Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21
Ireactions, sit down before you click the following link...
Deep breaths. Don't get too excited!
Welcome to the the Sliders.tv Bboard! Email ireactions (at) gmail.com to register.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Ireactions, sit down before you click the following link...
Deep breaths. Don't get too excited!
I mean, obviously it is a sign that the studio has no faith in their original writer, and they are now panicking over what they've seen of this movie. I hear they're turning to a cartoon company to help produce the final cut.
That's what this means, right?
(I am joking of course)
Or, alternatively, Marvel is so scared about the success of the BvS Ultimate Cut and Suicide Squad that they're going into full panic mode. And since their movies are so cartoony, they turned to a comedic writer to make everything brighter and funnier.
I think that we can agree that this is obviously the end for their entire movie franchise. They'll probably have to start all over, if their company survives at all.
They can probably salvage Ant-Man. Everyone loves Ant-Man.
I think it's hilarious how so many articles highlight Dan Harmon's lack of superhero series when he was clearly writing COMMUNITY as a superhero show; the show tapped into the absurdity of a multi-genre superhero universe and treated each of the characters like superhero characters, often posing them to create iconic imagery.
The fact that he got no street creds for Abed alone boggles the mind.
At least a good writer is getting work out of Marvel's death spiral.
The next season of Agents of SHIELD could be interesting, but I can't believe they're still trying to convince the world that Coulson is dead. He's been working in the open for years now. I could see how Joe Q Public doesn't know he's alive, but people *freaked out* at the idea of Bruce Wayne appearing in one random French cafe for five minutes in Dark Knight Rises.
Coulson was apparently the big death in the biggest attack in history. People don't recognize him? And everyone in the government knows he's alive but Tony and company never figured it out? Steve doesn't know?
Movie Coulson is dead. TV Coulson is alive. They may be played by the same actor, but they're different worlds. People just need to give up on the idea that the movie and TV worlds are the same.
Daredevil does not live in the same world as Agents of SHIELD
I know why they did, but they shouldn't have included any movie characters in the show. It should've been kept separate. Ripples are fine, but there shouldn't be anyone major from the movies (except Fury) for these guys to interact with.
That way, it would be separate, which is what they want.
Instead, they're splitting hairs and it doesn't make sense. Tony should know that Phil is alive. So should Cap. At the very least, those two should know. And right now would be the perfect time to reveal that. Cap is in the wind with half the team. No one else on the team now even knew Coulson. So either get RDJ to film a cameo on Skype (PHIL! WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME YOU WERE ALIVE) or have Coulson say he just got off the phone with Stark and he was pissed.
Problem solved. Saying that no one knows he's alive is stupid. Even for the MCU.
Where was Thor during Civil War!?!?! Find out here!
This is why I like the Marvel Universe. It doesn't avoid absurdity, it embraces it.
I saw that the other day. Funny stuff. I think the cast of these movies genuinely likes doing it. It's going to be really interesting when all their contracts are up. Chris Evans, after inferring that he'd stop after his contract is up (and maybe stop acting entirely) has indicated that he'd be interested in playing more Captain America. I think RDJ will continue as long as they keep paying him. And if those guys decide to quit, there's backups in place.
The movies may be for kids, but it's a really well-oiled machine.
I got Civil War from Redbox. I will watch it tonight. I still find the commercials strange and baffling, but hopefully the movie will actually make some sort of sense. We'll see!
Interesting. Well, I'm interested in seeing what you think. I'm also looking to watch it again soon. I saw a trailer today and it got me excited to see it again.
One thing: cracked did a photoplasty (which I can't link to right now) which points out the hypocrisy of Tony recruiting Peter to his side of "being open and honest with the public about superheroes" and then hands him this suit that shrouds his identity.
Its interesting because the Spider-Man stuff does seem to go against the rest of Tony's message. There's clearly a difference between what Tony did at the end of Iron Man and what Peter would have to do, but I wonder if they could've alluded to the Peter Parker unmasking in the comics and done something dark with Tony in the mean time.
So Tony goes to Queens to get Peter. Convinces him to go to Germany with him, and he convinces him that his moral argument is superior to Captain America's. Cool. But then Tony provides him a mask and helps him evade the curiosity of Aunt May.
Bug imagine this: Tony doesn't give him a suit. He brings Peter along but doesn't give him a suit - maybe he upgrades his web shooters, but he's basically just in his civilian clothes (or maybe some body armor - no traditional mask). And pretty much everyone (Team Cap and Team Iron Man alike) sees Peter and wonders why Tony would bring a kid to this battlefield, but Peter proves himself and they all sorta forget about it when the battle begins.
