|
Darko posted:Also, as brought up in another thread, it's super white - Disney making all of their main heroes white because of being scared to have minority heroes in that first wave didn't work out too well for the ensemble movie. It's not like the roster of important characters is that diverse in Infinity War or Endgame, either. There are nonwhite characters *around* but they aren't significant to the story. Save...what, Rhodey? Falcon? T'Challa, Wong? It perhaps feels more diverse because of the pink and blue and purple people, and the sea of extras from Wakanda. TrixRabbi posted:So all making GBS threads on the MCU aside, I'm honestly curious how the pandemic is going to ultimately impact the future of this franchise. Like, I could see it going either way. It sort of hit at the perfect time for Disney to take a break, right between the ending of the last "Phase" and this new one they're kickstarting with Black Widow. But people were already bracing for BW to be the first film in the series to do some smaller numbers. I don't imagine the delay is going to hurt the MCU commercially at all. Per your point, this is a fine time to interrupt what they're doing because there aren't any big ongoing plots. And if anything, when Black Widow finally does release, it'll be after pandemic restrictions loosen. So, you'll have this hotly-anticipated blockbuster releasing to people who feel really underserved, after months unable to leave the house. It might do way *better* than it would have normally, because fun new superhero entertainment now feels scarce.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:There's a whole thread of creepy running through all his work, it just stood out less in the 1990s when the bar was so low that "let woman fight monster" was a refreshing change of pace instead of just the 100th sequel to Resident Evil or Underworld. It's an irony you'd pick those two franchises as a counterpoint, since that's very much what they were also about (Milla Jovovich and Kate Beckinsdale in leading action roles.) Those movies first released in 2002-2003, at the tail-end of Buffy's TV run, which probably isn't coincidental...Buffy was the benchmark for genre storytelling about hot women who kill monsters at that time, and I'm sure those projects were indebted to that. It's weird to realize how thoroughly Joss Whedon's reputation has flipped since then. I used to love his poo poo, Buffy and Angel and Firefly. I even liked aspects of Dollhouse. But it's definitely a challenge to see past all the creepy, fetish-y poo poo that is and was always in there. And all the mean-spiritedness he has towards some of his female characters, for who they like or don't like, or for how they are or aren't sexual, or whatever the gently caress is going on with Black Widow in Age of Ultron. Mostly, I land on his dorky, incel-adjacent nerd boy characters and what they say about his relationships to women. Xander was probably some kind of self-insert or everyman character at the time, but wow does he read as controlling and scornful and toxic now. And yet, his Buffy S6 villains are toxic misogynists on purpose...so how self-aware is he of all that? No idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Trollipop posted:I don't get why so many people in this thread are calling Dr Strange skippable. Yeah, it's not ambitiously plotted or anything, but it has cool moments. The "open your eye" scene is great, the Inception-y set pieces are fun. I definitely don't get the point of this exercise if it's about carving the movies down to the glowing rocks. Nobody likes the MCU because of the plot mechanics, they enjoy the characters and setting. They're popcorn movies, that people watch for fun. If your thought is, "let's power through this goddamn chore of a series," you could also just...not?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I kind of agree. I think you mean Darkseid. But also Guardians is a pretty good time. It has a unique aesthetic, uses licensed music well, has some imaginative characters and settings...it's if a Disney Star Wars movie had any joy in it whatosever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
I don’t understand any of this argument, because obviously Tony is going to kill Thanos. He’s the protagonist of this series. He was in 9 of 22 movies, is why the MCU became popular in the first place, and was arguably the lead in 7 of them. Like, his last spoken line is the same as that from Iron Man. His experience going through a space portal motivated the whole “armor around the world” poo poo from Ultron, and the nightmare scene from that directly predicted Thanos’ devastation in IW. It was always going to be Iron Man. Why do you think they had the whole “I hope they remember you” scene? To make the Thanos interaction personal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
teagone posted:MCU Spider-Man isn't Spider-Man imo. He's Iron Man Jr., or Iron Boy. Whatever. Sam Raimi made films that are more true to the character's roots that should be required viewing for any Spider-Man/comic book genre fan. Spider-Man (2002) isn't the best Spider-Man movie, but it's decent and its story doesn't suffer under the weight of a cinematic universe. Honestly, at this point I wouldn't recommend the Raimi movies to anyone unless they had a specific interest in his work or in that period of superhero film as a stylistic exercise. It's true to the characters' roots in the way Batman '89 is, in that it was a depiction that was iconic to people at its release but is maybe alienating in its stylization to those more used to later versions of the character. Into the Spider-verse is literally a best-of-all-worlds take on Spider-Man, in my opinion. It summarizes all the broad beats of the Raimi movies, but does it while deconstructing storytelling "canon" in general (that is, every Spider-person has their own origin myth that they feel is definitive, and the collision of their stories becomes funny because of it.) It also takes up a lot of the Raimi movie's themes: the Spider-people aren't inherently special, they become so through their choices. Being superheroic costs them things in their personal lives, and the ethical responsibility of their powers goes hand-in-hand with the elation of having them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
teagone posted:The MCU "Spider-Man" by comparison has completely erased that part of Parker's core ethos by essentially making him a billion dollar trust fund baby with access to omniscient AI powered attack drones capable of orbital strikes. Yes, absolutely. It "makes sense" for the MCU, where all of their heroes default to a similar ideology of liberal capitalism because they're all employed by a benevolent corporation. There's no space for a plot about Peter's poverty because the society he defends is a meritocracy that rewards decency with wealth. I do like Tom Holland as Peter with respect to his performance. He projects youthful enthusiasm and vulnerability well, feels believably intelligent and mature for his age, and he nails irreverence and humor when he needs to (a balance I don't think Andrew Garfield or Tobey Maguire struck.) But who cares, when the stories he's in feel as anodyne and risk-free as these?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 00:51
|
|