MCU Phase 4 is Over: The Support Group 1 1

[Mr Sneeze]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:44 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Marvel will keep churning out comic book movies as long as Disney will be around, which means, forever.

Careful what you wish for. 

[Drummy]

I have enjoyed reading the past few pages or so of this thread -- a lot of thoughtful commentary on what's working and what's not in the MCU post-Endgame. 

I don't have too much to add except that I do think Marvel will have an almost impossible time recreating the narrative structure of the first few Phases leading to Endgame.  Not every movie was spectacular, but the vast majority were well-cast, well-directed, well-written superhero films that worked in unison to bring a huge story forward to a satisfying conclusion.  (I loved the patience they showed..."Avengers Assemble!" in the 22nd film, etc.)  I remember SO many commentators saying how crazy and implausible that 10-year arc was to pull off, yet they did it.  But you can only do it for the first time once, if that makes sense.  Enjoy it for what it was, because we'll never see its like again.

Phase 4 has had some fine entries and some bad ones, but the overall difficulty the films have is that they're so many of them (TV and movies combined), and they're so disparate in tone and plot, that we're not building toward anything except perhaps Kang.  They're asking too much of their audience at this point to remember 'all the stuff from all the shows and films' as they move toward the next unified narrative, a requirement which turns most people off.

That said, I remain a fan and hope they'll pare it down a bit and focus again on a unified narrative that fans can get their heads around and follow without watching 20 shows and 15 films.  Too much is too much.

I generally really enjoyed Wandavision, Hawkeye, Shang-Chi, No Way Home, Loki, and BP 2.  FAWS was quite intriguing until the preachy finale.  Was indifferent to Eternals, Dr. Strange 2, and She-Hulk (mostly).  Didn't care for the rest and never saw What If?.  In fact, I can't even remember the whole slate.

Very much looking forward to Doom, Galactus, the FF, and X-Men (or whatever they do with mutants).  Don't think the 'woke' criticism holds any validity save that poor writing or cheap special effects will kill any project, white male lead or not.  People keep talking about the 'agenda', but I can only see two agendas: try to tell stories that people will like and make money doing it.  That's been true from Iron Man to Wakanda Forever.

Finally, I agree that the MCU needs to focus itself narratively.  Without that storytelling focus, it's just a bunch of random comic books stacked together in a monthly pull.

Thanks!

Dan

[drotto]

https://screenrant.com/mcu-writers-marvel-comics-fans-no-explained/

 

I can see where there may be benefits to hiring writers that are not comic fans to bring a fresh perspective for live action adaptation, but calling loving comics a red flag when the Disney hires writers for the MCU is ridiculous. If you want to know why fans feel disrespected by the people doing these series at times, this is the reason.  You need a balance of people who know and love the source material, with some fresh ideas to make sure the stories are not a simple rehash and work for the screen. To me it shows a disregard for what fans fell in love with in the first place. Without those fans, you can also miss why these stories worked in the first place.

 

Nate Moore a producer for the MCU

 

 

Quote

For me, one thing I think is interesting [about Marvel’s process], and specifically for writers, I would say, a lot of times we’re pitched writers who love Marvel. And to me, that’s always a red flag. Because I go, ‘Oh, I don’t want you to already have a preexisting idea of what it is, because you grew up with Issue 15 and that’s what you want to recreate…’ I want somebody who’s hard on the material, who goes, ‘What is this? I think there’s a movie here, but maybe we should be looking at it in this way.’ And I think, again, the best example of that for me was Markus and McFeely, who weren’t comic guys coming up, but were like, ‘Wait, Captain America, this seems a bit weird. What if we kinda looked at it in this way?’ And they weren’t married to anything, nothing was, you know, there was nothing sacrosanct. And I think that’s important to be able to go, ‘Look, the source material is great, and I love it, and comics work great in the medium they were built in, but that’s not a direct, one-to-one translation to the best version of the movie.’ And sometimes it takes someone who’s out of this culture to go, ‘Hey, I know you think it should be this, but maybe it should be this other thing.’

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:56 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

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.

But that goes to my point:

In a vacuum, that Thor vol. 4 only lasted 8 issues makes it look like a failure. But it overtly wasn't:

1) Thor # 1 (her intro as Thor) went to 4 printings.

2) The title wasn't cancelled due to sales. Jane Foster Thor headlined the next two Thor volumes as well, ultimately serving as Thor for more than four years.

She served as Thor for nearly as long as Jason Todd served as Robin.

Also - I went back and checked - Thor wasn't a top 10 book back during the early 1990s / Eric Masterson days. People were talking about the run - yes, but it wasn't a top seller for the time period.

So...I'm happy to be corrected, but I suspect the initial Jane Foster Thor run (2014-2015) was the first time Thor was a consistent top 10 seller since back in the early days of Walt Simonson's run (mid-80s).

You can dislike the character but claiming she was a failure in the comics just doesn't square with reality.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:39 AM, Gatsby77 said:

But that goes to my point:

In a vacuum, that Thor vol. 4 only lasted 8 issues makes it look like a failure. But it overtly wasn't:

1) Thor # 1 (her intro as Thor) went to 4 printings.

2) The title wasn't cancelled due to sales. Jane Foster Thor headlined the next two Thor volumes as well, ultimately serving as Thor for more than four years.

She served as Thor for nearly as long as Jason Todd served as Robin.

Also - I went back and checked - Thor wasn't a top 10 book back during the early 1990s / Eric Masterson days. People were talking about the run - yes, but it wasn't a top seller for the time period.

So...I'm happy to be corrected, but I suspect the initial Jane Foster Thor run (2014-2015) was the first time Thor was a consistent top 10 seller since back in the early days of Walt Simonson's run (mid-80s).

You can dislike the character but claiming she was a failure in the comics just doesn't square with reality.

I've never argued that the longevity of the series is due to its reception.

Are you praising the series creatively? Because I have never heard anyone give it any creative praise before. I grant you that it comes off as 'anecdotal', but it's not like I only talk to a handful of people about comics.

[drotto]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:44 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I've never argued that the longevity of the series is due to its reception.

Are you praising the series creatively? Because I have never heard anyone give it any creative praise before. I grant you that it comes off as 'anecdotal', but it's not like I only talk to a handful of people about comics.

I remember some Praise for Jane Foster Thor.  I also remember everyone hated RiRi Williams, and yet here is your Iron Man replacement.

Edited November 23, 2022 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:44 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I've never argued that the longevity of the series is due to its reception.

Are you praising the series creatively? Because I have never heard anyone give it any creative praise before. I grant you that it comes off as 'anecdotal', but it's not like I only talk to a handful of people about comics.

I actually read the first four issues of the Jane Foster Thor when they came out - because my girlfriend at the time - who wasn't a regular comic book reader - actually dragged me to the comic store every few weeks on release day specifically because she had heard about - and liked - the run.

Yes - I thought they were really good.

But I'm also not a Thor fan. I think, for the most part, he's an inherently dull character. (Which goes to why Thor: The Dark World sucked but Thor: Ragnarok - with a humorous take, was really good.)

I read Thor monthly for a few years (1989-1992ish) but the high water there was Acts of Vengeance - which introduced the New Warriors. Also read a good chunk of the Simonson run.

So my actual reading knowledge is fairly limited to:

• Thor 337-450 or so.
• Thor vol. 4 (Jane Foster) # 1-4.

Given that, the Jane Foster issues I read were far better than the bulk of all but the earliest Simonson stories.

[Ken Aldred]

On 11/23/2022 at 12:56 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

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.

The Aaron and Cates runs on the title have been consistently good.  I like them.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Ken Aldred