But then Peter gets in trouble and something happens to him (something falls on him?) and people think that he might be dead. And Tony has this realization that he got this kid killed because of something he's not even sure he believes in. Peter's okay, of course, but it sorta affects Tony for a minute. And then, at the end, Tony delivers him a suit because he sorta understands that Peter can handle it but needs to be careful.
Could've been another way to handle Peter in the movie.
My solution: Don't have Spider-Man in the movie. He was only in it because someone thought it would be neat, but his presence presented more problems than it was worth. He is supposed to be an intelligent person, yet he goes into a battle against known heroes with absolutely no comprehension of what he is doing or why. His character could be deleted from the movie with only beneficial results.
As a whole, I'm not sure about him. Hot Aunt May is weird. Squeeky-voiced Beiber-Man... I know some people liked him, but I think he is the weakest big screen Spider-Man I've seen.
Look, we all know that when it comes to the Marvel movies, I'm not a huge fan. I think they're low quality in general, and the films are secondary to the merchandising. It's Disney. That said, I have also proven that I am capable of saying good things about them. I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. It was fun and entertaining, with a solid cast. I liked Ant-Man, because Paul Rudd is a fun guy and he carried the movie. I liked the first Iron Man. I liked the second Iron Man, but less. I didn't hate The First Avenger until they sold it out in order to build up The Avengers, rendering the movie useless. I didn't hate Winter soldier. When you get right down to it, I don't think these movies are great movies, but I only actually hated The Avengers movies, Thor 2 an Iron Man 3. And if we count TV shows, I only strongly dislike Agents of SHIELD, while thinking Jessica Jones was weak. But Daredevil is awesome.
So I am not saying this because of some weird need to hate on Marvel, but...
This movie was crap. Start to finish. Up and down.
It wasn't a story, so much as a series of high-concept scenes. Many of those scenes could be easily removed without damaging the plot. In fact, it would probably strengthen the plot. I was literally cringing from the useless stupidity during the airport battle, which was pretty much the selling point of the movie.
Character motivation was weak and inconsistent. Conflicts and character arcs were once again thrown in because they sounded cool in theory, while not helping the actual plot. The car chase after finding Bucky shouldn't have involved police. It should have been a much smaller, more personal conflict... as much of the movie should have been. Instead, we have a movie with heroes fighting heroes, all because none of them want to stop to have an actual conversation. And it's not because they're not willing to talk. They're talking plenty. They're just using those moments to make attempts at humor, rather than say "We have proof that Bucky wasn't responsible..."
I hate the trope of having entire conflicts revolve around the unwillingness of the writers to have characters speak. And yes, there was a moment in Batman v Superman that was guilty of this same thing, but it was a moment, not the entire plot of the movie.
It's impossible not to compare the movies, because the plots are very similar in many ways. In BvS, we have Superman being forced to answer for his supposed crimes. In this, we have the Avengers doing the same. Except, as they showed footage of those battles, I couldn't help but think it was a stretch to blame the Avengers in most of those cases. In the battle of NY, the Avengers stopped our own government from trying to nuke the city for some unknown reason.
In BvS, everything went into explaining why those characters were fighting and how the plot made sense. Everything was about the bigger story (especially the Ultimate Edition). There was reason and purpose and consideration and real character development. Civil War didn't bother with the little things like that.
So much motivation in this movie doesn't hold up. There were obviously scenes which the writers came up with and put on a board somewhere. Concepts for fights and ideas for cool shots. And the plot was secondary.
At the end of the movie, we have a huge fight between Iron Man, Cap and Bucky. For the life of me, I don't even know why Bucky was fighting. He supposedly carries this guilt. He is supposedly a good guy. Yet, he doesn't want to own his actions and it doesn't make sense! The scene would have been so much more dynamic and emotional if he didn't want to fight it out. Iron Man would be trying to kill him. Cap would be trying to save him. It would be this highly personal battle all around, but also a physical display of Bucky's internal struggle. Instead, we get another bland and generic fight scene. It's big and super, but mean nothing.
A lot of the movie seemed like it was yet another Tony Stark emotional meltdown, this time caused by Pepper leaving. I swear, the guy has been an emotional wrecking ball since Favreau left.
