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

[theCapraAegagrus]

40 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I don't think taking a comment from Martin Scorsese seriously and trying to up your game as a result isn't being petty. If it results in higher quality storytelling from the MCU, I think that's a good thing. Of course, I think a lot of past MCU films, like Russo Bros films and Black Panther, are on that higher plane of cinema. I think we might see deeper and more emotionally gripping films coming out of Marvel Studios. I'm looking at the filmmakers attached to future MCU projects and most of them are edgy award winning filmmakers, like Chloe Zhao, Daniel Destin Cretin, and Nia DaCosta. Feige dropped the old Dr Strange director for Sam Raimi. The writing seems to be on the wall for me, but we'll see.

Sorry, not sorry, but if 1 guy's opinion makes you 'course correct' then you are petty.

Multiverse will never be "high-quality storytelling", because it's ultimately weaksauce.

So, if the MCU has "edgy" filmmakers, it's good? But if Worlds of DC does it (first, might I add), it's what exactly?

Edited February 4, 2021 by Angel of Death

[HighVoltage]

3 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Sorry, not sorry, but if 1 guy's opinion makes you 'course correct' then you are petty.

Multiverse will never be "high-quality storytelling", because it's ultimately weaksauce.

So, if the MCU has "edgy" filmmakers, it's good? But if Worlds of DC does it (first, might I add), it's what exactly?

You can take one person's opinion of you and self-reflect.

You can then say - yeah that's got some truth... or say - no, that guy's full of BS.

I don't see a guy like Feige taking a comment by Scorsese so personally that he's gonna change the course of the MCU and make it art-house,critically acclaimed-driven product.
Feige knows his product and his audience, and so does Disney.
This isn't to say Feige can't look for good people and demand a good product.

AND - if Feige was going to drop an expensive F.U. to Scorsese and produce something on-the-level with whatever Martin considers to be a real movie, wouldn't he do it with something much more intimate and character-driven? Marvel has a ton of characters to work with and pull from in their catalog. It sure has heck wouldn't be the Eternals or anything with the Multiverse (imo).

I think Marvel has done a good job of finding good people (writers, directors, actors) overall. They took a calculated gamble with Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, and it paid off for them... and Downey. That choice (for both Marvel and Downey Jr.) was the starting point that really propelled all the MCU stuff forward.

[TupennyConan]

Martin Scorsese's entire career was built on murder and the F word. If his work is art, then art should go in the dumpster.  

I have not respect for MS. He is a corrupt pervert. 

[fantastic_four]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I think Kevin Feige wants to up the cinema quality of the MCU going forward. You know, stuff that could compete for Emmy Best Series and Oscar Best Picture awards and stuff.

Emmy awards are always on the table because they have different (lower) standards.  Oscars are within the realm of possibility, but not for most Marvel films.  The fans want sci-fantasy superhero action entertainment--myself included--not works designed to improve humanity.

Christopher Nolan came the closest anyone has to having superhero fiction transcend the genre they're in, but ultimately he wanted out because what he wants to do the most in film isn't what fans of the genre want.  It's fun for a while, but he wanted to get back to work pushing the envelope.

I suspect it's possible to create a superhero genre film that focuses on more universal themes, but nobody's done it yet on screen.  Any such film would have to mostly discard the fantasy elements that are a core part of almost every popular superhero's design.

[@therealsilvermane]

59 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Sorry, not sorry, but if 1 guy's opinion makes you 'course correct' then you are petty.

Multiverse will never be "high-quality storytelling", because it's ultimately weaksauce.

So, if the MCU has "edgy" filmmakers, it's good? But if Worlds of DC does it (first, might I add), it's what exactly?

I don't know what's in Kevin Feige's head or what motivates him, it's just a theory.

I mean edgy as in non-Hollywood established filmmakers with talent. All three I mentioned have only a few films to their name but those films have all won awards and are noted for their intimate personal storytelling. My thought is that Feige wants a little more of this in the MCU, to go along with the fun and the adventure. I fully expect films like Love and Thunder and Quantumania to stay the course and be fun. But emotion, with a little social awareness, is what gets you the awards these days.

The MCU itself was edgy in attempting and pulling off the extended universe storytelling, as well as taking little known properties and turning them into hits. James Gunn was as edgy as they come, Marvel gave him Guardians and turned it into a household name.

Is Worlds of DC edgy? You mean the Snyderverse? I don't see that as edgy at all. Zack Snyder seems to have been making the same movie style-wise since 300.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I don't know what's in Kevin Feige's head or what motivates him, it's just a theory.

I mean edgy as in non-Hollywood established filmmakers with talent. All three I mentioned have only a few films to their name but those films have all won awards and are noted for their intimate personal storytelling. My thought is that Feige wants a little more of this in the MCU, to go along with the fun and the adventure. I fully expect films like Love and Thunder and Quantumania to stay the course and be fun. But emotion, with a little social awareness, is what gets you the awards these days.

