|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 6, 2019 15:47:04 GMT -8
So I joked earlier about Martin Scorsese's comments on the MCU (where he said they "weren't cinema"), but after reading his longer thoughts on the subject, I do see where he's coming from. Major studio blockbusters are getting bigger, indie films are getting smaller, and the middle is rapidly disappearing. I think he's being unfair to the Marvel movies, since, as of late, they've begun to let talented directors put their own spin on the franchise ( Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, and Thor: Ragnarok are all good examples). After unwisely booting Edgar Wright off Ant-Man, Feige and co. decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to give directors more creative freedom, even if their films will ultimately be tied into a larger, corporate-mandated franchise. As a financial behemoth, the MCU will remain on top for a while (their three 2019 films made over $5 billion combined). And they have some talented directors lined up for future films as well, presumably not quite as hampered by the Avengers arcs. So I like to think the 2020s will see a shift towards a more experimental and risk-accepting MCU. But is that just me getting my fanboyish hopes up?
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 26, 2019 14:19:58 GMT -8
I would like to set the record straight on two things:
1) I was completely right on my read of the Sony - Disney Spider-man news. I know this is super old news now but I was just revisiting this thread and saw that I nailed it. It doesn't happen often so I feel I need to celebrate.
2) I've now been waiting 5 months for Jeremy's rebuttal of my Marvel movie rankings.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 26, 2019 15:18:20 GMT -8
1) You were not completely right. You stated that the move was a bluff on Sony's part, and Disney would call it. Instead, the two studios struck a tenuous deal for Spidey to appear in two more MCU films (including a third film in his own series). What happens after that is still anyone's guess.
2) I will rebut your incorrect rankings when you respond to my post about Martin Scorsese (above).
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 26, 2019 15:40:55 GMT -8
I believe I said Sony wasn't bluffing about walking away at the terms Disney was setting and this was their play to prove it, and the move for Disney would be to look for a deal to take about 20% of the profits. They took 25%. I guess I wasn't completely right. But this doesn't matter I don't need my correctness challenged.
I think if Martin Scorcese thinks that Marvel movies "aren't cinema" then he has far too narrow a definition of cinema. There is no time throughout history that the movies didn't have a lot of comfort food as well as the more challenging works we respect today. They equally make up cinema.
My opinion on the "middle" disappearing is more of a function of the ease of accessibility of the more indie films. The people who want challenging movies don't have to go spend 12$ in a cinema to watch it, because it's more readily available to them. And I think the presence of the Oscars will always keep that middle elevated in some sense, even if the Oscars themselves aren't the greatest arbiter of quality.
I don't think Marvel is going to start to get more creative, I just don't see what's in it for them. They've got a fan base that expects certain beats from there movies, and there's no reason to make a The Last Jedi type of movie and risk that backlash where every movie they make rakes in money hand over fist. They'll try to keep a certain level of quality so they don't become the DCEU, but I just don't see how taking big swings benefits them. I might be being overly pessimistic though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 26, 2019 19:50:58 GMT -8
I think we're going to see an increase of creativity in MCU films up to a point. Folks like Ryan Coogler, Taka Waititi, and James Gunn have been given more creative freedom over their Marvel films (particularly the sequels) than the typical franchise blockbuster. As long as the studio has brand recognition (plus the megahit Avengers films) to keep things humming, I wouldn't be surprised to see them allow for more creativity in this vein, especially if the films continue to thrive (as I expect they will) without the series' original stars.
My comment about the middle disappearing was in reference to mid-budget movies, which are now a rapidly dying art. Everything is either a $100 million behemoth or a $20 million (or less) indie. Used to be a lot of films between the two margins, but that's shifted as studios continually adopt a "go big or go home" strategy.
