Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Bazza]

For me WS would be close to the bottom. But opinions vary. 

 

I still enjoy IM3 & T2 more. 

[Lord Liaden]

As I always say, "Like" is a measure of individual subjective response, not an objective measure of quality. Both are valid assessments to make, but they're not interchangeable.

 

You can appreciate the skill with which an entertainment is made -- production values, dialogue, acting, etc. -- but very much dislike its style or subject matter. You can also really enjoy something while recognizing a lack of craftsmanship in how it's put together.

[Old Man]

I'm told we are 18 movies into the MCU so far.  Here is my list of MCU villains, ranked.  It is flawless and unassailable.

 

1. Loki.  Has an unfair advantage since we've seen him so many times, but he's complex and entertaining, so much so that we forget he's the bad guy (which is his whole schtick).
2. Vulture.  Just a guy trying to provide for his family in an unfair economy.  Uncomfortably close to reality.
3. Killmonger.  Could easily have been the protagonist of his film if his approach was a little more nuanced.
4. Winter Soldier.  Actually is a protagonist in later films.  The dilemma posed by his background, and how to deal with him, serves up a real conflict for the hero(es).
5. (Magneto goes here.)
6. Red Skull.  The embodiment of relentless hatred.
7. Ultron.  Far more personality than most MCU villains.  Really, who doesn't want to kill humanity after five minutes on the internet?
8. Hela.  Again driven more by performance than anything else.
9. Justin Hammer.  Every slimy sales rep and entitled CEO, rolled into one package.  Underrated actor makes him a lot of fun.
10. Obadaiah Stane.  The embodiment of jealousy and amoral profiteering.
11. Baron Zemo.  His scheme was too complex to be realistic, but the insight that he could break up the Avengers was brilliant.
12. Ego.  He's just... so weird.  Does serve as a great vehicle for Peter Quill's cathartic moment though.
13. Alexander Pierce.  Run of the mill traitor.  Redford plays a great government suit though.
14. Whiplash.  Constantly disrespected by everyone around him; of course he'd take his multibillion dollar arc reactor tech and... chop up race cars.
15. Yellowjacket.  Basically Obadaiah Stane with less screen time.
16. Aldrich Killian.  His real motivation is never adequately explained.
17. Ronan the Accuser.  We know nothing about this guy other than he's a dick with a grudge. 
18. Dormammu.  Cosmically powerful entity who wants to conquer Earth because...?
19. Kaecilius.  Basically Dormammu's henchman.
20. The Mandarin.  God what a disappointment.  He'd rank higher if he had a completely different name and didn't take the place of one of the better Marvel villains in the books.
21. Malekith.  Even less apparent motivation than Ronan or Dormammu, and that's hard to do.

 

I can't wait for them to make a film with Dr. Doom in it.

 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

Personally I'd rank Kaecilius higher. He does have a clear understandable motivation, and some justification in feeling betrayed by the Ancient One. And Mads Mikkelsen gives him suitable menace. He suffered mainly from a lack of screen time.

 

As for Ego, his motivation is pretty much summed up in his name.

[slikmar]

50 minutes ago, Old Man said:

I'm told we are 18 movies into the MCU so far.  Here is my list of MCU villains, ranked.  It is flawless and unassailable.

 

1. Loki.  Has an unfair advantage since we've seen him so many times, but he's complex and entertaining, so much so that we forget he's the bad guy (which is his whole schtick).
2. Vulture.  Just a guy trying to provide for his family in an unfair economy.  Uncomfortably close to reality.
3. Killmonger.  Could easily have been the protagonist of his film if his approach was a little more nuanced.
4. Winter Soldier.  Actually is a protagonist in later films.  The dilemma posed by his background, and how to deal with him, serves up a real conflict for the hero(es).
5. (Magneto goes here.)
6. Red Skull.  The embodiment of relentless hatred.
7. Ultron.  Far more personality than most MCU villains.  Really, who doesn't want to kill humanity after five minutes on the internet?
8. Hela.  Again driven more by performance than anything else.
9. Justin Hammer.  Every slimy sales rep and entitled CEO, rolled into one package.  Underrated actor makes him a lot of fun.
10. Obadaiah Stane.  The embodiment of jealousy and amoral profiteering.
11. Baron Zemo.  His scheme was too complex to be realistic, but the insight that he could break up the Avengers was brilliant.
12. Ego.  He's just... so weird.  Does serve as a great vehicle for Peter Quill's cathartic moment though.
13. Alexander Pierce.  Run of the mill traitor.  Redford plays a great government suit though.
14. Whiplash.  Constantly disrespected by everyone around him; of course he'd take his multibillion dollar arc reactor tech and... chop up race cars.
15. Yellowjacket.  Basically Obadaiah Stane with less screen time.
16. Aldrich Killian.  His real motivation is never adequately explained.
17. Ronan the Accuser.  We know nothing about this guy other than he's a dick with a grudge. 
18. Dormammu.  Cosmically powerful entity who wants to conquer Earth because...?
19. Kaecilius.  Basically Dormammu's henchman.
20. The Mandarin.  God what a disappointment.  He'd rank higher if he had a completely different name and didn't take the place of one of the better Marvel villains in the books.
21. Malekith.  Even less apparent motivation than Ronan or Dormammu, and that's hard to do.

