MCU Phase 4 is Over: The Support Group 1 1

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:13 PM, Qalyar said:

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.

That's a speedster problem. Completely agree that it's a criminal writing failure. Personally, I'm not sure how to fix it, because while ZSJL is a great example of how to use The Flash, she simply doesn't have that power set. I don't get paid to write fictional speedsters, though. I expect the ones who do get paid to do a better job than what we got for Makkari.

[Qalyar]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:38 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

That's a speedster problem. Completely agree that it's a criminal writing failure. Personally, I'm not sure how to fix it, because while ZSJL is a great example of how to use The Flash, she simply doesn't have that power set. I don't get paid to write fictional speedsters, though. I expect the ones who do get paid to do a better job than what we got for Makkari.

The problem with writing speedsters probably didn't help. But still, after the Eternals disbanded, everyone went their separate ways. Some of them (hi, Druig!) obviously were still actively using their powers. Others weren't, and just tried to fit into the world around them. Makkari ... went back to their spaceship and hid... except that she was also apparently stealing artifacts from around the world and smuggling in snack food? What? Why? If she's (ahem) "collecting" artifacts, why can't we have seen that?

Everything else in the film involving that character is fantastic and on-point, but the -script just has her lazily absent for like 1/3 of the runtime right in the middle, and there's no reason for it, even if they weren't going to make use of her powerset during that time.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:24 PM, Qalyar said:

...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.

This is the problem with the way that Marvel is approaching replacement. They're just derivatives instead of someone with even a bit of uniqueness. Iron Man is dead. Who wants Iron Man Junior? I don't particularly like that they made Spider-Man very dependent on Stark tech*, but at least Spider-Man is a completely different character from Iron Man, groomed to 'replace' him.

*He consistently proves that he doesn't need it, but obv. keeps going back to it.

She-Hulk is where I thought that they were going to nail another replacement, but I would say that they have completely blown that idea, so far.

Didn't Feige say at the beginning that the Avengers are appealing because of their rotating lineup? What happened to that? Nothing wrong with replacing Iron Man, Cap, and Thor with Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and Ant-Man. No need for copycats.

[davidpg]

Maybe the top end shake-up at Disney will (sooner rather than later) shake down to how the movies/shows are developed and run.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:57 PM, davidpg said:

Maybe the top end shake-up at Disney will (sooner rather than later) shake down to how the movies/shows are developed and run.

Iger was at the helm when all of these were green-lit. Nothing will change with his return. That aside, Feige has previously negotiated so that Disney doesn't interfere with his vision for the MCU. His current vision appears to be delegation. He either needs to be more involved himself, or hire better-qualified people.

[Qalyar]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:52 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

This is the problem with the way that Marvel is approaching replacement. They're just derivatives instead of someone with even a bit of uniqueness. Iron Man is dead. Who wants Iron Man Junior? I don't particularly like that they made Spider-Man very dependent on Stark tech*, but at least Spider-Man is a completely different character from Iron Man, groomed to 'replace' him.

*He consistently proves that he doesn't need it, but obv. keeps going back to it.

She-Hulk is where I thought that they were going to nail another replacement, but I would say that they have completely blown that idea, so far.

Didn't Feige say at the beginning that the Avengers are appealing because of their rotating lineup? What happened to that? Nothing wrong with replacing Iron Man, Cap, and Thor with Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and Ant-Man. No need for copycats.

I don't think She-Hulk is intended to fill the Hulk role (although surely Skaar is bound for Young Avengers?), and I really don't think we'll see much of that character in the mainline MCU per se. I remain convinced that Phase 4 was a series of experiments to see how far, and in what ways, they could deviate from the MCU expectations and still make things work. The answer, of course, was "not very far, apparently!". She-Hulk: Attorney at Law is obviously an attempt to take the odd self-referential tone of her original comic book runs and... just... kinda film that.

I actually thought it worked okay, to be honest. Except that there's a disconnect between its tonal elements and the pacing of those tonal elements. Sure, she's a walking talking fourth-wall breaking engine from the very start of episode 1, and that's fine. But there's no hint that she's going to have active disrespect for the fourth wall in terms of direct action until the last episode, and that makes it feel abruptly disconnected from the rest of the show. The last episode was actually filmed very early on (which is why there's no Madisynn cameo; she wasn't even cast yet!), so they quite easily could have ramped up to that rather than made it a light-switch-flip in the final act.

