Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Christopher R Taylor]

Batman has such a big "family" now they could fill a small superhero world with just Bats

[BoloOfEarth]

11 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Batman has such a big "family" now they could fill a small superhero world with just Bats

I know, right?  I mean, it drives me batty.

[Starlord]

Found this awesome post on Facebook, dunno the author to give credit.  Bold emphasis mine

 

Who is the best Marvel movie or TV Marvel villain?

Hands down, David Tennant's Kilgrave from Jessica Jones' first season, the perfect embodiment of sexual and domestic violence. He's one of those rare villains who leaves you with unease long after you turn off the TV, and it's because he was there before you turned it on.

He's not the best villain because of his personality, though his glee and charm is a large part of it. He's not the best villain because of the scope of his villainy. He's not out to destroy any cities or conquer any galaxies. He's not even out to take down a hero, although that's what he's going to do along the way. You see, Kilgrave's power is this:

You have to do anything he wants you to do. Anything at all. Maybe he wants your jacket. Maybe he wants you to have sex with him. Maybe he wants you to become his lover and live with him happily, forever and ever, in a lovely little house for the two of you. Maybe he wants you to murder your mom.

You know those intrusive thoughts, the ones you would never in a million years do, the ones that make you wonder if you're a monster? The ones that say, jump over the railing. Hold the match to your sleeve. The dog sure looks happy; why don't you kick its brains in?

Kilgrave whispers the very worst things to you, and you do them.

Kilgrave makes it your fault when he does what he does to you. Makes it your idea. Does it with your hands. Makes your body something bad. And he makes the people you depend upon blame you for it.

So when Kilgrave uses his powers on you, you aren't a victim. You are a villain. And you're utterly, eternally alone in your hurt and your horror.

And it doesn't end when it ends. He's got no master plan or secret agenda. He's just following his whims. If he decides he really likes you, he'll bring the trauma back over. And over. And over. He can leave an idea in your head that never goes away, an idea that sits there where you can't see it until it suddenly shows up at the worst possible moment.

Creating a villain who generates such revulsion and horror in the audience is like capturing lightning in a bottle. As Dorothy Sayers told us, it’s almost impossible to write the Devil without making the audience root for him, because those attributes that make a villain an opponent worthy of writing about are virtues, or are at least the personality traits that make a character fascinating. If your villain isn’t powerful, you’ve got no story. If your villain isn’t talented, you’ve got no story. If your villain isn’t persistent, isn’t charismatic, doesn’t have a good reason to do what they do . . . no story. There is a sense in which it's very hard for us to tell honest stories about evil, because real evil isn't extremely watchable.

So instead of making legitimately evil villains, we make villains who are heroes on the wrong side, or villains who are heroes with a streak of malice, or we just take the hero, run through a list of their strengths, and come up with a foil for each bullet point. Those methods make engaging villains. Those are the villains you love to see, because they thrill you at the same time that they horrify you: the Darth Vaders and the Hannibal Lectors, the Moriartys and the Lex Luthors. Those bad guys may not have our allegiance, but they have our attention, our fascination, the stamp of the viewer's approval.

But to write a villain who elicits horror in the audience, who’s a perfect counterpoint to all the hero’s strengths, and to have the audience feel sick when he’s on the screen—that’s extraordinary. And in this case, it’s achieved by tapping into a kind of violence that has only rarely been addressed on the screen, and even more rarely shown from the victim’s point of view. It’s not the “violent rape” that politicians discuss, the kind that grabs you in an alleyway with a stranger’s hands. It’s the kind that gets up close and personal in all the other ways, in ways that nobody can see from the outside. And its perpetrator is an emotional toddler, raging for anything and everything they want, right now, as if their whims were as essential as oxygen. There is absolutely nothing appealing about Kilgrave. Zilch. Even his charm isn't directed toward us; it's directed toward the other characters, the ones Jessica needs to believe her and help her, and so we hate his charm. He convinces the audience that he’s powerful, maybe too powerful to be defeated, and we’re right there in Jessica’s misery with her, feeling isolated and despairing.

Kilgrave's comic-book villain in Jessica Jones does what speculative fiction does best: turns a mirror on reality. You can make a villain who is stronger than other villains, who rules a bigger empire or has a bigger weapon or is out to kill more people than any other villain ever written. But all you're doing is playing the game of "Oh, yeah? My bad guy is bad times a hundred. No; times a million. Times infinity plus one."

Kilgrave tells us what bad really is, and it rings true. Anybody who's had to take out an order of protection knows Kilgrave already. Anybody who's undergone a rape kit knows Kilgrave already. He's the rarest sort of screen villain: the one we were afraid of before he was written.

[Bazza]

Kilgrave Is one-dimensional and boring. It is someone who is has the power of suggestion (like a hypnotist) and read a few too many books by Aleister Crowley. 

[Lord Liaden]

"Some people can read War and Peace, and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe." -- Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), Superman: The Movie.