I will rebut your Marvel rankings at some point in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 15, 2019 11:37:54 GMT -8
So I joked earlier about Martin Scorsese's comments on the MCU (where he said they "weren't cinema"), but after reading his longer thoughts on the subject, I do see where he's coming from. Major studio blockbusters are getting bigger, indie films are getting smaller, and the middle is rapidly disappearing. I think he's being unfair to the Marvel movies, since, as of late, they've begun to let talented directors put their own spin on the franchise ( Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, and Thor: Ragnarok are all good examples). After unwisely booting Edgar Wright off Ant-Man, Feige and co. decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to give directors more creative freedom, even if their films will ultimately be tied into a larger, corporate-mandated franchise. As a financial behemoth, the MCU will remain on top for a while (their three 2019 films made over $5 billion combined). And they have some talented directors lined up for future films as well, presumably not quite as hampered by the Avengers arcs. So I like to think the 2020s will see a shift towards a more experimental and risk-accepting MCU. But is that just me getting my fanboyish hopes up? That's a terrific article, though I'm only partially in agreement with Marty - I think if we're defining absolutes, then cinema at its core is simply something recorded and broadcast on camera, a motion picture. It's a testament to its diversity that the artform permits films made from stills (La Jetee, Letter to Jane, etc) and the use of an ersatz camera (cel animation, etc) and it remains within its categorisation. So I would strongly disagree that superhero movies aren't cinema, even with Marty's expanded thoughts. There is, however, one especially salient point: And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing. I was discussing this very thing only a week back with a friend - homogenisation has seemingly become the new norm. It's not just Marvel and the post-X-Men superhero avalanche who are guilty of it, but they've certainly helped to perpetuate a climate of risk aversion, be it via dismissal from studios or fear of it from audiences, or a combination thereof (the chicken-and-egg, indeed). The saturation of sameness isn't actually that new; the film serial yielded pretty big business during the Golden Age of Hollywood, but artistically I don't think it did the artform or artists many favours save that of Louis Feuillade. I suspect this proliferation has a lot to do with this ostensible modern desire to bleed film and television together, and whilst I see where people are coming from when they describe the MCU as an ambitious project, I can't help but find a real 'ceiling' to what can be achieved, and then that becomes a constant. I voiced this very concern when Joss Whedon first got involved with Marvel and as far as I'm concerned, it's borne fruit, and fruit from one tree are basically the same. This has, however, made it easier for me to find my seat when I come back from the toilet on an airplane - my screen is the one showing the black-and-white Tamil movie from the 50s whereas everyone else's is showing people in lycra getting hit with pink laser beams.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 15, 2019 15:04:49 GMT -8
So I joked earlier about Martin Scorsese's comments on the MCU (where he said they "weren't cinema"), but after reading his longer thoughts on the subject, I do see where he's coming from. Major studio blockbusters are getting bigger, indie films are getting smaller, and the middle is rapidly disappearing. I think he's being unfair to the Marvel movies, since, as of late, they've begun to let talented directors put their own spin on the franchise ( Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, and Thor: Ragnarok are all good examples). After unwisely booting Edgar Wright off Ant-Man, Feige and co. decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to give directors more creative freedom, even if their films will ultimately be tied into a larger, corporate-mandated franchise. As a financial behemoth, the MCU will remain on top for a while (their three 2019 films made over $5 billion combined). And they have some talented directors lined up for future films as well, presumably not quite as hampered by the Avengers arcs. So I like to think the 2020s will see a shift towards a more experimental and risk-accepting MCU. But is that just me getting my fanboyish hopes up? That's a terrific article, though I'm only partially in agreement with Marty - I think if we're defining absolutes, then cinema at its core is simply something recorded and broadcast on camera, a motion picture. It's a testament to its diversity that the artform permits films made from stills (La Jetee, Letter to Jane, etc) and the use of an ersatz camera (cel animation, etc) and it remains within its categorisation. So I would strongly disagree that superhero movies aren't cinema, even with Marty's expanded thoughts. There is, however, one especially salient point: And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing. I was discussing this very thing only a week back with a friend - homogenisation has seemingly become the new norm. It's not just Marvel and the post-X-Men superhero avalanche who are guilty of it, but they've certainly helped to perpetuate a climate of risk aversion, be it via dismissal from studios or fear of it from audiences, or a combination thereof (the chicken-and-egg, indeed). The saturation of sameness isn't actually that new; the film serial yielded pretty big business during the Golden Age of Hollywood, but artistically I don't think it did the artform or artists many favours save that of Louis Feuillade. I suspect this proliferation has a lot to do with this ostensible modern desire to bleed film and television together, and whilst I see where people are coming from when they describe the MCU as an ambitious project, I can't help but find a real 'ceiling' to what can be achieved, and then that becomes a constant. I voiced this very concern when Joss Whedon first got involved with Marvel and as far as I'm concerned, it's borne fruit, and fruit from one tree are basically the same. This has, however, made it easier for me to find my seat when I come back from the toilet on an airplane - my screen is the one showing the black-and-white Tamil movie from the 50s whereas everyone else's is showing people in lycra getting hit with pink laser beams. I agree with all of this. The tension between commercialism and artistry is not a new thing-it's been around as long as Hollywood. But Scorsese was trying to say that it's never been quite as imbalanced as it is now. Which I think is fair. Great films are still being made, but they are being pushed out by Marvel and their assembly line products.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 23, 2021 14:45:00 GMT -8
Wow, this thread hasn't been updated since 2019? We haven't had any new MCU films since then? And I still haven't rebutted Scott's rankings? What insane times we live in.
