MCU Phase 4 is Over: The Support Group 1 1

[Artboy99]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:37 AM, drotto said:

The changes feel like change for the sake of change, rather than anything that drives the narrative. They are repeating all the mistakes of Marvel circa 2015-2016 when the comics basically wholesale replaced, retired, or redefined about 90% of the characters.  Total out with the old in with the new, and fans hated it.  For the most part it was a complete failure, and much has since been reversed. But floppy comics are still struggling, since many fans never came back.

 

I am completely puzzled why the MCU is going down the same road.

exactly, I really don't understand why they would go down the exact same route that didn't work in the comics. It speaks to leadership: who makes these decisions and clearly whoever that is cares more about whatever diversity and inclusion message they feel their company has to state over simply making great content based on the vast history at their disposal.

[Artboy99]

On 11/20/2022 at 1:53 PM, Hamlet said:

Yup.  I’m a comic book guy, and I’m tired of comic book movies.  I don’t think this is sustainable.  

Part of the problem is that nothing is ever going to match the buildup and payoff of all of the movies all leading into Endgame.  When looked at as a whole, those movies starting with Iron Man and ending with Endgame are one of the greatest achievements in cinematic history.  Nothing is ever going to match that again in the superhero genre.

I still watch some of the newer stuff, but none of it is must see, and for the most part it is all stuff I’ve seen before.  How many of these movies can be entertaining once you’ve seen 20+ movies just like it?
 

 

 

I am a comic book guy too, and I am very tired of mediocre movies, TV shows and comics.

They don't need to come up with all new different things when they have a vast history of stories to explore. Done right, the next phases could be about the Galactus saga which in my opinion is one of the greatest stories ever told in comics. Make something reasonably faithful to the introductory story but have the other franchises discover things about this potential universal threat that leads to the second or even third Fantastic Four movie having the arrival of Galactus on earth.

The Guardians of the Galaxy could discover a planet they previously visited now lifeless and devoid of all energy. What could have caused such a tragedy?

Antman discovers an entire world has also been destroyed within the Quantum realm.

The next Thor movie is about the introduction of Beta Ray Bill and faithfully tell that story (because it is awesome!) but add a small wrinkle: The demon horde invading Bill's system are in fact fleeing their own realm that was destroyed by Galactus.

The first Fantastic Four movie introduces Dr. Doom, and in his castle a device tracking the destruction of Planets is discovered and Reed notes the path is coming towards the Milky Way. The device also finds the Negative zone and perhaps the second film is about that story but tie it in to the over all Galactus saga done by simply having yet another system found in the Negative Zone lifeless and devoid of all energy.

Ideas like this that tie the MCU together yet also have their own stories: BUT it is imperative the individual films are all well written and well made films. 7/10+ type of quality and fans will eat it up and then is it sustainable again.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Artboy99

[PopKulture]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:03 AM, Artboy99 said:

I am a comic book guy too, and I am very tired of mediocre movies, TV shows and comics.

They don't need to come up with all new different things when they have a vast history of stories to explore. Done right, the next phases could be about the Galactus saga which in my opinion is one of the greatest stories ever told in comics. Make something reasonably faithful to the introductory story but have the other franchises discover things about this potential universal threat that leads to the second or even third Fantastic Four movie having the arrival of Galactus on earth.

The Guardians of the Galaxy could discover a planet they previously visited now lifeless and devoid of all energy. What could have caused such a tragedy?

Antman discovers an entire world has also been destroyed within the Quantum realm.

The next Thor movie is about the introduction of Beta Ray Bill and faithfully tell that story (because it is awesome!) but add a small wrinkle: The demon horde invading Bill's system are in fact fleeing their own realm that was destroyed by Galactus.

The first Fantastic Four movie introduces Dr. Doom, and in his castle a device tracking the destruction of Planets is discovered and Reed notes the path is coming towards the Milky Way. The device also finds the Negative zone and perhaps the second film is about that story but tie it in to the over all Galactus saga done by simply having yet another system found in the Negative Zone lifeless and devoid of all energy.

