Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Old Man]

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.

 

This trend was well underway prior to the MCU, however.  Of the 20 highest grossing films this century, only one was not a franchise or remake--Avatar.  And it could be argued that that one is merely the first installment in a franchise.

[Bazza]

I watched Blade Runner The Final Cut. It was like watching paint dry or grass grow. Watching a film with the ambiguity of a person/artificial person is like trying to care about the feelings of a toaster. There isn’t any. Aristotle’s notion of theatric catharsis would dissuade any poetic quality in said film. But, to those who love Blade Runner, I’m happy you enjoy it. 

 

(And the book on reading by a Russian on Idealism, the author would—and has—been more disparaging about taking pictures, compared to the 3-d movement expressed in statues. We’ve looked at under what circumstances portraits can capture this movement, which might make comics more favourable. In short, he wouldn’t have been a fan at all of the medium of cinema as it is 2-dimensional.)

[Old Man]

Dude would have loved Avatar then.

[Bazza]

I can’t comment as I’ve never seen it. 
 

(addendum from above post. From the book mentioned above, I’m starting now to see psychology as inherently 2-dimensional. What would a 3-d psychology look like? The kicker is we have it already...)

[Spence]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

Dude would have loved Avatar then.

 

57 minutes ago, Bazza said:

I can’t comment as I’ve never seen it. 
 

 

I'll help.

Imagine a movie that pushes movie visual technology ahead a couple generations to a level never seen before.

 

Attach a plot and script that literally makes two seven year old kids yelling at each other sound like high art.

 

Liberally scatter idiocy such as naming the maguffin Unobtainium. 

 

The movie is literally better with no sound and is absolute proof that the average movie goer does not care at all about the actors dialog as long as they can say "oooooo shiney!". 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I don't mind popcorn fare, or something more profound.  The King's Speech or Captain America can both be enjoyable and worthwhile.  Its just that the industry needs to have room for both.

[slikmar]

I would point out that Ridley Scott did Prometheus, which is an Alien series film and is HORRIBLE, with stupidity spread throughout since without said stupidity, the movie wouldn't exist.

[Hugh Neilson]

You would think superhero movies would get the same level of cultural appreciation today that comic books received from the literary community in their first 25 or so years of existence, wouldn't you?

 

 

Oh, wait...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Ridley Scott is really uneven in his films, he can do wonderful stuff then something just awful the next time.  I think he means for all of them to be thought-provoking but sometimes they're just bad.

[zslane]

I suspect the main reason superhero movies get any kind of begrudging respect from self-appointed cultural taste-makers is that they make billions of dollars and have become beloved entertainment to the masses. Superhero comic books never did that. After all, there was never an Avengers comic book "event" storyline that earned (nearly) five billion dollars for Marvel. So while some people might publicly dismiss them from their ivory towers, you can usually hear them grumbling in private envy over the money they make.

 

If guys like Scorsese and Scott didn't have any skin in the game then I would probably be more sympathetic to their point of view. But while they can say that superhero movies aren't their cup of tea, they can't credibly deny the fact that these movie have had a huge impact on our culture, and have provided many, many hours of much needed entertainment for people. Moreover, they've pumped much needed energy (and money) into the movie business; basically a massively high tide that has raised a lot of boats these last (roughly) 20 years.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Moreover, they've pumped much needed energy (and money) into the movie business; basically a massively high tide that has raised a lot of boats these last (roughly) 20 years.

 

And how did they do that?  With relatively new, fresh concepts and stories, with strong interesting and likable characters that largely (at least until recently) stayed away from being preachy or woke.

 

A lesson Hollywood still does not seem to have learned.

[Greywind]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

And how did they do that?  With relatively new, fresh concepts and stories, with strong interesting and likable characters that largely (at least until recently) stayed away from being preachy or woke.

 

A lesson Hollywood still does not seem to have learned.

 

Seduction of the Innocent

The Comics Code Authority

[zslane]

Sure, the art of making a good (superhero) movie that strikes a chord with the masses is a strange alchemy that few in Hollywood have mastered. Kevin Feige seems to really get it, and even if not every MCU movie is as successful and highly regarded as Cap: Winter Soldier, Black Panther, or Infinity War/Endgame, his batting average is still unmatched. What DC fails to understand is that without a Kevin Feige of their own, they'll never achieve the same kind of success. But finding producers like him is hard because they are incredibly rare and frequently under-appreciated. Disney's greatest achievement since putting Iger in charge was giving Feige more or less free reign over Marvel Studios. The closest DC ever came to this was imagining Zakk Snyder as their Feige equivalent, but without ever really entrusting him with the DCEU franchise.

[Old Man]

The DCEU has long suffered from corporate interference.  That said, while Snyder appears to be a good director, he is a disastrous writer.  That goes beyond the DCEU.

[Grailknight]

The DCEU hay no unifying vision and the closest they've come is Snyder, who takes his blueprint from deconstructionist material.

 

I loved Watchmen but it is a standalone story with no longtime established character history.

 

BvS is an abomination and when I watched JL my best comment was "that didn't suck as hard as I thought it would". The Snyder cut improved the action but made the DCEU even more grimdark and they won't be getting anything but my HBO residuals if they base more movies around it. 

 

WW1 was great and uplifting but WW2 got too involved with the Steve Trevor plotline(which I liked  to a point) to the detriment of the actual conflict and plot.

 

Shazam is a great kid's movie.

 

Aquaman is the DCEU's best shot at grabbing the MCU's magic. They took a great cast and adopted the best Aquaman storyline of recent years almost point for point, added some humor and kept the action and spectacle. WW was more successful but Aquaman was their best comic book movie. 

[Lord Liaden]

Well, if you were to use box office as the measure of "success," Aquaman brought in $1.148 billion globally. Wonder Woman made $822.3 million.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah a lot of women went an watched Aquaman several times for... some reason

 

Its not a very good movie, but it looks neat.

[zslane]

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

[Bazza]

Marvel keep swinging for the trees, because in many ways they had too, right back with Iron Man. Another big swing was Thor. 

[Greywind]

No. That was a mean swing. Tony said so. "No hard feelings, Point Break. You've got a mean swing."

[Christopher R Taylor]

Thor was a no-brainer to me, but it didn't catch on as well with others as it did me.  I really liked the first movie.  Most thought it was meh.

[Pariah]

I love that in Thor: Ragnarok, the quinjet would only acknowledge Thor when he identified himself as "Point Break".

 

I also love that in the first Thor movie, the first person to try to move the hammer was J. Michael Straczynski, who wrote the original story the screenplay was based on.

[Bazza]

I guess he wasn’t worthy. 

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah a lot of women went an watched Aquaman several times for... some reason

 

Its not a very good movie, but it looks neat.

 

I don't consider it great movie-making, but I had a lot of fun watching it. It never bored me, I was entertained throughout.

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Thor was a no-brainer to me, but it didn't catch on as well with others as it did me.  I really liked the first movie.  Most thought it was meh.

 

Thor is one of my favorite Marvel movies, because comic-book Thor was for a long time my favorite superhero. I felt that first movie captured the essence of Asgard, and the lead character's journey, and introduced one of the franchise's most successful villains -- Laufey. (JK)

 

But as you say, the character in that form didn't catch on, or maybe the producers couldn't quite figure out how to use him. From a marketing standpoint I can't fault their taking Thor in his current direction. It's clearly been well received, and takes advantage of Chris Hemsworth's comedic talents. But I for one absolutely hate it, it's so far from the hero I love. What was done to him, and to a lesser extent the Hulk, in Endgame spoiled that film for me. That's just my subjective reaction, of course.