The movie suffers from a lot of the same problems as other Marvel movies. The big action scenes look like scenes from any useless action movie. The fight scenes usually don't let the choreography stand on its own, relying on silly tricks (shaky cam, while speeding up the footage, and throwing in useless CGI!) to sell a fight that honestly could have held its own with just good choreography. The CGI was pretty weak in some spots. There was no sense of weight or gravity to a bunch of the scenes, making it look like a cartoon. The lighting. The directing. But we've been through this. This is the stuff that they always cheap out on, but this is the stuff that turns a silly b-movie into a real film.
Was Chris Evans wearing a ton of makeup? He looked weird in some scenes.
The romance between Cap and Sharon Carter was awkward and kinda gross.
The bottom line is, there was a real story to tell here. There were some great character moments that were right there for the taking. There was emotion and humanity. And the people making the movie shot it in the head as they went about the business of plotting a big action sequence or bringing in as many characters as possible, whether they added to the plot or not.
This was easily the worst of the Captain America movies. It was about the same level as an Avengers movie. I'm kinda bummed. This movie felt more depressing to me than BvS, because it was all so senseless (and not the intentional way). Good guys destroying an airport and legitimately trying to kill each other (well, some of them. Some were apparently just doing it for the sake of goofing around) for no reason is so much worse than Superman causing damage while trying to save the world.
And people might tell me to lower my expectations, because this is a movie that an eight year old is going to. But with the amount of bad language, arms being blown off and good guys trying to murder their own friends, I don't see how this is a movie for kids. The PG-13 rating standards have really changed over the last several years.
As a whole, I'm not sure about him. Hot Aunt May is weird. Squeeky-voiced Beiber-Man... I know some people liked him, but I think he is the weakest big screen Spider-Man I've seen.
They look to be doing a full-on Ultimate Spider-man which means we're likely to get a Green Goblin who's just a Hulk that breathes fire. I just hope they don't follow the cartoon with Nick Fury mentoring a Spider-man who likes to make chimpanzee noises.
Informant, I honestly don't even know where to begin. We've had our share of discussion on Marvel and DC, and I'm starting to wonder if you're allowing bias to affect your views on these movies. I could go point-by-point, but I'm concerned we're just going to go in circles again. I almost feel like you're doing a satire of the reviewers that torch DC movies because they aren't like Marvel. Especially since you're using arguments that I've seen used (or that *I've* used) against movies like BvS and Suicide Squad.
The worst of the Captain America movies? Worse than The First Avenger? That's the movie, as far as I recall, that got you so mad about the MCU in the first place. You called it a feature-length trailer for the Avengers.
Could've been fixed by having the characters talk? They do talk. But the movie goes to great lengths to show that neither side is particularly right. The Avengers do save people, but they do cause collateral damage. They do need oversight, but the oversight could easily be just as bad as the people they're supposed to fight. And there's tons of history to look back on for both sides. I've said it earlier in the thread, but I felt like Tony's transformation from the guy at the Senate hearing in Iron Man 2 to the guy arguing for government oversight in Civil War is totally earned in my opinion.
Batman is the world's greatest detective but does almost no investigation into who Superman is. A throwaway scene about a drone following Superman around in Man of Steel did more investigation than Batman did. If Bruce had done the work that Lois did in the first movie, he'd realize that Clark Kent has been a pretty good guy his whole life. End of movie.
Listen, I get it. Marvel gets the benefit of the doubt and DC doesn't. DC makes bigger effort to care about building something, and they've gotten hammered for it. BvS and Civil War can make the same amount of money, and one is a failure and the other is a success. It sucks to have to constantly defend these movies. But all your reviews recently have been hyperbole - Suicide Squad is great, Civil War is crap.
And, honestly, I don't think either of those reviews is what you really think. Did you like Suicide Squad better? Sure, and you're free to have that opinion. But to give all DC movies 10/10 reviews and all Marvel 0/10 reviews makes you just as bad as the crazy people who do the opposite.
Just my $0.02.
Okay, but now you're just making stuff up and saying that it's my opinion. I have always argued that the frustrating thing about The First Avenger was the fact that it could have been a really good movie, but they threw it all away in the end in order to set up The Avengers.
I finally saw Winter Soldier this weekend. It was an okay movie. Certainly better than The Avengers, the Thor movies or Agents of SHIELD.
-- me, September 21, 2014
In September 2015, I commented on how the Ant-Man trailer looked bland. Fast forward and I'm saying that the movie was actually pretty fun to watch.