 

I can't wait for them to make a film with Dr. Doom in it.

 

 

 

I keep hoping, especially with the actor they got, that it turns out The Mandarin wasn't a part, but he knew the game was up at that point, so decided to play it that way. I was also disappointed in that they hinted at an organization called the 10 rings in IM1. Would be an interesting ploy by the real Mandarin if he had sent the actor as a spy to see who was usurping his name.

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

I'm told we are 18 movies into the MCU so far.  Here is my list of MCU villains, ranked.  It is flawless and unassailable.

 

1. We know nothing about this guy other than he's a dick with a grudge. 
2. The Mandarin.  God what a disappointment.  He'd rank higher if he had a completely different name and didn't take the place of one of the better Marvel villains in the books.

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Every villain ever.

2.  The one thing I liked about Iron Man 3.

[Lord Liaden]

24 minutes ago, slikmar said:

I keep hoping, especially with the actor they got, that it turns out The Mandarin wasn't a part, but he knew the game was up at that point, so decided to play it that way. I was also disappointed in that they hinted at an organization called the 10 rings in IM1. Would be an interesting ploy by the real Mandarin if he had sent the actor as a spy to see who was usurping his name.

 

The "truth" about the MCU Mandarin. from the Thor: the Dark World Blu-Ray features:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo8cVxXJ4Js

[RDU Neil]

I loved IM3, but I'm a huge fan of Shane Black's buddy-cop style writing (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the template for IM3 and a genius film). The fact that they took the Mandarin, a highly problematic, racist supervillain (Just go with Yellow Claw why not?) and inverted the stereotypes into "Mandarin is just a media build-up of every white America fear mongering stereotype, set up to distract from the real threat" in a hilarious way, to boot.

 

Having just watched SM: Homecoming again, last night (it is on Starz right now)... I'd have to nudge Vulture over Loki at this point. As much as I was impressed the first time around, Keaton's role just grounds the movie so well, so when light hearted Peter Parker is nearly killed at the end, you really feel the pathos of his crying, struggling under the crushing debris... you get exactly how and why things got so serious, so quickly, and you never doubt why it goes down like it does. I think Homecoming notched up a bit on my overall list, seeing it again.

 

 

[Matt the Bruins]

On 2/14/2018 at 11:55 AM, Hermit said:

Oh for the love of...

 

I'm almost afraid to search the details on the internet

If it's any reassurance, I follow LGBTQ press fairly regularly and have seen only one brief, poorly received complaint of the sort zslane is referencing. If there are lots of people complaining that Black Panther didn't fill every square of diversity bingo, they're largely not doing it in respected queer media outlets.

[Lord Liaden]

I feel that Marvel Studios has been making an effort to invest their villains with more depth over the last half-dozen or so movies, having gotten the message from the fans. Their track record has been hit-and-miss, but the misses were very noticeable.

 

We also tend to focus on the costumed "supervillains," and overlook bad guys who aren't parading around with superpowers. Alexander Pierce and "Thunderbolt" Ross are the true antagonists in their movies, despite being relatively normal human beings.

[zslane]

I think that list needs 100% more Wilson Fisk and 200% more Kilgrave.

[Starlord]

Yeah.

[Bazza]

Sounds like a poll. 

[Hermit]

3 hours ago, Matt the Bruins said:

If it's any reassurance, I follow LGBTQ press fairly regularly and have seen only one brief, poorly received complaint of the sort zslane is referencing. If there are lots of people complaining that Black Panther didn't fill every square of diversity bingo, they're largely not doing it in respected queer media outlets.

 

 

It does help thank you. Restores my faith in the fandom a bit more.

[Starlord]

11 hours ago, Starlord said:

Yeah.

 

Although, you have an entire season to flesh out Fisk and Kilgrave.

[Pattern Ghost]

20 hours ago, Old Man said:

• Dormammu.  Cosmically powerful entity who wants to conquer Earth because...?
• Kaecilius.  Basically Dormammu's henchman.

 

I would argue that Kaecillius is the villain of the movie, Dormammu just the thing he summoned. I'd at the least flip their rankings since Kaecillius has a discernible motive and back story.

[Bazza]

The God of Mischief is too pompous & grandios to be low key. 

[RDU Neil]

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/box-office-black-panther-continues-its-reign/

[zslane]

Two headlines on io9 today:

 

Wonder Woman and Black Panther's Success Has Theater Owners Asking for More Diverse Blockbusters

 

I consider this fake news. I don't believe that "theater owners" are clamoring for more diverse blockbusters. I'm pretty sure they are just clamoring for more successful blockbusters, whether they have diversity as a primary feature or not. Theater owners--which are a cabal of corporations, not individuals--only care about making money, not satisfying some oblique social agenda. But, of course, io9 has to spin this as a referendum on representation in film.