Anyway, I have very mixed feelings about Black Widow. Here's a film I've been anticipating for over a decade, but studios' reluctance to spend big bucks on female-led superhero movies means Natasha literally has to die before she gets her own frontline. When your first (and presumably last) starring vehicle is a midquel in an ongoing, heavily continuity-driven saga, the stakes just aren't as high as they would have been had the film been released five years ago. (As it should have been, Feige.)
Beyond that, the film itself is just... okay. Lots of paint-by-numbers action draped around a uninvolving plot driven by a bland and one-note villain. (With a secondary villain who is a lot of fun in the comics and has been sucked dry of entertainment in the movie.) The family dynamic is better, particularly anything involving Florence Pugh (who is undeniably the highlight of the film), though the character drama still doesn't feel as potent as the interpersonal material in Marvel's better films.
It's interesting that Marvel's unsubtle girl power bona fides have produced two blandly middle-of-the-road films centering on female superheroes, while DC is circumventing the surface message and releasing more engaging films like Wonder Woman and Birds of Prey. Reminds me of how Marvel Comics in the '60s emphasized "realistic" female superheroes by putting Sue Storm in an apron and having Janet Van Dyne obsess over clothes, while DC ignored the gender politics and accidentally created a bunch of superwomen who were equal to their male colleagues. All this has happened before...
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 24, 2021 11:07:59 GMT -8
I watched that scamp, Loki, do his thing and I don't know how much I can spoil or how much is ruined by the internet already. My friend whom I was watching with had much of it already spoiled for her. Should I do spoiler tags?
SPOILER:
One thing that I would observe from it, not necessarily qualifying it as either greatly good or bad (don't worry, I'm mean shortly), is the wide variety of audiences that are played to. Conspiracy theorists will be pleased. Fans of Norwegian mythology will be pleased and we are initiating a ragtag campaign to get Tom Hiddleston to sing the Eddas. Fans of various action movies and Marvel movies will be pleased as there are copious references to this and that. I honestly don't know how I feel about that because I spent some time this morning reading a list of "Easter Eggs" in the series and already picked up on most of them and I'm not sure whether that's a benefit to us or gratuitous and floppy. Another criticism, recently read, was that people seem to be dying over queer and POC representation in Marvel / Disney as if there isn't a large repertoire of those available that the corporate overlords find middlebrow and inoffensive enough to be viable, and I've been thinking about that as well. What we're getting here, perhaps at its worst, is a pastiche of elements lifted from other films, sometimes well executed, but also taking fewer risks and having a budget large enough to make just about anything work or to try until it does. It doesn't need to understand why these moves are made, only that you recognize where they come from and appreciate them, and beyond a certain event horizon there, lies Scary Movie.
That's not to say it lacks independent interest or topicality. Someone I follow on Twitter proposed that some elements are talking about climate change without talking about climate change, but given that one element of it is trying to fix events before they spiral out of control into cataclysms, I would say that the last few years have yielded disaster upon disaster-- with some weak attempts at aversion-- so the topicality isn't constricted to climate alone. The dialogue however was hit or miss, with a handful of zingers but also some instances where we groaned deeply and on a spiritual level, usually when someone was trying to make a dramatic point.
It's fine overall. I don't regret it and wouldn't for a minute suggest I was hate-watching because it is eye-candy and fun (even if you never hear Owen Wilson utter a "wow"). But I'm not sure how different Marvel fare is as a viewing experience from listening to a Top 40 radio station, or most radio stations for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 24, 2021 20:17:30 GMT -8
(Mild Loki spoilers.)
I found Loki to be generally entertaining, but nothing too special or distinctive. The show is at its best when it embraces the weirdness of the TVA and the meticulous nature with which it approaches its utterly insane job*, but it's less successful when it breaks up its main cast and tries to set up new directions for the MCU. The two middle episodes are remarkably weak for this reason, and kill a lot of the show's early momentum.
The other major problem is that the Loki we're watching in this series isn't the one we've followed for most of the MCU, and hasn't any memories or development from beyond the first Avengers film. Obviously Marvel and Disney want to keep the character around, no matter how many times they need to resurrect him from the dead, but they've written themselves into too many corners with him, and the version we're left with just isn't an investing one.