Also might have been nice to spend just a teeny bit more money on the special effects, but I do appreciate the financial reality of it all.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:04 PM, Qalyar said:

I don't think She-Hulk is intended to fill the Hulk role (although surely Skaar is bound for Young Avengers?), and I really don't think we'll see much of that character in the mainline MCU per se. I remain convinced that Phase 4 was a series of experiments to see how far, and in what ways, they could deviate from the MCU expectations and still make things work. The answer, of course, was "not very far, apparently!". She-Hulk: Attorney at Law is obviously an attempt to take the odd self-referential tone of her original comic book runs and... just... kinda film that.

I actually thought it worked okay, to be honest. Except that there's a disconnect between its tonal elements and the pacing of those tonal elements. Sure, she's a walking talking fourth-wall breaking engine from the very start of episode 1, and that's fine. But there's no hint that she's going to have active disrespect for the fourth wall in terms of direct action until the last episode, and that makes it feel abruptly disconnected from the rest of the show. The last episode was actually filmed very early on (which is why there's no Madisynn cameo; she wasn't even cast yet!), so they quite easily could have ramped up to that rather than made it a light-switch-flip in the final act.

Also might have been nice to spend just a teeny bit more money on the special effects, but I do appreciate the financial reality of it all.

She may not have been brought in to replace him, but I was hoping that would be an option for the franchise, since she has a different edge from the Hulk. I feel like more than 1 Hulk is redundant considering their strength thresholds.

[drotto]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:24 PM, Qalyar said:

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.

But also realistically, you have to deal with the fact there are only so many characters people care about and want to see. We are already reaching the point where hard core and casual fans, want the big characters.  The others have had a lot of difficulty attracting an audience. That is why Disney needs the FF and X-Men, but appears to have contract issues with moving ahead faster. So we are now basically treading water till they come along. 

 

That means as much as RDJ is Iron Man, or Chris Evens is Captian America, they are eventually going to have to start recasting people.  The actors do not own these characters, and many comics characters have historically been recast; Spider-Man,  Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Magneto,  Professor X, etc, etc, etc.

 

DC has already realized they need Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.  So the recast is needed, because the other characters have no really cought on.  Marvel has also realized this (partially) with Spider-Man. The time will come if thr MCU wants to survive, everyone will be open to recasting.

[theCapraAegagrus]

From a storytelling perspective of driving characters and plot:

We've seen the OG Avengers & Co. overcome different obstacles, so it would be great to have different characters overcoming new obstacles. Ant-Man wasn't around for Loki, Ultron, or half of the Thanos conflicts. So, having him central to the Kang story is a breath of fresh air, right?

The world, universe, and multiverse can only be threatened so many times before it gets stale. The MCU can't last forever. Tell the small stories while you still can. Tell the fresh stories while you still can.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:23 PM, drotto said:

DC has already realized they need Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.  So the recast is needed, because the other characters have no really cought on.  Marvel has also realized this (partially) with Spider-Man. The time will come if thr MCU wants to survive, everyone will be open to recasting.

I don't really like referring to the DCU in such conversations, because its problems are very different from the MCU's.

That being said, the MCU still needs stakes. Popular characters will have to die off every now and then. I suppose we could entertain the idea of grabbing variants from other universes, but that in and of itself is a potentially large narrative issue. Every story has/needs a beginning and an ending. Every character will eventually die or never be seen again.

[Axelrod]

• Spoiler

  • 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.

  I like your breakdown of these films.  Agree with a lot of it.

[Gatsby77]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:24 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

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

Can't speak to America Chavez.

Think you're dead wrong about the Jane Foster Thor run.

1) The story was never intended to run more than 9-10 months to begin with.

2) The character - when released, was *incredibly* popular.

3) Sales figures bore this out - early in 2014, Thor was chugging along in the mid-30s re. monthly comic book sales. The Jane Foster Thor reboot catapulted back to the top 10 - monthly sales basically doubled, and that's excluding the speculative bump given to # 1.

4) When it dropped from the top 10 to the top 20 in early 2015, a lot of that is because the simultaneous launch of multiple Marvel Star Wars titles sucked a lot of the oxygen out the room. Regardless, the book never dropped out of the top 20.

Moreover, people were talking about - and liking - the character. It was basically the best thing to happen to Thor comics (in terms of excitement about the title) since the Eric Masterson / Thunderstrike stuff back in the early 90s.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Gatsby77

[TupennyConan]

Can't wait for the IM-Cap-Thor recast play late this decade. 

Before that, I'm really looking forward to the Wolverine recast.  