I'm constantly talking about Daredevil being good. I've talked about Agent Carter being fun to watch. To say that I give all DC movies 10/10 and all Marvel stuff 0/10 is simply not true. I am judging each movie on its own merits. In some cases, I've been pleasantly surprised (as you've pointed out, I was not totally on board with Man of Steel before I saw it).
And finally, when I summed up my thoughts on Suicide Squad, I said...
The movie isn't my new favorite superhero movie of all time or anything, but it has taken its place with the other DC offerings on my list of strong comic book movies that I will go back to again.
Which part of that sounds like another 10/10? In fact, I probably wouldn't even give BvS a 10/10. We've discussed a lot of the points that we disagree on, which makes it sound like I'm always defending every aspect, but I've also made it clear that it wasn't a 10/10. A great movie, sure, but I liked Man of Steel better.
The fact that we disagree on these movies means that I could say the same thing about you. You're constantly slamming the DC movies, saying that Man of Steel didn't do this right or BvS didn't do that right. I could imply that you have a bias and that you're going out of your way to slam the movie. But I understand that sometimes, people just have different points of view. I don't think that all of you have some devious plan to hate the DC movies and love the Marvel movies. It's just your opinion. It's not *wrong*, but I do strongly disagree with it.
You say that Civil War went to great lengths to show that neither side is particularly right, but that's not true. By the end of the movie, Tony is wearing villain clothes and recruiting a kid into a war that he has no business being involved in. Batman v Superman spent the entire movie maneuvering the characters into a place where their battle toward the end would make sense. Civil War didn't. The airport scene is a complete mess of storytelling. Here we have two teams of heroes completely destroying an airport, but why? They're not enemies. Half of the time, they're joking around with each other. They're not trying to hurt each other for real, which makes the whole scene completely stupid. It's one thing to cause damage while trying to save lives and stop a bad guy who wants to hurt people, but destroying an airport when half of the characters don't even seem to know why they're fighting each other makes absolutely no sense.
And then we have the Vision (or is it just Vision? I'm not clear on that) almost kill Rhodey, while actually trying to kill Sam makes the whole thing even more nonsensical. His laser beam thing missed the guy who has next to no body armor and hit the guy with the top of the line body armor, nearly killing him... yet they tried to play it off as though he wasn't actually trying to kill Falcon.
My brother told me that he thought the movie should have been called Thanksgiving Dinner: Family Squabble. That's about right.
The movie is a disjointed mess. The whole Sokovia Accords plot goes nowhere, because by the time the airport scene happens, the teams aren't even fighting over that anymore. They don't explain what is in that book of new rules. They don't explore the repercussions. They don't go into Scarlet Witch's actions and debate over whether killing 11 people while saving a 100 people in that same explosion justifies what she did. They breeze by the actions taken in past movies but never dig into this very reasonable debate, because that wouldn't have a big flashy airport scene where they all battle each other. Instead, they move on to the Bucky story, which actually has very little to do with the Sokovia Accords.
And if you want to talk about me contradicting myself, let's talk about your comments on BvS. You made comments about the lines of dialogue where it was made clear that they were fighting in abandoned areas, or that people had gone home for the night. You said something along the lines of it being a childish response to criticism of MoS. Yet in Civil War, we have the same thing happening. In fact, much worse, we have lines of dialogue trying to make light of or distract from weak storytelling (again I reference the "Turn him into a glider" line before the Vision tries to kill Falcon). They keep trying to explain that these people aren't actually trying to hurt each other, and yet they're destroying an airport! At least when Batman and Superman were destroying that empty building, they were actually engaged in real combat. Batman actually wanted to kill Superman.
My criticism of the movie is based on what was on screen. They had two plots which did not come together, and neither of which were properly explored. They tried passing them off as one plot, but it didn't work. They jammed as many characters into the movie because it would look cool, but the truth is that most of them had no business being in the movie, and taking them out would have only strengthened the arcs of the characters who did belong. They wasted time and energy on high-concept battle scenes when what they should have been paying attention to was telling the legitimate character stories, which would allow real conflict to arise naturally.
That final fight with Cap, Iron Man and Bucky could have been amazing if they had focused on the characters instead of the action. If they had developed the conflict between Tony and Bucky more naturally throughout the movie... we all knew that Bucky killed Tony's parents. There was no need to put that reveal at the "shocking twist" point in the movie.