The MCU itself was edgy in attempting and pulling off the extended universe storytelling, as well as taking little known properties and turning them into hits. James Gunn was as edgy as they come, Marvel gave him Guardians and turned it into a household name.

Is Worlds of DC edgy? You mean the Snyderverse? I don't see that as edgy at all. Zack Snyder seems to have been making the same movie style-wise since 300.

You mean hypothesis?

You mean "social justice"?

The MCU was never "edgy". It was always low-stakes comedy knowing that the heroes are never in any danger. Civil War is the highlight of no stakes. Infinity War was the first movie to take a risk. James Gunn ain't "edgy", he's just good at directing comedy.

It's not called "The Snyderverse". It's called Worlds of DC. You're the first hater to not call Snyder's films "edgy", which is somewhat surprising, because that's often the 'criticism' of Marvel shills. "Snyder only produces dark and edgy films with no substance" is the most misinformed trope of said haters.

[@therealsilvermane]

2 hours ago, TupennyConan said:

Martin Scorsese's entire career was built on murder and the F word. If his work is art, then art should go in the dumpster.  

I have not respect for MS. He is a corrupt pervert. 

Well, Scorsese made a lot of movies about lost lowlifes who cursed a lot and sometimes killed or hurt people, like Jake LaMotta, Travis Bickle, and Henry Hill, but I wouldn't say the movies are low life. The "protagonists" of his films really get put through the wringer and come out the other end with a little different understanding of life, like Ace Rothstein in Casino or Newland Archer in Age of Innocence. Scorsese also really understands the language of cinema and it's in his movies which influenced a generation of filmmakers, for better or worse. I don't put him as much on a pedestal as I used to, but I did enjoy his recent Hoffa film, The Irishman.

Edited February 4, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Angel of Death said:

The MCU was never "edgy". It was always low-stakes comedy knowing that the heroes are never in any danger. Civil War is the highlight of no stakes. Infinity War was the first movie to take a risk. James Gunn ain't "edgy", he's just good at directing comedy.

I disagree back and say the MCU, particularly Phase One, was totally edgy. "Edgy" can be a broad term. Here, I don't mean the MCU equates to edgy no-budget art house cinema about teenagers overdosing on drugs or something. I think the approach Jon Favreau, Kevin Feige, and co. took in making a comic book movie was edgy for a big budget movie. Before the MCU, like Singer's X-Men for instance, it seemed the proper approach to making a comic book super-hero movie was to alter it drastically from its source material because comic book stuff was too trivial for the movies. The source material had to be "heightened." But Kevin Feige and Favreau stuck to their guns and made an Iron Man movie that took its beats directly from the comics and trusted the source material. After all, it was the comic book company itself making the movie. This was kind of unthinkable before Iron Man, Captain America the First Avenger, and Thor.

[theCapraAegagrus]

57 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I disagree back and say the MCU, particularly Phase One, was totally edgy. "Edgy" can be a broad term. Here, I don't mean the MCU equates to edgy no-budget art house cinema about teenagers overdosing on drugs or something. I think the approach Jon Favreau, Kevin Feige, and co. took in making a comic book movie was edgy for a big budget movie. Before the MCU, like Singer's X-Men for instance, it seemed the proper approach to making a comic book super-hero movie was to alter it drastically from its source material because comic book stuff was too trivial for the movies. The source material had to be "heightened." But Kevin Feige and Favreau stuck to their guns and made an Iron Man movie that took its beats directly from the comics and trusted the source material. After all, it was the comic book company itself making the movie. This was kind of unthinkable before Iron Man, Captain America the First Avenger, and Thor.

There's nothing 'tense' about Phase 1 outside of parts of The Avengers. It objectively lacks edge. It's not a matter of opinion.

[TupennyConan]

4 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, Scorsese made a lot of movies about lost lowlifes who cursed a lot and sometimes killed or hurt people, like Jake LaMotta, Travis Bickle, and Henry Hill, but I wouldn't say the movies are low life. The "protagonists" of his films really get put through the wringer and come out the other end with a little different understanding of life, like Ace Rothstein in Casino or Newland Archer in Age of Innocence. Scorsese also really understands the language of cinema and it's in his movies which influenced a generation of filmmakers, for better or worse. I don't put him as much on a pedestal as I used to, but I did enjoy his recent Hoffa film, The Irishman.

Agreed he is both technically proficient and obscene, making him the most insidious kind of filmmaker.  

[@therealsilvermane]

55 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

There's nothing 'tense' about Phase 1 outside of parts of The Avengers. It objectively lacks edge. It's not a matter of opinion.

Okay, you're referring to dramatic edge, as in Phase One lacks movies with a lot of tension and build up. That's totally a matter of opinion.