Ideas like this that tie the MCU together yet also have their own stories: BUT it is imperative the individual films are all well written and well made films. 7/10+ type of quality and fans will eat it up and then is it sustainable again.

Seems like Marvel should hire you! 

[Artboy99]

On 11/21/2022 at 8:24 AM, PopKulture said:

Seems like Marvel should hire you! 

While I appreciate the positive feedback, Marvel/Disney would never hire me because I do not fit their obvious current agenda: my top priority would be seeing great stories shown on the screen somewhat faithfully to the characters as they are in the comics and less about diversity and inclusion and representation. 

[drotto]

As an X-Men fan, I still want a proper Dark Pheonix Saga.

[Artboy99]

On 11/21/2022 at 8:54 AM, drotto said:

As an X-Men fan, I still want a proper Dark Pheonix Saga.

same!

[RedRaven]

I followed this thread for a while and it made me reflect a bit on why I bailed on the MCU, even before end-game, and what the possible future holds for the genre taken as a whole...

Warning: ramblings of a grumpy old man follow...

Nothing lasts forever and that is doubly true of movie genres. Even within genres fans will come and go as the genre changes or the fans own motivations change. My interest in comic movies was primarily driven by the nostalgia of my childhood. Nostalgia is a limited resource. There is only so much to spend before the item purchased with that currency must return something beyond a warm feeling of an idealized past. Comic book movies are not art. They are a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed for a brief amount of time. Some of the movies are serviceable exercises in filmmaking (Joker, Winter Soldier) but for the most part they are assembly line productions designed to appeal to a broad customer base.

The popularity and appeal of the original Marvel arc which culminated in Endgame will not be repeated. The broad world-building and interconnected characters which characterized these phases was novel and captured audiences who wanted to be along for the ride. It cannot be overstated how important the near miracle of casting Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark served as the lynchpin around which the public anchored themselves to this journey. The strength of that character and the charisma that Robert Downey lent to it allowed Marvel to succeed with a host of inferior characters and actors who only had relevance to the larger story.

Now that the original story has reached its conclusion we are left with pieces. Marvel/Disney has been clumsily trying to build on these fragments to recapture something of the original success. They won’t. Flooding media with content seems counter productive. An audience still needs a singular strong character on which to focus. Something from which all the other aspects of the universe can be taken in context. There is no Tony Stark currently.

Even if Marvel/Disney recalibrated their efforts to one of a more focused character driven approach with less content they still have the problem of me and viewers like me. The MCU had bored me by the time of the first Doctor Strange movie. I had spent all my currency/nostalgia and I was noticing that the movies were not terribly good. I simply didn’t want to watch Super Hero movies anymore. Lots of other viewers burn out for other reasons. Of course Disney knows this as well and has spent a lot of effort recalibrating to capture a new audience. Some of this has led to a criticism that the movies are too Woke. I see it more that Disney is trying to capture a new audience knowing that their older audience will only evaporate as time moves forward. Whether or not you agree with their efforts is inconsequential if the audience materializes. So far, based on the trending audience numbers, it hasn’t. I honestly don’t think there is anything Disney can do here. The genre is aging and the product is stale.

Comic book movies will not die, just like westerns won’t die. My favorite genre remains the American Western. We have resurgences every few years or so with some well crafted pieces which I enjoy (1883, Old Henry) but for the most part the genre slumbers. Super hero movies will enter a similar state eventually and, at this point, that is the best thing that could happen to the genre.

Edited November 21, 2022 by RedRaven

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/21/2022 at 5:59 PM, RedRaven said:

I followed this thread for a while and it made me reflect a bit on why I bailed on the MCU, even before end-game, and what the possible future holds for the genre taken as a whole...

Warning: ramblings of a grumpy old man follow...

Nothing lasts forever and that is doubly true of movie genres. Even within genres fans will come and go as the genre changes or the fans own motivations change. My interesest in comic movies was primarily driven by the nostalgia of my childhood. Nostalgia is a limited resource. There is only so much to spend before the item purchased with that currency must return something beyond a warm feeling of an idealized past. Comic book movies are not art. They are a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed for a brief amount of time. Some of the movies are serviceable exercises in filmmaking (Joker, Winter Soldier) but for the most part they are assembly line productions designed to appeal to a broad customer base.