 

Two people can look at the same work of art and come to completely different conclusions about it. That doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Art will always be fundamentally subjective.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[Bazza]

Agree to a point. 
 

If art is fundamentally subjective, then it misses the objective inner reality of the ideas, forms and symbols that sustain its originality and beauty. 
 

(I’ve read a bit on the objectivity on art to disbelieve that art is essentially subjective. Eg: Art and Originality by Philip Sherrard)

[Lord Liaden]

Very good point. I agree, I misspoke for the sake of simplicity. It would be more fair to say that appreciation of art is a mix of the objective and subjective.

 

I've noticed that people will often characterize a given work of art as "bad," when what they really mean is, "I don't like it." It takes a measure of self-awareness to distinguish between how well something is executed from how it makes one feel. For example, there are genres of drama and music that don't appeal to me at all, that even repulse me; but I can still appreciate the skill with which they're executed, and how well they succeeded at what they were trying to evoke or convey.

[Bazza]

No worries. I do it as well. However I have found that some people can’t distinguish between an objective & subjective criticism. And by way of supporting the academic journal article I posted above, I found this yesterday. 
 

Quote

Cinema and Ontology

The essays presented in this volume investigate the relationship between cinema and ontology. This investigation unfolds, on the one hand, through an ontological understanding of cinema, that is, an understanding of the specificity of if its being. On the other hand, it highlights the ways in which cinema can help us to shed some light on the domain of ontology, namely, what exists.

 

[Iuz the Evil]

Liked What If Season 2, except for whatever that terrible revision of the Mohawk was. That would have been interesting if they’d played it even remotely accurately to the actual historic Mohawk, I would’ve enjoyed seeing the warlike conquering tribe they actually historically were, subjugating North America and likely the globe. Maybe coming into conflict with the 1602 folks and other Marvel time tossed concepts. I don’t know what the heck that actually was. Mostly just bad.

 

The rest of it was pretty fun. Particularly liked the What If Hela Found the Ten Rings? “Maybe not the flowers though, knives would be much more serviceable”. Hahaha. It was 🤔 interesting to see her in the tutelage of Wen Wah. The inevitable ending confrontation was equally funny (“I gave peace a chance”) and cinematic, even if it was derivative of the original Thor movie that was intentional.

 

“1602” was rather disappointing, they’d have needed to spend like 3+ episodes to have a decent homage to the comic series. But it was okay, if you aren’t into actual history that much. The comics were so much better though.

 

 Solid B from me overall. Pretty fun stuff.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

The What If comics were driven by readers, mostly.  People who wrote letters or talked to writers.  They asked you "know, what if..." and then Marvel would make it happen.  Sometimes the fans were the writers, who came up with their What If scenarios.  Stuff like "what if Annihilus killed Sue Storm?  (hint: never make Reed that angry).  None of the What If TV shows really seem to be that kind of story.

[Bazza]

What If season two was very good. Each episode was as good as the previous one, sometimes better. The major problem is the deus ex machina to resolve the climax in the last episode. 

[Lord Liaden]

I believe the writers have made and are making a big mistake by turning the Watcher from his classic What If? role of observer and narrator, into an active participant in the stories. Having him just walk along chatting with other characters distracts from the story playing out as the logical consequence of "What if such-and-such happens?" When this nigh-omnipotent being becomes just another player in the story, it turns into, "What if such-and-such happens, and the Watcher does or doesn't interfere?" It also strips away the Watcher's aura of being on a level far above these mortals, privileged to know what they can never comprehend, yet bound to remain aloof.

 

It's also kind of weird that Peggy Carter now seems to be the Watcher's pet human, like Jean-Luc Picard was to Q. I like Captain Carter, but I don't see why she should matter more to him than the many other heroes in the Multiverse. Unless this is another manifestation of that female-dominance kick that Marvel seems to have been on the past few years.

[Iuz the Evil]

18 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I believe the writers have made and are making a big mistake by turning the Watcher from his classic What If? role of observer and narrator, into an active participant in the stories. Having him just walk along chatting with other characters distracts from the story playing out as the logical consequence of "What if such-and-such happens?" When this nigh-omnipotent being becomes just another player in the story, it turns into, "What if such-and-such happens, and the Watcher does or doesn't interfere?" It also strips away the Watcher's aura of being on a level far above these mortals, privileged to know what they can never comprehend, yet bound to remain aloof.

 

It's also kind of weird that Peggy Carter now seems to be the Watcher's pet human, like Jean-Luc Picard was to Q. I like Captain Carter, but I don't see why she should matter more to him than the many other heroes in the Multiverse. Unless this is another manifestation of that female-dominance kick that Marvel seems to have been on the past few years.

Indeed, I like Captain Carter. I do not understand why the Watcher cares about her more than the billions of humans (trillions?) who die in the course of the incidents he’s observing. 

