Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND


Bazza

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I thought the Warriors Three deserved a better exit.

 

I'm okay with them dying like chumps.  I am less okay with Thor taking not so much a moment to ask about them or mourn their passing, despite them being his friends for centuries if not millenniums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Warriors Three were a pretty easy kill though; they were a minor part of the pantheon, I'm not sure anyone other than Stan Lee really liked them, and while they are depicted as Thor's best buddies they were kind of superfluous even in the comics, no matter who was writing them.  So yeah, he should care more but the audience really doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Black Panther today.  It was really good up until the point they started to try and make the villain sympathetic, which was a step to far for me.  You want to make your villain a remorseless murderer and terrorist who kills the people he claims he's trying to protect? Fine.  Just don't try and make me feel sorry for him because that ship has already sailed.  I walked out of the movie at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The Warriors Three were a pretty easy kill though; they were a minor part of the pantheon, I'm not sure anyone other than Stan Lee really liked them, and while they are depicted as Thor's best buddies they were kind of superfluous even in the comics, no matter who was writing them.  So yeah, he should care more but the audience really doesn't.

 

I never really liked the characters much, and I think they could have been left out of the movie franchise. Apparently, someone at Marvel thinks so, too. But when you bring in three characters established as your franchise hero's best buds, they need to serve the story in some way that rises above cannon fodder (or canon fodder . . .). Just having them walk on scene to get murdered is bad writing. There wasn't even a reaction take from Thor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Twilight said:

I saw Black Panther today.  It was really good up until the point they started to try and make the villain sympathetic, which was a step to far for me.  You want to make your villain a remorseless murderer and terrorist who kills the people he claims he's trying to protect? Fine.  Just don't try and make me feel sorry for him because that ship has already sailed.  I walked out of the movie at that point.

 

Yet the biggest gripe about Marvel Studios is that their villains are one-dimensional.  Killmonger was anything but.  And in the end, he convinces T'Challa that he's right.  Not about his methods, but about his grievances.  The most memorable, impactful villains are those who are sympathetic.  I think he's one of the best villains in the MCU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The Warriors Three were a pretty easy kill though; they were a minor part of the pantheon, I'm not sure anyone other than Stan Lee really liked them, and while they are depicted as Thor's best buddies they were kind of superfluous even in the comics, no matter who was writing them.  So yeah, he should care more but the audience really doesn't.

 

It's okay, they can always reset it with Flashpoint. :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Armory said:

 

Yet the biggest gripe about Marvel Studios is that their villains are one-dimensional.  Killmonger was anything but.  And in the end, he convinces T'Challa that he's right.  Not about his methods, but about his grievances.  The most memorable, impactful villains are those who are sympathetic.  I think he's one of the best villains in the MCU.

I think he's a two dimensional hypocrite and the idea that he could convince T'Challa of anything is patently ridiculous given that Killmonger didn't give a damn about anybody but himself.  Killmonger's father now he could convince T'Challa he was right because he legitimately believed, I never once believed that Killmonger was doing anything but paying lip service to his father's beliefs in order to get what he wanted.  The fact that he openly admitted to killing black people with no remorse makes it clear that he doesn't care about his father's goals of protecting black people.  For me the movie went downhill the moment Killmonger took over as villain, I was far more interested in T'Challa getting his revenge on Klaw or why M'Baku's people chose to isolate himself in the mountains and waited until this moment to challenge for leadership of Wakanda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Twilight said:

I think he's a two dimensional hypocrite and the idea that he could convince T'Challa of anything is patently ridiculous given that Killmonger didn't give a damn about anybody but himself.  Killmonger's father now he could convince T'Challa he was right because he legitimately believed, I never once believed that Killmonger was doing anything but paying lip service to his father's beliefs in order to get what he wanted.  The fact that he openly admitted to killing black people with no remorse makes it clear that he doesn't care about his father's goals of protecting black people.  

 

Well yeah, he was a villain, not the hero.  Of course his methods will be villainous.  Of course his worldview has been twisted from what is a noble goal into a really really bad idea.  Sympathetic villain means you understand why he does what he does, not that you agree with it.  You can keep the evil-for-evil's-sake villains, I prefer mine with some kind of coherent personal motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Armory said:

 

Well yeah, he was a villain, not the hero.  Of course his methods will be villainous.  Of course his worldview has been twisted from what is a noble goal into a really really bad idea.  Sympathetic villain means you understand why he does what he does, not that you agree with it.  You can keep the evil-for-evil's-sake villains, I prefer mine with some kind of coherent personal motivation.

I didn't see any coherent personal motivation from Killmonger.  One moment he's Klaw's goon helping him achieve his plans with nary a comment, then out of the blue he's the big bad of the movie ranting about protecting Wakanda and such.  Maybe if they'd built him up over a couple of movies, took the time to make him sympathetic BEFORE they established him as a mass murderer with no remorse I might be better disposed to the character as it is I have absolutely no investment in him or his goals.  I do not understand what he does, I don't care what he does and making him the big bad of the film killed my interest in a movie that I was very much enjoying prior to that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Hogun got about as much of a heroic send-off as the character merited (no way was he going to survive a battle to the death with Hela, but he faced her bravely and fought well). Fandral and Volstagg on the other hand... well, I never thought I'd say the words "thank God for Blindspot," but at least it spared Sif getting similar treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:19 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah, they didn't handle that very well.  His appearance in the past was so brief (some USO shows, a tour of schools, and then a few weeks campaign on VIPER) did not establish him as the hero Cap was in the comics.  He was fighting Nazis and more for years before disappearing.  But the movies just presume everyone respects and admires him and who cares if we've established that or not?

 

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:59 PM, Greywind said:

Steve was active for years before he landed Red Skull's plane in the water. He mentions specific years during CA:TWS and I believe he did also in CA:CW.

 

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 8:48 PM, Lord Liaden said:

Okay, a few points to clarify here.

 

According to an interview I read with Captain America: The First Avenger director Joe Johnson, Steve Rogers' career as Captain America took place over nearly three years, so probably from mid-1942 to near the close of the war in Europe. For almost the first half of that he was heavily advertised as a patriotic symbol, not just in USO shows and public appearances, but in a series of movies (which even the Red Skull said he saw). The remaining almost-two years he fought in Europe, which as we saw in scenes from the Marvel films, was also played up in American news reels.

 

As for the cop in New York during the Chitauri invasion who didn't recognize Cap, that was Steve's first modern public appearance. The cop suddenly saw a guy in a costume which only passingly resembled the uniform worn by a man presumed dead for seven decades. How would you react?

 

So Cap was potentially active for 3 years or so, in a period 70+ years ago.   Both the comics and the movies are asking for some serious suspension of disbelief that the vast majority of the population remembers him and is in awe of him as a hero, aren't they?  I think if we reject this in the movies, it is equally suspect in the comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...