[D84]

I'm looking forward to a break from comic book movies.

[D2]

On 11/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, D84 said:

I'm looking forward to a break from comic book movies.

I can always go for another movie like Blade, or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), or Darkman, or Logan, or even The Crow (1994). 
 

Some of these have aged better than others, with the exception of Logan which I would still consider a modern movie… but these style movies, to me, never get stale. If they kept creating movies like these, I’d be happy forever. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by D2

[Kevin76]

Spider-Man was the best one of Phase 4

I've skipped these with no plans to see them  

Shang-Chi

Eternals

Ms Marvel

Black Panther 2 (I'll wait for Disney+) 

What if

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 11/20/2022 at 8:53 PM, Hamlet said:

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.

Difficult to see how you could escalate again to another level beyond Endgame without the final result getting too overwhelming, too much sensory overload, and too much to take in.
 

Despite its scale, it was still very memorable. That’s the tough balancing act, which seems to be evading Marvel Studios at present.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Ken Aldred

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:14 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Can't speak to America Chavez.

Think you're dead wrong about the Jane Foster Thor run.

1) The story was never intended to run more than 9-10 months to begin with.

2) The character - when released, was *incredibly* popular.

3) Sales figures bore this out - early in 2014, Thor was chugging along in the mid-30s re. monthly comic book sales. The Jane Foster Thor reboot catapulted back to the top 10 - monthly sales basically doubled, and that's excluding the speculative bump given to # 1.

4) When it dropped from the top 10 to the top 20 in early 2015, a lot of that is because the simultaneous launch of multiple Marvel Star Wars titles sucked a lot of the oxygen out the room. Regardless, the book never dropped out of the top 20.

Moreover, people were talking about - and liking - the character. It was basically the best thing to happen to Thor comics (in terms of excitement about the title) since the Eric Masterson / Thunderstrike stuff back in the early 90s.

I haven't heard a good thing about Foster's Thor run before. I know you're a 'financials' guy, but sales really mean nothing to me unless the numbers are low enough to merit a cancellation based on that alone.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, D84 said:

I'm looking forward to a break from comic book movies.

If I can be very selective of which MCU movies I see, and not be confused, that should work for me. If not, DCU might be all that's left for me to enjoy on film.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 11/21/2022 at 12:59 PM, RedRaven said:

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.

Wow, so much negativity here. And not a lot of actual perspective.

Well, the popularity and appeal of the MCU certainly has failed to be repeated by anyone else so far. And Marvel doesn't really need to repeat itself. It's already in it. The MCU is here to stay and is as cemented in our popular culture as Star Trek and Star Wars. From here on out, Marvel Studios will keep telling inter-connected stories loosely based on the Marvel Comics and fans will keep seeing them with anticipation.

Yes, RDJ as Iron Man was pretty important to it all, but I also remember Iron Man 2 almost derailing the whole thing. The Phase One solo movies were a mildly-successful mixed-bag until Marvel and Joss Whedon successfully put it all together in the first Avengers movie.

For Phase Two, Iron Man 3 made a ton of money on the heels of Avengers, but the movie was not great. In fact, if it weren't for Captain America Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, two movies that didn't even mention Stark, the MCU might have derailed then, too. Maybe RDJ wasn't the real lynch pin. Maybe the real lynch pin was a few very popular movies amongst a handful of mixed results movies.

In the 11 movies of Phase One and Phase Two, there were four true breakaway hits: Iron Man, Avengers, Captain America Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Two outright failures: Incredible Hulk and Thor Dark World. Maybe that's easily forgotten with the string of critical and financial successes from Phase Three and the two Thanos Avengers movies. 

Similarly, Phase Four has had its share of successes and not so-much successes. I would consider the Disney+ MCU launch and its seven Marvel series a huge success. Spider-Man No Way Home was an obvious breakaway success. Of the three pandemic post-China releases, Shang-Chi was a critical and moderate box office success (taking into account pandemic lockdowns, Disney+ 45 day streaming, and China's Disney lockout). Post pandemic and post-China, Multiverse of Madness and Wakanda Forever are successes, financially and critically. In other words, Phase Four really just continued what Marvel Studios has been doing since Phase One, while adding in the novelty of the Disney+ series and introducing new storyline themes like the Multiverse, the war for Vibranium, and expanding OG character legacies.

So, whomever can keep decrying the "failure" LOL of the Phase Four and foretelling the doom of the MCU, but Marvel will keep churning out comic book movies as long as Disney will be around, which means, forever.