The popularity and appeal of the original Marvel arc which culminated in Endgame will not be repeated. The broad world-building and interconnected characters which characterized these phases was novel and captured audiences who wanted to be along for the ride. It cannot be understated how important the near miracle of casting Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark served as the lynchpin around which the public anchored themselves to this journey. The strength of that character and the charisma that Robert Downey lent to it allowed Marvel to succeed with a host of inferior characters and actors who only had relevance to the larger story.

Now that the original story has reached its conclusion we are left with pieces. Marvel/Disney has been clumsily trying to build on these fragments to recapture something of the original success. They won’t. Flooding media with content seems counter productive. An audience still needs a singular strong character on which to focus. Something from which all the other aspects of the universe can be taken in context. There is no Tony Stark currently.

Even if Marvel/Disney recalibrated their efforts to one of a more focused character driven approach with less content they still have the problem of me and viewers like me. The MCU had bored me by the time of the first Doctor Strange movie. I had spent all my currency/nostalgia and I was noticing that the movies were not terribly good. I simply didn’t want to watch Super Hero movies anymore. Lots of other viewers burn out for other reasons. Of course Disney knows this as well and has spent a lot of effort recalibrating to capture a new audience. Some of this has led to a criticism that the movies are too Woke. I see it more that Disney is trying to capture a new audience knowing that their older audience will only evaporate as time moves forward. Whether or not you agree with their efforts is inconsequential if the audience materializes. So far, based on the trending audience numbers, it hasn’t. I honestly don’t think there is anything Disney can do here. The genre is aging and the product is stale.

Comic book movies will not die, just like westerns won’t die. My favorite genre remains the American Western. We have resurgences every few years or so with some well crafted pieces which I enjoy (1883, Old Henry) but for the most part the genre slumbers. Super hero movies will enter a similar state eventually and, at this point, that is the best thing that could happen to the genre.

Nicely put, Red.

I watched the second Raimi Spidey film again the other day, for the first time in ages. I really liked it. I really liked the characters, the story, the mood - everything about it. I remember getting goose bumps the first time I saw Spidey swing MJ though NY in the first film. I was seeing Spidey for the first time, on film, and it was fantastic. 

All the subsequent films have had their moments and scenes to commend, but those first two (and a half) films nailed it for me and, in a way, I don't need to see anymore. I saw it done well, faithfully, and it had the heart and mood that I was looking for. That'll do me.

[Artboy99]

On 11/21/2022 at 10:59 AM, RedRaven said:

I followed this thread for a while and it made me reflect a bit on why I bailed on the MCU, even before end-game, and what the possible future holds for the genre taken as a whole...

Warning: ramblings of a grumpy old man follow...

Nothing lasts forever and that is doubly true of movie genres. Even within genres fans will come and go as the genre changes or the fans own motivations change. My interest in comic movies was primarily driven by the nostalgia of my childhood. Nostalgia is a limited resource. There is only so much to spend before the item purchased with that currency must return something beyond a warm feeling of an idealized past. Comic book movies are not art. They are a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed for a brief amount of time. Some of the movies are serviceable exercises in filmmaking (Joker, Winter Soldier) but for the most part they are assembly line productions designed to appeal to a broad customer base.

The popularity and appeal of the original Marvel arc which culminated in Endgame will not be repeated. The broad world-building and interconnected characters which characterized these phases was novel and captured audiences who wanted to be along for the ride. It cannot be understated how important the near miracle of casting Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark served as the lynchpin around which the public anchored themselves to this journey. The strength of that character and the charisma that Robert Downey lent to it allowed Marvel to succeed with a host of inferior characters and actors who only had relevance to the larger story.

Now that the original story has reached its conclusion we are left with pieces. Marvel/Disney has been clumsily trying to build on these fragments to recapture something of the original success. They won’t. Flooding media with content seems counter productive. An audience still needs a singular strong character on which to focus. Something from which all the other aspects of the universe can be taken in context. There is no Tony Stark currently.

