Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[slikmar]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I am hesitant to be excited by either based on what we've seen over the decades, but I tentatively hope they can do the FF justice. We'll know pretty quickly if that's true or not based on if they choose an established, tainted, creative director or some newcomer that happens to check off a few identity boxes.

 

9 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

 

I think the excitement will be built around the launches of FF and X-Men. Spider-Man gave them a big shot in the arm and I think these two will also. Remember the MCU was built while Marvel didn't have the movie rights to their three largest comics properties.

First thing they need to announce in the planning meetings for FF and X-Men is we are not doing Doctor Doom and we are not doing Magneto and the Brotherhood. Do a decent version of some other villains. I wouldnt mind, given Marvel's multi-arc style, to see X-Men have a hellfire club in background thing of one or two movies. But I suspect what we will get is them using the Spider-Man and Doctor Strange movies to bring in the last versions of both sets, the younger versions.

[Bazza]

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If martial arts + James Bond doesn't fit the marvel universe where does that leave Black Widow, which is claimed to have been that very thing?  The truth is, there's lots of room for a fun, witty, and exciting spy story in the MCU, but here's the flaw with their system:

 

They don't do movies.  They do huge arcs of movies.  So each film is largely irrelevant in its self and only presented as a chapter in their Big Story.  Iron Man was just about the only exception to that pattern in the films.  His films were mostly reactions to the events that had happened rather than part of their Big Story pattern.  They wanted x plot and events to move along their Big Story, so Shang Chi was written to be that kind of part.  Eternals is another piece, whether it works or makes sense individually or not.  Doing a smart, fun, self-enclosed movie that might also be a part of the larger arc is harder to do and doesn't really fit their system.

 

But while Guardians of the Galaxy was a bit of a risk, it was a safe and calculated one, nested among several monster hits.  If it flopped, well they moved the Big Story along, and made a billion on either side of it, so they could handle it.  The Eternals was an even bigger risk, since they haven't had a monster hit since 2019 and for whatever reason, their latest films have struggled to pull in significant profit.  At roughly  $400 million to make, promote, and distribute, Eternals has not yet made a profit, but looks like it might pull Shang Chi level percentage earnings in a week or two (cost around 300 million total, earn 400 million).  But, despite somewhat tepid reviews, Eternals is doing better overall.

 

What's lost is the excitement, mystique, and anticipation that MCU films used to bring to the table.  It feels too formulaic and corporate to many viewers these days, and the characters are less compelling and familiar.  I don't think pointing to one success and saying "it worked once, it can again!" is a very reasonable response.

One, you forget Ant-Man was a singular film, as was its sequel. The after credits scene from the sequel connected it to the larger story.
 

Two, Eternals is another singular film, there is no guarantee of a sequel, however the script has many options on where The Story could go. All is still up in the air. 
 

Three, most MCU movies are really singular ie self contained. Marvel & Feige has stated previously that knowing other previous films is not required to enjoy each film. 

[Pariah]

The difficulty with not doing Dr. Doom or Magneto is that they are the definitive villains for those two titles. They are the foils for Reed Richards and Professor Xavier. They were designed to be such from the very beginning.

 

For the Fantastic Four I suppose you could use some version of Kang, but it looks like the MCU is already setting that up for someone else.

 

The Hellfire Club make good villains for the X-Men, but putting together an entire team of villains is something I don't recall the MCU doing yet. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but the degree of difficulty might be higher.

 

The difficulty with the X-Men, in my humble opinion, is that all of the really noteworthy stories involving the team have already been botched by that other studio. Days of Future Past? Done that, and not well. Dark Phoenix? The less said about X3, the better, and let's not even mention the second iteration. (As an aside, I think the best treatment of the Dark Phoenix storyline that I've seen was a actually season 1 of The Umbrella Academy.) God Loves, Man Kills? That would make an amazing movie, except for two things: first, X2 tried to do it without actually doing it (and largely failed) and second, you couldn't get a faithful version of that movie made in today's political climate.

 

I, for one, I'm just fine without the Fantastic Four and the X-Men migrating into the MCU. But I also understand the potential monetary draw, so I suppose it's only a matter of time.

[Bazza]

The Hellfire a club was done with First Class, if memory serves. 
 

I hope we get a good FF film in the MCU, but I’m not holding my breath based on what has come out in Phase 4 I almost counting on it being botched. And as for the X-Men, we have the existing series of film & spinoffs. Some are really good, some enjoyable, and others best not mention. 

[dmjalund]

I could imagine an anonymouse villain team appearing, and it turns out to be the Fantastic Four under Kang's control

[Bazza]

If Marvel wanted to introduce a villain team beforehand, they would best do it via Disney+. Either a series with them as the focus (eg Loki, Dr Doom), or as the antagonists of a hero(es)/heroine(s)/team. 

[Greywind]

1 hour ago, Bazza said:

One, you forget Ant-Man was a singular film, as was its sequel. The after credits scene from the sequel connected it to the larger story.

 

Except for where Tic-Tac beat up Birdman.