The best part of the series was surprisingly not Owen Wilson (who doesn't get nearly enough to do beyond the premiere) but Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays her sorta-villain role very well and develops a lot of shades of grey for a secondary character in a six-episode season. With the series clearly creating some major ramifications for the larger Cinematic Universe (some of which seem more interesting than others), Ravonna appears to be something of an incidental character, but I'm hoping she gets a larger and meatier role in Season Two.
*Walt Simonson, the great Marvel writer who created the TVA back in the '80s and utilized it several times in Thor and Fantastic Four, found the perfect balance between serious time-travel exposition and manic insanity. It's a balance the Loki writers can't quite recapture.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 24, 2021 22:06:43 GMT -8
There were some overtures towards weirdness and mania in the first episode, they just were in no way sustained. I suspect that some of the issue there is that the *SPOILER BUFFER STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT IT I'M WARNING YOU* impact of everyone employed there being Variants might be diminished if it were too wacky.
But at least Pillboy from The Good Place is getting some work
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 25, 2021 11:45:04 GMT -8
Okay, I'm finally going to respond to Scott's list, 27 months after it was posted. Here are the top 10 issues:
10. Ant-Man and the Wasp is not a "nothing movie about nothing" because it sets up a key plot point in Endgame and also has a giant Hello Kitty Pez dispenser.
9. "The more powerful you make your superhero, the less interesting they become." This is patently false. Plastic Man is technically the most powerful superhero in the universe, and he is hilariously interesting. (Make a Plastic Man movie, DC. Cast John Mulaney. Do it now.) Within the MCU, the complaint does apply to Carol Danvers, a character who is never given any sort of personality or character flaws, but not to Dr. Strange, who has the character trait of shaky hands.
8. Captain America: Civil War actually feels very natural and organic. It was released during an election year, which is the perfect time to release any "X vs. Y" movies. Can't get more organic than that.
7. Thor: Ragnarok shouldn't be judged based on Infinity War, because most of Ragnarok's strengths are based on it being disconnected from the larger MCU. As all future Thor movies should be.
6. It is blasphemous to suggest that any Marvel movie is funnier than Thor #3, particularly Thor #1.
5. "Stane isn't one of (Jeff Briedges') better characters." Technically false, since Jeff Bridges does not play "characters." He plays exactly one role in his career, and that role is Jeff Bridges, man.
4. Endgame >>> "serviceable."
3. Age of Ultron is a little better in retrospect (since it sets up a lot of other Marvel films in various ways) but it's still Age of Ultron.
2. I want to take your word for it, but I also really, really want to know why First Avenger is in your Top 3. The image of scrawny CGI Steve Rogers is still imprinted on my brain.
1. With your #1 pick, you claim to love movies that are about "family," yet you don't enjoy the Fast and Furious movies? Ridiculous. The Guardians movies are about family and so are the F&F movies (which you can tell because they interrupt the action every 20 minutes to say the word "family" or something.) Plus, they both have Vin Diesel! So remember kids, if you want to make a good action movie, the key ingredients are family and Vin Diesel.
Anyway, i hope this was helpful and worth the two-year-plus wait. Maybe I'll make my own MCU ranking and Scott can snark on that in return.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 26, 2021 11:16:30 GMT -8
Okay, I'm finally going to respond to Scott's list, 27 months after it was posted. Here are the top 10 issues: 10. Ant-Man and the Wasp is not a "nothing movie about nothing" because it sets up a key plot point in Endgame and also has a giant Hello Kitty Pez dispenser. 9. "The more powerful you make your superhero, the less interesting they become." This is patently false. Plastic Man is technically the most powerful superhero in the universe, and he is hilariously interesting. (Make a Plastic Man movie, DC. Cast John Mulaney. Do it now.) Within the MCU, the complaint does apply to Carol Danvers, a character who is never given any sort of personality or character flaws, but not to Dr. Strange, who has the character trait of shaky hands. 8. Captain America: Civil War actually feels very natural and organic. It was released during an election year, which is the perfect time to release any "X vs. Y" movies. Can't get more organic than that. 7. Thor: Ragnarok shouldn't be judged based on Infinity War, because most of Ragnarok's strengths are based on it being disconnected from the larger MCU. As all future Thor movies should be. 6. It is blasphemous to suggest that any Marvel movie is funnier than Thor #3, particularly Thor #1. 5. "Stane isn't one of (Jeff Briedges') better characters." Technically false, since Jeff Bridges does not play "characters." He plays exactly one role in his career, and that role is Jeff Bridges, man. 4. Endgame >>> "serviceable." 3. Age of Ultron is a little better in retrospect (since it sets up a lot of other Marvel films in various ways) but it's still Age of Ultron. 