Even if Marvel/Disney recalibrated their efforts to one of a more focused character driven approach with less content they still have the problem of me and viewers like me. The MCU had bored me by the time of the first Doctor Strange movie. I had spent all my currency/nostalgia and I was noticing that the movies were not terribly good. I simply didn’t want to watch Super Hero movies anymore. Lots of other viewers burn out for other reasons. Of course Disney knows this as well and has spent a lot of effort recalibrating to capture a new audience. Some of this has led to a criticism that the movies are too Woke. I see it more that Disney is trying to capture a new audience knowing that their older audience will only evaporate as time moves forward. Whether or not you agree with their efforts is inconsequential if the audience materializes. So far, based on the trending audience numbers, it hasn’t. I honestly don’t think there is anything Disney can do here. The genre is aging and the product is stale.

Comic book movies will not die, just like westerns won’t die. My favorite genre remains the American Western. We have resurgences every few years or so with some well crafted pieces which I enjoy (1883, Old Henry) but for the most part the genre slumbers. Super hero movies will enter a similar state eventually and, at this point, that is the best thing that could happen to the genre.

I agree with this post quite a bit, however I do think the "lightning in a bottle" that happened with the first series of films can be repeated. They don't need to focus on acquiring a new fanbase as it will come if they make great films with well written stories which will keep the existing fanbase as well. The first Iron Man is a fantastic example of that: it was a great story, well made with as you mention a great casting choice. Somewhere out there is an actor who fits a role perfectly that can lead the MCU franchise into the next era centering around well written stories with an over-arching event (like Galactus).

Perhaps it is in the role of Doctor Doom? Doom has many similarities to the technology aspect of Iron Man that lends well to the lead. Doom could have his own movie(s), and be involved in many of the other movies in the franchise. The "anti-hero" who starts out as self serving, but through events that occur eventually sides with and works together with the forces of good to defeat the greater evil that actually threatens his own plans and his very existence. 

[Axelrod]

I don't want to get political so I'm just going to say this and leave.

The problems with Marvel films - such as they are - are NOT, I repeat NOT because the writers/directors/producers are trying to be more diverse and/or inclusive with their casting decisions.

That is wrong in all the ways.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/21/2022 at 1:46 PM, Artboy99 said:

They don't need to focus on acquiring a new fanbase as it will come if they make great films with well written stories which will keep the existing fanbase as well. The first Iron Man is a fantastic example of that: it was a great story, well made with as you mention a great casting choice.

It takes no stretch of imagination to know that prioritizing good writing will win/keep you fans no matter who or what your story is about. Organic storytelling is key. "What would s/he actually do?" Not, "what would I like them to do under this pretext?" A big problem in Phase Bore was bastardizing established characters. They turned characters like Doctor Strange and Thor into bumbling insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. Those are 2 of your most powerful heroes! And they were written into the competency of corner-store middle-management. Sigh...

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/21/2022 at 2:08 PM, Axelrod said:

I don't want to get political so I'm just going to say this and leave.

The problems with Marvel films - such as they are - are NOT, I repeat NOT because the writers/directors/producers are trying to be more diverse and/or inclusive with their casting decisions.

That is wrong in all the ways.  

"Casting decisions"? I guess, but you're wrong if you think there is no affect on writing and direction.

[Axelrod]

On 11/22/2022 at 8:11 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

"Casting decisions"? I guess, but you're wrong if you think there is no affect on writing and direction.

One example?  I'm not being snide.  I hear this a lot, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Axelrod

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 8:32 AM, Axelrod said:

One example?  I'm not being snide.  I hear this a lot, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

America Chavez the MacGuffin in Multiverse of Madness. Jane Foster Thor in Love and Thunder. It can be great to draw from the source material, but not when they're abject failures.

Edited November 22, 2022 by theCapraAegagrus

[Axelrod]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:08 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

America Chavez the MacGuffin in Multiverse of Madness. Jane Foster Thor in Love and Thunder. It can be great to draw from the source material, but not when they're abject failures.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.  You are saying these were poorly executed/written female characters?  Or the stories in which these characters were utilized were poorly written?  

