a small way and has helped move the story along so we could get to the bigger problem.

About the finale battle when Captain Marvel takes out Thanos's mothership, the Sanctuary. Again, Nick Fury called up Carol Danvers because she is a big gun, so she needed to pay off in a big gun kind of way. Anton Chekov allegedly said if you show a gun hanging on a wall, then you must fire that gun in the next chapter. Nick Fury's big "gun" fired in the next chapter by taking out Thanos's big gun was that was raining fire on our heroes and gave them a breather to, again, get to solving the bigger problem. Carol's action was no more a deus ex machina in Endgame's final battle than Dr. Strange whipping up the tidal wave into a water spout, or Wanda nearly killing Thanos forcing him to change his battle plan and rain fire on everyone even his own minions, or Steve Rogers magically wielding Mjolnir thus saving Thor, or Stark wielding an Infinity Gauntlet and ending the battle with a snap. Everyone played their part to the level of their super-powers. Strange is a big gun wizard, so he was able to save everyone from the big tidal wave. Rogers has a big gun heart so he was able to lift Mjolnir and save Thor. Stark has a big gun technical mind so he was able to build a Gauntlet that could match Thanos's. And Danvers has big gun energy powers which allows her to basically be a living Infinity Stone level missile. Everyone played their part so that Stark could save the day in the end. 

Captain Marvel was absolutely not a deus ex machina in Endgame. At least, no more than any other superhero in the movie.

 

 

You make a good point about Dr. Strange and Steve Rogers but after that, we disagree. I do think they used Marvel as a deux et machina, whether Fury called her or not. As for alternate means of reaching earth, none of those make sense in the context of Stark and Nebula running out of air and food. Regardless, almost any solution would be better than Captain Marvel magically rescuing them. 

Captain Marvel in the MCU irritates me in the same way I am irritated by the new Nintendo-produced Pokemon cards relative to the original Wizards of the Coast cards. The game isn't fun with the Nintendo cards (for me anyway) because they are so over-powered. 

If Captain Marvel was played by Gal Godot (or anyone with a pleasant personality) I would be less irritated by her time on screen. The story situations remain a problem though, too much for me to appreciate her character. Personally, I hope the MCU kills Captain Marvel as soon as possible. It isn't as if they haven't killed other characters. They killed Quicksilver in the same film he was introduced within and he was a much more appealing character than Captain Marvel.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 12/26/2021 at 3:24 PM, paqart said:

If Captain Marvel was played by Gal Godot (or anyone with a pleasant personality) I would be less irritated by her time on screen. The story situations remain a problem though, too much for me to appreciate her character. Personally, I hope the MCU kills Captain Marvel as soon as possible. It isn't as if they haven't killed other characters. They killed Quicksilver in the same film he was introduced within and he was a much more appealing character than Captain Marvel.

Well, sorry you feel that way about Brie Larson. For me, she's perfect casting and is a hell of an actor. She makes me want to buy a Nissan. In comparison, for me, Gal Gadot is great to look at but I find her acting quite stiff. She seems to have trouble expressing more intense feelings. As the MCU is progressively moving towards a universe that is empowering its female heroes where it will be nearly half male and half female and with female heroes in positions of power, Captain Marvel will be right there at the top and will most likely be installed as the leader of the Avengers, even though she's apparently getting her own self-titled mini-team for her sequel. Maybe you will find her sequel to be a better movie and she'll grow on you, because she's here to stay for a while. In comparison, I initially found Chris Evans and Benedict Cumberbatch kind of boring as their hero counterparts in their origin movies, but then Chris Evans nailed it for me in Winter Soldier and I feel Benedict finally grew into the Strange role with Infinity War.