[Lord Liaden]

The X-Men franchises really have shot most of their wad in terms of major nemeses. I think Mr. Sinister is the only A-lister they have left. Mind you, the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants doesn't have to be led by Magneto. Mystique organized a new one in the comics. Nothing has yet really been done with the Morlocks either.

 

I think if people would accept a new FF, they'd also accept a new Dr. Doom, because fans know what we got in live movies was never remotely like the real Doom, although it might be better to build to him in a sequel rather than the first movie. But the FF actually have a pretty decent rogues gallery, with the likes of Annihilus and the Molecule Man making good epic threats. The Super Skrull wouldn't be hard to fit into the MCU eventually. A rivalry could be set up between Reed and the FF, and the Wizard and the Frightful Four. The Mole Man would make a good entry-level menace. Heck, I bet Feige and team could do something interesting with Diablo, or the Red Ghost and his super apes. The FF might even be a good place to introduce Namor and Marvel Atlantis, given that he was an early antagonist of theirs.

[Bazza]

Namor is rumoured to be in BP2. 

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If martial arts + James Bond doesn't fit the marvel universe where does that leave Black Widow, which is claimed to have been that very thing?  The truth is, there's lots of room for a fun, witty, and exciting spy story in the MCU, but here's the flaw with their system:

 

So do we replace BW with Shang-Chi?  That was certainly an option, but that would mean he's a "wow - I'm standing next to real Super-Heroes - what am I doing here?" Avenger rather than the non-WASP  major character that I believe they wanted for MCU.

 

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

They don't do movies.  They do huge arcs of movies.  So each film is largely irrelevant in its self and only presented as a chapter in their Big Story.  Iron Man was just about the only exception to that pattern in the films.  His films were mostly reactions to the events that had happened rather than part of their Big Story pattern.  They wanted x plot and events to move along their Big Story, so Shang Chi was written to be that kind of part.  Eternals is another piece, whether it works or makes sense individually or not.  Doing a smart, fun, self-enclosed movie that might also be a part of the larger arc is harder to do and doesn't really fit their system.

 

I think they do a lot of "almost self-contained movies in a larger universe" that often fit into that larger universe in minor ways, or by later revelations.  Shang-Chi featured some other Marvel characters, but I think worked whether you knew who they were or not.  Eternals had a couple of nods to the broader MCU, the big one being the link to the snap and the return, featured in the trailers, but if you removed all references to the broader MCU, it would still have worked fine.  I'll pop another comment on Eternals and the broader MCU in the spoiler for those who have not seen it and don't want any further details beyond the trailers.

 

Spoiler

Actually, I think the biggest departure of Eternals from the MCU "format" is that it was less a SuperHero movie than a SuperPowered People movie.  While the Deviants are portrayed as the main antagonist in the trailers, and the Emergence becomes the uber-threat as the movie progresses, the real conflict is between the Eternals themselves, something that develops slowly in the early part of the movie, but ramps up substantially as it approaches its climax.

 

Unlike all other MCU movies, the main conflict was between the protagonists, not with an outside force.  Even in Civil War, the real villain of the piece was Zemo. As well, there was no "heroic" option. The Deviants were simply slaughtered, which for most of them was putting down a dangerous animal - the one which could speak never got much consideration as a sentient being either.  They had to choose between the human race surviving and the emerging celestial living.  Phastos simply prioritized Jack growing up over the Celestial growing up, for example, where Ikaris (and Kingo, but less directly) prioritized Tiamut's survival. In a true Superheroic movie, the Druig plan would likely have bought time to find a better solution in the future.

 

The Emergence could easily have happened on its own, and the only other MCU reference I recall was the discussion of who will lead the Avengers, which was just a side chat nod to the broader MCU anyway.  And, I suppose, Dane Whitman, but rename him, remove the "Uncle" reference and take out the post-credits scene, and he's out with no damage to the broader movie.  This could easily have been a separately-licensed property unconnected with anything else Marvel.  The Deviants were nothing like Marvel's Deviants, nor were the Eternals genetically-upgraded humans.  A very similar movie with no link to even the Eternals of Marvel Comics could also have been done.

 

If anything, I think Marvel movies resemble early Marvel comics.  Sometimes the characters cross over in earnest, and when they do not there are still nods to the broader MCU in which they reside.

 

The other advantage of the Eternals is that, as largely unknown commodities to the general population, a lot of changes could be made to fit the desired movie. Without moving to spoiler territory, the breadth and variance of powers was expanded considerably.  Of the ten Eternals, Sersi, Gilgamesh, Phastos and Makkari became non-white, and Kingo went from Japanese to Indian.  Ajak, Sprite and Makkari changed gender, and Phastos was assigned an alternate sexual orientation (I don't believe the comics ever addressed his sexuality, whether hetero or otherwise).  Only Ikaris and Druig remained white males, and Thena remained a white female.

 

That worked well in this context, as the audience didn't identify changes in "iconic" characters - none of the Eternals are pop culture icons.

 

The movie is also more serious in tone than most MCU offerings.