2. I want to take your word for it, but I also really, really want to know why First Avenger is in your Top 3. The image of scrawny CGI Steve Rogers is still imprinted on my brain. 1. With your #1 pick, you claim to love movies that are about "family," yet you don't enjoy the Fast and Furious movies? Ridiculous. The Guardians movies are about family and so are the F&F movies (which you can tell because they interrupt the action every 20 minutes to say the word "family" or something.) Plus, they both have Vin Diesel! So remember kids, if you want to make a good action movie, the key ingredients are family and Vin Diesel. Anyway, i hope this was helpful and worth the two-year-plus wait. Maybe I'll make my own MCU ranking and Scott can snark on that in return. I've seen Opinion #6 articulated quite a bit, especially by New Zealanders. They view Ragnarok's humor as quite low-effort by the director's standards.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 26, 2021 17:07:50 GMT -8
Admittedly, my sense of humor is probably different than the average New Zealander. But I've seen most of Taika Waititi's films, and Ragnarok - while not the best - does make me laugh the hardest. And it stands as a great example of how to retool a character/franchise once upon learning that the actor is funny.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 12, 2021 1:17:02 GMT -8
So, I watched the first two Tom Holland Spider-Man films on Netflix for the first time since their theatrical release, and in preparation for the third one in December, and I have a few random thoughts:
- I think I prefer the cast of these films to all other big-screen iterations, but the action in Homecoming is almost uniformly mediocre. It has no grace or flow to it, few if any breathtaking moments, and much of it is choppy, underlit, and has blurry CGI. The third-act sequence with the plane, in particular, is VERY poorly visualized. The second film, I would say, has better-realized action, but much of it is so busy with a flurry of drones or environmental effects that Spidey's movement and actions barely register. The best sequence in the film is the augmented-reality/hallucination set-piece in the abandoned building, and that's because it's a fully-animated sequence meant to directly invoked precise comic-book panels. Anyways, there's nothing in either of these films, action-wise, that come anywhere near the best set-pieces in Raimi's Spider-Man 2, which really evoked gravity and height, the ebb and flow of pendulum swings, and graceful motion (despite more primitive CGI, given the era in which it was produced).
- These films being so tied into the overall MCU has really done them a disservice in terms of major storytelling beats, in some regards. For instance (SPOILERS AHEAD), one of the major story elements at the finish of Homecoming is that Peter rejects being a part of the Avengers, but then he's immediately got the fancy new suit (that he rejected!) at the beginning of the second film. So a rather high percentage of his major character development happened OUTSIDE of his actual solo film. Also, the main thrust of the upcoming film is Peter trying to undo something that was revealed in the FIRST POST-CREDITS SEQUENCE of Far From Home. I didn't know what the story was going to be for the third film at the time, but now that I do, it's pretty inconceivable that they didn't put that MAJOR PLOT POINT in the film proper. Yes, I know they want people to stay for the end credits (though they trolled viewers for it with the post-credits Captain America cameo in Homecoming), but surely they realize that many viewers get up and leave the moment the credits hit, and that said sequence was a much better ending for the film than him just swinging with Mary Jane. These post credits tags should be supplemental enhancement of the narrative at most, but not the primary narrative beat.
- I think a lot of the verbal jokes in Homecoming are awfully dumb on paper, but they're delivered in enough of a quick, carefree, and upbeat way that the film keeps moving along regardless.
- As I said, I do very much like the cast of these films. That said, when people talk about the visual "house-style" of the MCU, and how it's not "cinema" (which I find to be somewhat pretentious gatekeeping, but whatever), it's fully evident in both of these films. There's not a lot of care put into the compositions: it's all just serviceable to get from Point A to Point B, with the Far From Home central augmented-reality sequence being the only notable exception. I think the only MCU films to really distinguish themselves visually to me were Doctor Strange (some stunningly colourful otherworldly visuals) and maybe Thor Ragnarok (because Waititi is maybe a bit of an auteur). But that perhaps bodes well for the third MCU Spider-Man installment, because Doctor Strange is all mixed up in the action (though it doesn't have that film's director, so we'll see). At any rate, the mixing with the earlier S-M franchises should at least prove of some interest, and I'm glad they appear to be bringing back Alfred Molina's Doc Ock, who still has a little juice in him, in my estimation.
- Speaking of villains, there's some amusing (perhaps unintentional) subtext in having a former billionaire Batman (Michael Keaton) show resentment towards the billionaire superhero (Tony Stark) with far more advanced toys than he had in his day.
|
|