 

What Warner Bros. Needs to Do to Replicate Black Panther's Success

 

Here the article frames this as a question over which black superhero DC should put on film in order to "replicate" the success of Black Panther. But to my mind this focuses on the wrong thing. The answer is to simply make a damn good movie. You do that and you'll replicate the movie's success, regardless of the race or gender of the lead character. But, of course, io9 has to make this all about race politics and the notion that Black Panther is successful primarily because it is all black, rather than because it is simply a superb film in all its other aspects.

 

Incidentally, trying to replicate the success of Black Panther's marketing campaign--which was as much about characterizing the film as an historic moment in cinema as it was about showing the film's amazing action and visuals--would also be a futile endeavor since that would only reek of desperate copycat maneuvering. But I just don't know if WB has the dexterity to avoid that particular minefield.

[Greywind]

Theater owners want movies that will stay in house longer.

[Lord Liaden]

You can't predictably replicate the success of Black Panther. This was an event as much as a movie. It's a unique property, with special circumstances surrounding it, plus the Disney backing and Marvel pedigree.

 

Justice League should have been that success for Warner/DC. They bungled it. At this point they have no property that could be as big as JL was supposed to be. And it will take time to regain the faith of the audience.

[Old Man]

59 minutes ago, zslane said:

Here the article frames this as a question over which black superhero DC should put on film in order to "replicate" the success of Black Panther. But to my mind this focuses on the wrong thing. The answer is to simply make a damn good movie. You do that and you'll replicate the movie's success, regardless of the race or gender of the lead character. But, of course, io9 has to make this all about race politics and the notion that Black Panther is successful primarily because it is all black, rather than because it is simply a superb film in all its other aspects.

 

Certainly BP isn't successful primarily because it is black.  However, it is more successful because it addresses an underserved audience.  Honestly DC already sort of did this with WW, addressing an audience that better relates to female leads as opposed to black ones.  To "replicate" this success, they just need to continue to make films that don't marginalize segments of the audience that are constantly marginalized.  Given DC's track record, I'd be happy if they just managed to put out a decent film that wasn't outwardly racist, sexist, or grimdark.

 

 

59 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

Incidentally, trying to replicate the success of Black Panther's marketing campaign--which was as much about characterizing the film as an historic moment in cinema as it was about showing the film's amazing action and visuals--would also be a futile endeavor since that would only reek of desperate copycat maneuvering. But I just don't know if WB has the dexterity to avoid that particular minefield.

 

It's unlikely that each future film will be a historic moment in cinema, but all they need to do is be more inclusive so as not to drive away the audiences that are thrilled that Hollywood isn't ignoring them for the moment.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Wonder Woman and Black Panther's Success Has Theater Owners Asking for More Diverse Blockbusters

 

I consider this fake news. I don't believe that "theater owners" are clamoring for more diverse blockbusters. I'm pretty sure they are just clamoring for more successful blockbusters, whether they have diversity as a primary feature or not. Theater owners--which are a cabal of corporations, not individuals--only care about making money, not satisfying some oblique social agenda. But, of course, io9 has to spin this as a referendum on representation in film.

 

After going back and reading the io9 article, as well as the article the io9 article is based on, the takeaway is that the head of the National Association of Theatre Owners is specifically asking for more racial- and gender-diverse movies.  I.e.,

 

"There should be a Latino superhero movie or an Asian superhero movie. The more you have different types of people in these movies, the more you appeal to different types of audiences.”

 

Maybe the head of the National Association of Theatre Owners has no idea what his clients want, but it doesn't look like a case of io9 fake news to me.

 

Dude also pushes for year-round releases and more mid-budget films, too, fwiw.

[Bazza]

18 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Dude also pushes for year-round releases and more mid-budget films, too, fwiw.

 

This I agree with. Dirty Dancing and films like it would very likely not happen today. 

 

Also Deadpool is a mid-budget film ($58 mill estimated). Not every blockbuster needs a blockbuster budget. A range of Deadpool budget superhero films can fill in the gaps of blockbusters, particularly out of season (Aug, Sept), to entice people back to the cinema. This would be supported--I guess--by the theatre chains. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Theaters like films that get people into seats longer because typically they earn more per ticket sold the longer the film is in the theater.  The first week, they get virtually nothing but concessions, but each week their cut gets a little bigger.  Conversely, studios like a big bang at first, then it moves out for their next property.  They like to replace films with new ones they put out because they get less and less per ticket each week.  Back when studios owned theaters, this wasn't a big deal, it was all profit for the company, but anti trust legislation broke that system up.

 

The problem studios face is that people have less and less reason to go to a theater to watch a movie at all, and the cost to do so keeps going up.  Not only is there so much competition for entertainment out there, people have huge screens and surround sound systems at home.  So the studios need "event" movies to get people to go to the theater, make them feel like they're part of something happening, something historic.  But really there's only so long they can keep that up.