[Old Man]

Fantastic Four has been cast. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

The Fantastic Four is cursed, they should just give up trying to make a movie out of them.  At least, until they figure out what makes them work and lean heavily into that.

[slikmar]

Perhaps start by NOT making Dr. Doom the villain and use one of the, I don't know, 100s of other villains in their pantheon? Its probably one of the most annoying thing about the last one with Kate and Mara is it would have been a perfect opportunity to use Blastaar as the villain from the Negative Zone, thereby setting a future Annihilus.

[Bazza]

RT score for Madame Web: 13%. 
 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/madame_web

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah the trailers looked awful, I'm not sure why Sony keeps doing these.

[Lord Liaden]

Sony execs want more blockbuster Spider-Man related box-office bucks. But they keep demonstrating they have no clue why the successful Spidey movies were successful. They think all it takes is checking off enough boxes.

 

I don't understand why they don't hire the people making their Spider-Man video games to write their movies. Those folks obviously know and respect the characters, and they know how to tell a compelling story.

[Old Man]

37 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Sony execs want more blockbuster Spider-Man related box-office bucks. But they keep demonstrating they have no clue why the successful Spidey movies were successful. They think all it takes is checking off enough boxes.

 

I don't understand why they don't hire the people making their Spider-Man video games to write their movies. Those folks obviously know and respect the characters, and they know how to tell a compelling story.

 

AIUI if Sony doesn't use the IP they lose the license.  That's why we get new Spider-Man reboots every ninety days.  Doesn't explain why they don't bother to get a real screenwriter, I assume they figure people will mistake these for MCU movies and the dollars will roll in.

 

edit: Madame Web cost "only" $80M to make, so it could conceivably make a little money in the long run.

Edited February 19 by Old Man

[slikmar]

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I don't understand why they don't hire the people making their Spider-Man video games to write their movies. Those folks obviously know and respect the characters, and they know how to tell a compelling story.

I think you answered your own question.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah its not impossible, however unlikely, that Madam Web will make money in rentals, Blu Ray etc.

 

But as for licensing, you can go quite a while without losing the license/rights for a character.  For example between Superman IV killed the franchise and Superman Returns was from 1987 to 2006.  So Sony isn't required to make crappy Spiderman side character movies every year to keep the license. 

 

My best guess is that they figure they have their own little cinematic universe that they are trying to create with as little effort and money as possible and at first it was working.  Venom, inexplicably, made a lot of money.  Even Morbius made a handfull of cash.  But its been diminishing returns, and Venom 2 was a huge bomb.

[Old Man]

NPR:  Why Sony Pictures is stuck rebooting Marvel's Spider-Man ...

 

Quote

ROBINSON: Here's a part of the Sony-Marvel contract. I'm going to read - are you going - I'm going to hit you with some...

 

MALONE: You got text?

 

ROBINSON: ...Contract verbiage.

 

MALONE: Oh, this is - this is it for us. We love reading from a contract. All right, let's - lay it on us, Joanna.

 

ROBINSON: All right. (Reading) Sony must commence production on a new "Spider-Man" film within three years, nine months and release it within five years, nine months after the release of

preceding picture. Boom.

 

MALONE: Translation - if Sony does not release a "Spider-Man" movie every five years and nine months, the movie rights go back to Marvel, and Sony loses one of the most valuable pieces of intellectual property in the world? I - hard to fact-check. I'm going to go and say it.

 

WONG: So if you've wondered why there always seems to be a "Spider-Man" movie, it's because there kind of has to be one if Sony wants to keep the rights.

 

MALONE: And does this go on for eternity?

 

ROBINSON: Yes.

 

 

Read the whole transcript, there's even a kind of food fight.

Edited February 19 by Old Man

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah they have five years to put out each film, and they are putting out like one a year.  So they aren't struggling to keep their licensing, they're trying to make money but are cheap and not doing very good work.  Now, it takes about 3 years to put out a modern movie (especially with CGI) so they can't just sit around 4 years and crank something out.  But a 5 year deadline doesn't explain this release schedule:

 

Venom: 2018

Into the Spider-Verse: 2018

Venom 2: 2021

Morbius: 2022

Across the Spiderverse: 2023

Madam Web: 2024

 

Incidentally I think the Tom Holland Spidey movies count as Sony movies under the contract which would pad the release schedule even more, but I cannot say for sure.  So there's more to it than just "we don't want to lose our ownership"

[slikmar]

I am in the "they are trying to ride the coattails of the Marvel Cinematic Universe successes". I mean, even the "failures" for Marvel would at least be considered ok to other studios, I would think. Of course, not learning the lesson that the reason for Marvels success was due to directors, writers,  and for the most part, actors who actually understood the original medium and enjoyed it, is another matter. I have said before, and I know not all agree, but even the bad MCU movies are better then most the stuff put out by any other studio.

 

And all this reminds me of the 90s FF so they could keep the license, without even releasing a movie.