Although Iron Man's story was a little choppy for me at first, the tension of the origin cave scene was incredible. Following Stark as he constructs his armor while constantly under the eyes of Abu Bakaar was crazy tense building to the escape. While the rest of the movie was Stark mostly powering up, the specter of Stane as a plot twist bad guy and then disabling Stark with that sound thingy and then taking his power source out his chest was also pretty tense.

Captain America's boot camp section as we rooted for scrawny Steve Rogers had great tension with the bully and Colonel Philips constantly doubting him. It was the best part of the movie. The tension between Cap and Red Skull was okay, could have been better, but it was there.

Thor had the best story of the Phase One movies. His origin as a hero, his powering up, and his character journey were all tied together to make it the only Phase One movie with an actual three act structure and character journey. The scene where Thor can't lift his hammer was heartbreaking and the tension with the Destroyer and Loki was great.

I don't count Iron Man 2 as that was really a set-up movie for the Avengers universe and I disregard Incredible Hulk because it's complete trash and Marvel knows it.

[@therealsilvermane]

5 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

I suspect it's possible to create a superhero genre film that focuses on more universal themes, but nobody's done it yet on screen. 

Ang Lee's Hulk did. It just seemed to get missed by most folks.

[TupennyConan]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

Ang Lee's Hulk did. It just seemed to get missed by most folks.

That's a great film & classic Hulk: out in the desert, leaping miles into the air, battling the US military. A really great film. The best Hulk movie, to date.  

[@therealsilvermane]

1 minute ago, TupennyConan said:

That's a great film & classic Hulk: out in the desert, leaping miles into the air, battling the US military. A really great film. The best Hulk movie, to date.  

Yes! I loved that about the movie, the classic desert battles with the Army. But the movie also had at its core the universal theme of repression and the human pursuit of freedom from that repression that's been in almost every Ang Lee film. Crouching Tiger was about a woman seeking freedom from the repression of women in China. Brokeback Mountain was about two men seeking freedom the constraints their society and culture have put on them. Hulk was about freedom from the repression of the limitations of the human body and mind.

[fantastic_four]

10 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Ang Lee's Hulk did. It just seemed to get missed by most folks.

In a mediocre way during the first half, but in the second half it was the HULK SMASH! action fans demand--and fans absolutely screamed bloody murder about that first half being not what they wanted.

[@therealsilvermane]

7 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

In a mediocre way during the first half, but in the second half it was the HULK SMASH! action fans demand--and fans absolutely screamed bloody murder about that first half being not what they wanted.

The repression/freedom from repression theme was there throughout the entire film. Bruce Banner/Hulk was the embodiment of it, but it was David Banner's quest to the very end of the movie. He even says it to Betsy Ross when he tries to explain himself to her. And he becomes it at the end when he goes from having aborbing powers to becoming a Hulk god over Pear Lake with no control over the power.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Okay, you're referring to dramatic edge, as in Phase One lacks movies with a lot of tension and build up. That's totally a matter of opinion.

Although Iron Man's story was a little choppy for me at first, the tension of the origin cave scene was incredible. Following Stark as he constructs his armor while constantly under the eyes of Abu Bakaar was crazy tense building to the escape. While the rest of the movie was Stark mostly powering up, the specter of Stane as a plot twist bad guy and then disabling Stark with that sound thingy and then taking his power source out his chest was also pretty tense.

Captain America's boot camp section as we rooted for scrawny Steve Rogers had great tension with the bully and Colonel Philips constantly doubting him. It was the best part of the movie. The tension between Cap and Red Skull was okay, could have been better, but it was there.

Thor had the best story of the Phase One movies. His origin as a hero, his powering up, and his character journey were all tied together to make it the only Phase One movie with an actual three act structure and character journey. The scene where Thor can't lift his hammer was heartbreaking and the tension with the Destroyer and Loki was great.

I don't count Iron Man 2 as that was really a set-up movie for the Avengers universe and I disregard Incredible Hulk because it's complete trash and Marvel knows it.

It's not a matter of opinion. Phase 1 is devoid of "edge" aka "tension". There was no gravity until The Avengers. The death of Phil Coulson is the only stake available to Phase 1.

[Bosco685]

14 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Thor had the best story of the Phase One movies. His origin as a hero, his powering up, and his character journey were all tied together to make it the only Phase One movie with an actual three act structure and character journey. The scene where Thor can't lift his hammer was heartbreaking and the tension with the Destroyer and Loki was great.

Still one of my favorite MCU solo films. So many of the characters from the Thor stories I very much enjoyed as a long-time reader and fan.

[@therealsilvermane]

[@therealsilvermane]

Meanwhile, entertainment media continues to overlook Gemma Chan playing the role of Sersi, the only Eternal to ever be an Avenger.