I'm not even going to argue against that.  But whether that's correct or not, what would it have to do with whether or not Marvel is being ruined by their "woke" agenda?  

Unless (and this seems to be the underlying assumption of a lot of the criticism I hear) the theory is that Marvel is "forcing" themselves to use female/minority/GLBTQ characters, and by "shoe-horning" these characters into their stories, the plotting and/or writing is suffering. 

And that's the assumption I would argue is fundamentally flawed and incorrect. 

Bad writing may be bad writing, but it's not being caused by any kind of agenda.  Plenty of other badly written failures can testify to this (though these two movies, at least, weren't even failures.  I guess the suggestion is that they should/would have been even more successful?)

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:45 AM, Axelrod said:

Unless (and this seems to be the underlying assumption of a lot of the criticism I hear) the theory is that Marvel is "forcing" themselves to use female/minority/GLBTQ characters, and by "shoe-horning" these characters into their stories, the plotting and/or writing is suffering. 

And that's the assumption I would argue is fundamentally flawed and incorrect. 

Bad writing may be bad writing, but it's not being caused by any kind of agenda.  Plenty of other badly written failures can testify to this (though these two movies, at least, weren't even failures.  I guess the suggestion is that they should/would have been even more successful?)

Choosing abject failures from the source material proves the point that they are selecting agenda over narrative. So, it is neither flawed nor incorrect if the basis of this criticism is founded within the poor storytelling elements, such as a useless scene depicting Chavez's lesbian parents rather than a scene that drives the plot or a character of meaning.

Edit to Add: You can afford to include materials that fit your agenda if and when you have a competent story laid-out. The problem with the MCU right now is priority. They used to prioritize quality storytelling, and that priority has clearly changed. The results are in, and people prefer quality storytelling.

Edited November 22, 2022 by theCapraAegagrus

[Axelrod]

See, I don't even know what you are talking about now.  "Choosing abject failures?"  Do you mean these are failed comic book characters?  Both of them are from way after my time, so I have nothing to say about their storylines. 

But comic book characters aren't successful or failures in a vacuum.  It's just about who is writing/drawing them at the time.  You've had miserable/forgotten characters redeemed later by great artists/writers.  And great characters given crappy stories by others.  And then seems like everyone gets re-booted every few years these days anyway. 

But, like, that scene you mention with America Chavez's parents?  That was not "useless." That's back-story. Origin story. You know this. If that had been a man and a woman no one would have said boo about it.  And it seems ridiculous to me to assert that the Dr. Strange movie was motived by any kind of agenda (other than trying to shoe-horn in the Illuminati for fan service purposes).  I think that tiny, brief, very inoffensive scene was the only GLBTQ representation in the whole film, yes?  It's almost like you're suggesting the entire movie was warped around that point, which is silly.  Though I acknowledge some people still got up in arms about it.  

Anyway, like I said.  Don't want to get too political here.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:58 AM, Axelrod said:

See, I don't even know what you are talking about now.  "Choosing abject failures?"  Do you mean these are failed comic book characters?  Both of them are from way after my time, so I have nothing to say about their storylines. 

But comic book characters aren't successful or failures in a vacuum.  It's just about who is writing/drawing them at the time.  You've had miserable/forgotten characters redeemed later by great artists/writers.  And great characters given crappy stories by others.  And then seems like everyone gets re-booted every few years these days anyway. 

But, like, that scene you mention with America Chavez's parents?  That was not "useless." That's back-story. Origin story. You know this. If that had been a man and a woman no one would have said boo about it.  And it seems ridiculous to me to assert that the Dr. Strange movie was motived by any kind of agenda (other than trying to shoe-horn in the Illuminati for fan service purposes).  I think that tiny, brief, very inoffensive scene was the only GLBTQ representation in the whole film, yes?  It's almost like you're suggesting the entire movie was warped around that point, which is silly.  Though I acknowledge some people still got up in arms about it.  

Anyway, like I said.  Don't want to get too political here.  