Edited December 27, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[paqart]

On 12/26/2021 at 6:25 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, sorry you feel that way about Brie Larson. For me, she's perfect casting and is a hell of an actor. She makes me want to buy a Nissan. In comparison, for me, Gal Gadot is great to look at but I find her acting quite stiff. She seems to have trouble expressing more intense feelings. As the MCU is progressively moving towards a universe that is empowering its female heroes where it will be nearly half male and half female and with female heroes in positions of power, Captain Marvel will be right there at the top and will most likely be installed as the leader of the Avengers, even though she's apparently getting her own self-titled mini-team for her sequel. Maybe you will find her sequel to be a better movie and she'll grow on you, because she's here to stay for a while. In comparison, I found Chris Evans and Benedict Cumberbatch kind of boring as their hero counterparts, but Chris Evans nailed it for me in Winter Soldier and I feel Benedict finally grew into the Strange role with Infinity War.

Yes, we disagree. I liked the MCU for a long time, just as I liked Pixar at first. Now, I'm just not interested. Civil War was the beginning of the end for me, just as (I think) Moana was the first Disney/Pixar movie I skipped.

[kav]

On 12/21/2021 at 11:16 AM, Bosco685 said:

All that star power, and yet 4th on the list.

I read that eternals has to make 680 million to break even-can you explain?

[drotto]

On 12/26/2021 at 8:48 PM, kav said:

I read that eternals has to make 680 million to break even-can you explain?

The general rule is 2.5X to 3X production budget to start making money for a film.  This accounts for marketing as well as the theater's take of the ticket sales.  Thus Eternals with a production budget of $200 million needs $500 million to $600 million to make money. With the pandemic people are favoring the higher side since with pushing the release date the advertising budget is assumed to go up, as well as more interest accruing on the loans taken out to make the movie.

Edited December 27, 2021 by drotto

[paqart]

On 12/26/2021 at 8:48 PM, kav said:

I read that eternals has to make 680 million to break even-can you explain?

They have lot of expenses on top of the budget to make the film. Advertising and marketing often cost as much as the movie budget.

[kav]

and plus china doesnt like it so no release there so thats a huge loss.

[drotto]

On 12/26/2021 at 9:08 PM, kav said:

and plus china doesnt like it so no release there so thats a huge loss.

China is getting less and less reliable despite how much money and effort western movie makers have spent on the country.  Also, Spider-Man shows make a great film with wide appeal and you may not need China for big numbers.

[Finhead]

On 12/26/2021 at 6:48 PM, kav said:

I read that eternals has to make 680 million to break even-can you explain?

I'm not sure it's that much it would have to make but it isn't what used to be the 2X budget to start making $$. Here is a good site IMO to breakdown where movies are at for profit or loss.
https://ombreviews.com/box-office-tracking/

[kav]

On 12/26/2021 at 6:19 PM, Finhead said:

I'm not sure it's that much it would have to make but it isn't what used to be the 2X budget to start making $$. Here is a good site IMO to breakdown where movies are at for profit or loss.
https://ombreviews.com/box-office-tracking/

so eternals will almost certainly lose money.  good.

[Finhead]

On 12/26/2021 at 7:23 PM, kav said:

so eternals will almost certainly lose money.  good.

yep as did BW and SC made about 34 mil , Venom LTBC made 134mil  alone never mind Spider man. Sony is owning the BO right now.

[kav]

On 12/26/2021 at 6:27 PM, Finhead said:

yep as did BW and SC made about 34 mil , Venom LTBC made 134mil  alone never mind Spider man. Sony is owning the BO right now.

losses on BW and etenals should cancel gains by shangi chi and venom.  so spider man only thing propping them up.  they need to stop with the losers.

[drotto]

On 12/26/2021 at 9:31 PM, kav said:

losses on BW and etenals should cancel gains by shangi chi and venom.  so spider man only thing propping them up.  they need to stop with the losers.

Sony is making lots of money, they have Venom and 75% of Spider-Man.  It is Disney with the issues (they have no claim to Venom), they lost on BW, and Eternals, made a little on Shang-Chi, but do get 25% of Spider-Man. Sony is in good place, Disney not so much.  They have also lost money on Encanto, Jungle Cruise, Luca (intended theatrical release that went to streaming) and technically West Side Story as well as other remnants from the Fox merger have lost money.  Granted those costs are technically already part on the purchase cost of Fox, so any money on those could be seen as a win. 

 

For Disney Spider-Man is really their only bright spot in the last 2 years.