 

9 hours ago, Bazza said:

One, you forget Ant-Man was a singular film, as was its sequel. The after credits scene from the sequel connected it to the larger story.
 

Two, Eternals is another singular film, there is no guarantee of a sequel, however the script has many options on where The Story could go. All is still up in the air. 
 

Three, most MCU movies are really singular ie self contained. Marvel & Feige has stated previously that knowing other previous films is not required to enjoy each film. 

 

Agreed, at least for the most part.  I think Fiege does a decent job balancing a movie that someone seeing an MCU film for the first time can understand and enjoy with connecting each movie to a larger tapestry.  Some work better than others, as some have more back story than others, but even the more interconnected movies have more of a "now I want to know more about what else has happened in other movies" feel than "I feel like I did not understand what was going on".  That's how I felt when I started reading comics as a kid in the early '70s. I am less certain on the movies as I did watch them all, largely in sequence.  We got into them with home video in the lead-up to the first Avengers, which my son was very excited by.

[slikmar]

I wonder if part of Eternals might not be setting up Galactus as a villain, a great way to bring in the FF.

[Starlord]

I would enjoy seeing Dr. Doom actually.  Particularly since the true Victor Von Doom character has never appeared in a movie.

[Greywind]

[Bazza]

 

[Matt the Bruins]

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Of the ten Eternals, Sersi, Gilgamesh, Phastos and Makkari became non-white, and Kingo went from Japanese to Indian.

Makkari was depicted as a person of color in the Neil Gaiman Eternals miniseries back in 2006, so that wasn't a change specific to the movie (though the gender flip was).

[mattingly]

Hit Monkey is up on Hulu today.

 

 

[Starlord]

Ridley Scott trashes superhero movies

[Hermit]

13 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Ridley Scott trashes superhero movies

 

Honestly I think EVERY Trend eventually gets resented by creators who feel pressured by the success of said trend.  It happened with Westerns, IIRC. And likely others too. Newspapers/sites enjoy quoting such things because it gets fans of the trend riled and stirs clicks and traffic. 

 

To Ridley Scott, I say "I hear you even if I don't agree. I hope you make another good movie that brings you and others joy, meanwhile I'm going to watch Shang-Chi and have some popcorn. Later, dude!"

[Lord Liaden]

19 hours ago, Starlord said:

I would enjoy seeing Dr. Doom actually.  Particularly since the true Victor Von Doom character has never appeared in a movie.

 

I very much do not want to see the true Dr. Doom actually. I would much prefer he remain fictional.

[Starlord]

18 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I very much do not want to see the true Dr. Doom actually. I would much prefer he remain fictional.

 

Well, you wouldn't actually see the true Doom.  He would send a Doom-bot.  Doom would never sully his hands with us mere mortals. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Ridley Scott and Martin Scorcese etc aren't against comic book movies per se, they are against the system wanting nothing but that because it makes big money, shutting out other kinds of movies from being produced.  Both say they enjoy pop movies and think they are fine, but they aren't really great cinema and there has to be room for that as well.  And, I mean, if you are making gourmet cordon bleu meals and everyone decides they want Jack in the Box tacos instead so nobody will buy your food, that's going to upset you.

[Lord Liaden]

I think both directors are being reflexively dismissive in lumping all comic book movies together in terms of not being great cinema. For example, as deep character-driven movies go I would put Logan against anything either of them has created. I also find them being rather self-important. Half of Scorsese's body of work revolves around charming but murderous psychopaths living sad pointless lives most of us can't really relate to. One of Scott's most famous movies is a mad slasher film set in space, very skillfully made but ultimately just a thrill ride.

[Spence]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Ridley Scott and Martin Scorcese etc aren't against comic book movies per se, they are against the system wanting nothing but that because it makes big money, shutting out other kinds of movies from being produced.  Both say they enjoy pop movies and think they are fine, but they aren't really great cinema and there has to be room for that as well.  And, I mean, if you are making gourmet cordon bleu meals and everyone decides they want Jack in the Box tacos instead so nobody will buy your food, that's going to upset you.

Well great cinema used to be enjoyable, interesting and great to watch.

 

Now you basically two types of movies.

 

1) Bang whoosh bizzanga like Supers movies or John Wick.

 

2) Lifeless dull sermons about someone's holy crusade of the minute.

 

The idea of making an engaging movie that can actually be enjoyed by anyone is a dead concept.

 

[pinecone]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I very much do not want to see the true Dr. Doom actually. I would much prefer he remain fictional.

trevor is available after Shang-Chi.....he could play a fictional super villian.....

2 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Well, you wouldn't actually see the true Doom.  He would send a Doom-bot.  Doom would never sully his hands with us mere mortals. 

If we Gender swap...it could be a Fem Bot! Yeah baby!

[Pariah]

I just want to watch a movie that tells a good story, with characters that I have some reason to care about. 

 

If that's a superhero movie, then so be it. Marvel has done a good job making such movies. (DC not so much, IMHO).

 

But if that's a historical piece, or a political thriller, or a rom-com, or a documentary, then that's great too.