Yes, Chavez and Foster's Thor were characters selected from failed comic book runs.

If the characters were failures in the source material, why would someone hand-pick them to adapt to the silver screen? It's not like they're all that's left to see. You have Beta Ray Bill right there to adapt. Take a guess why they chose otherwise.

Um, what origin did they show? All that was shown was that she got stung by a bee and that triggered her ability. That's not an origin, her ability got triggered multiple other times throughout the movie, sometimes in more meaningful manners. It's almost like they could have put more time into creating a consistent narrative than shoehorning in a scene of 2 lesbians. Again, priority shift... In the wrong direction. (Also, if that was a man and a woman, it would still be an awful scene, because it was poorly-contrived. "Oh, we're in a different universe where we can talk about communism and see [random? chosen?] memories? That's bad writing.)

The argument is not that the 'entire movie' is focused on agenda; The argument is that they are prioritizing agenda over quality storytelling. As I mentioned before, those little scenes make little difference if the focus was clearly on quality writing.* Nuance and organics matter when you're trying to make a point. When it's right in your face, people are going to mention how/why it didn't work.

*See: Lesbian kiss in the Watchmen opening credits. Obviously, not every CBM can be as well-written as Watchmen, but that's simply an example of when it doesn't detract from a scene.

Edited November 22, 2022 by theCapraAegagrus

[Qalyar]

Honestly, here's my take on Phase 4. Going into this block of content, there was some increasing discontent with the idea that all the Marvel films were very similar, both in tone and overall pacing, with a set-scene ending. That's a legitimate complaint of the franchise. I think that one of the reasons the Phase 4 films seem so ... off -- or, different, at the least -- is that they intentionally tried to break out of that. In fact, we know that to be the case, because they outright say that in the She-Hulk fourth wall break.

So we got Eternals, which is a slow-paced character epic. Love and Thunder plays as a comedic take on saga. Doctor Strange Multiverse dabbles with horror. Shang-Chi is a fusion of the martial arts film with the MCU aesthetic.

Did those films succeed? Well, largely no:

• Eternals suffers from all the problems that origin story films have, and all the problems that films have when they introduce Absolutely Everyone All At Once. But, in my opinion, its biggest flaw is structural; there's an A-plot with the Celestials, and a B-plot with the Deviants. They collide only superficially; their resolutions happen in the same set piece, but there's not really any concrete connection there, so the film feels like you're watching parts of two films going on simultaneously, and that's bad. Consider how much better the conclusion to Eternals could have been if, after having absorbed enough Eternal essence, Kro (the Deviant Alpha) recognized the threat posed by the nascent Celestial (after all, the Deviants are creatures driven by evolution and survival, and having your planet asplode is tough to survive). Only by setting aside the fact that the two groups are literally divinely tasked with killing each other could they create a shared-mind powerful enough to stop the Emergence. Bam. Instantly a better film. Also, give Lauren Ridloff's Makkari more screen time, because she was the winner here. The fact that she spent like half the movie basically stuffed in a bunker, not interacting with the world or the rest of the film, was a criminal scripting failure.
• Love and Thunder fails because its tone doesn't match its story. If Eternals felt like watching two plots stuffed into one movie, Love and Thunder feels like two versions of one plot created in different decades, but somehow crammed into the same airing. Waititi obviously looked at Ragnarok, which is a genuinely good film, and saw that people really liked the generally light tone with effective comic relief, set amidst a bright, traditional comic-book palette (complete with Kirby Dots!). So, obviously, if that was a good thing, more of it would be a better thing, right? His stated goal was to make an 80s-style adventure/romance film, and the thing is, that could have worked okay. Buuuut... if that's the mood you're going for, maybe the plot driver shouldn't be having the lead character's love interest dying of cancer while fighting a villain that's essentially the embodiment of an existential spiritual crisis goes around literally trying to murder the very concept of faith? I think having Jane Foster take up the mantle of Mighty Thor at the cost of her life while fighting to save existence from Gorr's vision of despair of anti-faith would have been a fantastic Thor film... but it cannot also be a high comedy adventure. I think you could also have a great comedic Thor film with screaming goats and ludicrous Greek gods, but that would call for a different sort of plot.
• Multiverse of Madness is a better film that Eternals or Love and Thunder because it's at least a single coherent entity. But it's biggest problem -- and one that's shared by Ms. Marvel's Najma -- is that the face/heel and heel/face turns feel way, way too abrupt. I know how things work in the comics, so I knew that when we left Wanda with the Darkhold at the end of Wandavision, was going to go down. But the corruption all happened off-screen, so the reveal seemed implausibly abrupt; this is actually a rare case of a time in a superhero film when we needed more "origin" time onscreen rather than less. And then, yes, I understand that her final heel/face reversion was meant to be the triumph of motherhood over evil, but... the timing fell flat. Honestly, this was supposed to be an MCU take on the horror genre, and I think they could have leaned into that harder and made a better movie simply by making it so that Wanda wasn't the sole (or ultimate) antagonist. Let Wanda have fundamentally the same character arc, and retain the battle against the Illuminati, which includes some of the best legitimate horror cinematography in the film (including the mindscape scene where Xavier tries to save Wanda from the rubble of her mind as the Scarlet Witch approaches). But have her experience her self-sacrificing heel/face turn that destroys the Darkholds at the start of the third act, not as the film's conclusion. Now, she dies to save her children not only from herself but from the greater evil her actions have unwittingly empowered. I don't care who or what that is. "Gargantos" (the film's Shuma-Gorath expy because Funcom owns the rights to that name) or a Strange Supreme variant or Mephisto or whatever (and, probably, conclude the film with this villain defeated but not destroyed; good horror doesn't extinguish its threats). Now the film makes more sense, and makes more sense as horror.
• I actually like Shang-Chi quite a bit. But even though it sets itself up to be the "MCU martial arts flick", it doesn't... really follow through on that. The bus scene combat is a perfect take on Jackie Chan's era of Hong Kong action cinema (plus superheroes). But the rest of the film feels like a pre-Phase 4 MCU movie, for better or worse. Yeah, I know the final fight between Shang-Chi and Wenwu is supposed to be staged like a Dragonball Z combat (complete with a Kamehameha), and I know that the Dweller-in-Darkness battle is intended to be wushu-inspired. But they aren't, really, not like that opening combat. They're just Marvel fight scenes. The end result is still perfectly serviceable as a movie, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been a better one.
• Black Widow was garbage and I can't even. I love Florence Pugh as Yelena (and I liked her in Hawkeye too), and I don't think it's possible to dislike David Harbour. But this plotline was nonsense, and the cinematography was awful (the goggles do nothing to prevent that fight scene on the falling wreckage of the Red Room from burning with awful). I am not even a little bit sympathetic to people who complain about increased diversity in comics or the MCU, but I really do think this film exists because Marvel realized they'd killed off the only female character in the primary Avengers roster without giving her a title role first, and so they put this thing together as a sacrificial offering.

[Qalyar]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:37 AM, drotto said:

The changes feel like change for the sake of change, rather than anything that drives the narrative. They are repeating all the mistakes of Marvel circa 2015-2016 when the comics basically wholesale replaced, retired, or redefined about 90% of the characters.  Total out with the old in with the new, and fans hated it.  For the most part it was a complete failure, and much has since been reversed. But floppy comics are still struggling, since many fans never came back.

 

I am completely puzzled why the MCU is going down the same road.

I think they have to be amenable to replacing characters. These films are not like comic books. If you invent a really awesome character in, oh, let's say 1963, and you call him Iron Man, then people can still write and draw stories with the exact same Iron Man in 2023. But live action films require live actors. Not only do you have to deal with the inconvenient reality that real people age and die, but most actors will not want to commit to playing a single role over a very long period of time. So if you intend to tell more than 10 years of stories -- at the outside -- with the same character or even the same sort of character, your two options are to either: 1) hope that the audience doesn't mind frequent recasts -- but realize that this makes it likely that actors will bail on their roles more often; or 2) have a structure in place to retire existing characters in place of their thematic legacy replacements.