There was such a better movie to be made here. Two better movies, actually. The Sokovia Accords would have been a great plot to explore, with Scarlet Witch's actions being the centerpiece for the debate. But neither of those better movies were made. Instead we get two halves of different movies, which don't work together to tell one complete story.
Watch the scene where Steve kisses Sharon and tell me that that moment was natural and earned, and not just awkward and gross. Tell me why it's fair to criticize Batman for not discovering Clark earlier, but it's not fair to criticize Bucky for not putting his hands over his ears and humming while that dude was trying to activate him.
What I'm criticizing this movie for is having the very good chance to make a very good movie, and throwing it away in favor "wouldn' t this be cool?", which is the same mindset that took down the Avengers movies.
Imagine this movie without hot Aunt May or Tony going to get Spider-Man. How much damage does that actually do to the actual plot of the movie? Imagine the movie without Ant-Man, or Hawkeye. How much damage does that actually do? Imagine the movie without the SWAT team, helicopter and police cars as Cap, Black Panther and Falcon chase Bucky. How much damage does that do? Imagine no airport scene. How much damage does that do?
With BvS, most of the damage to the movie came from taking scenes out when they should have been kept in. That's not just my opinion, it's what most people are saying about the movie at this point. But you can take a big red marker to the Civil War script and walk away with a movie that's shorter, cheaper and stronger than what we got on screen.
As I said, these are my opinions. They're formed by my brain, watching the movie from my point of view. We obviously have different points of view and I'm cool with that. You should be too.
Honest Trailers for Civil War!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad at all, and I respect your opinion as much as anyone's. I'm just concerned that you're allowing this whole DC/Marvel thing to cloud your judgment. If you honestly think you aren't, then that's absolutely fine. You're a lot better at analyzing plot/movies/characterization than me, and when you and I disagree, I *often* wonder if I'm wrong.
They were talking about this stuff on the Weekly Planet. Both guys have really enjoyed Marvel as opposed to DC, and DC people get mad at them (even accusing them of getting paid by Marvel to bash DC. They laugh at that because they don't think they're big enough for anyone on either side to care).
We're three movies into the DCCU. There's one that most people like (Man of Steel), one most people don't like (BvS) and one that is in the middle. When the MCU was at this stage, they had one that most people like (Iron Man), one that most people don't like (the Incredible Hulk), and one that is in the middle (Iron Man 2). If the DCCU was 10 movies deep when the MCU started, we'd be saying "wow, Iron Man was pretty good but fairly standard, and their last two haven't been very good." It's all about perspective, in a way.
Iron Man - 94 (critics) 91 (audience)
Incredible Hulk - 67 (critics) 71 (audience)
Iron Man 2 - 72 (critics) 72 (audience)
Man of Steel - 55 (critics) 75 (audience)
Batman v Superman - 27 (critics) 64 (audience)
Suicide Squad - 26 (critics) 67 (audience)
Three movies in, there's not much difference in fan ratings. It's lower for DC, but it's not much lower. It's just, as you've said all along, a *HUGE* disparity between audience and critics.
It's just a matter of the MCU doing it first and this perception that Marvel has their s*** pulled together and DC doesn't. Now, to be fair, no Marvel movie had an audience rating lower than 71 (Incredible Hulk). DC already has two. So it's not just a conspiracy of critics.
I'll take a look at your actual points later. Just wanted to make sure I said something before you thought I was actually mad. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I often resort to hyperbole in times like this, and for that I apologize
The trailer was pretty good. And it reminded me of another problem! When what's-his-name bad guy went to drown that other bad guy in the laundry room sink, the dude's mouth was totally above the sink line. He could have hung there forever and been totally fine if he wasn't sloshing around in the water.
For the record, I do always enjoy our back and forth here as well. We obviously have different points of view and I think we've been doing this long enough to argue our points without anyone feeling like they're being attacked. It makes the movies more fun, I think.
Eventually, we will agree on a movie that we like.
I just took one of those silly online quizzes, to find out which side of the brain I use more. Am I more artistic and imaginative, or rational and analytical?
Turns out, I'm 50/50. I wonder if that's what my problem is here. I can't just sit back and let the story be fun. It also has to make sense to me, or else it isn't fun at all.
I promise, I don't do it consciously.
I watched episode 1 of Luke Cage. It was pretty slow and boring. I will give it a few more episodes to grab me. I was disappointed, because he was a high point on Jessica Jones. There was a weird disconnect between his role on her show and how he behaved on his... Then again, he wasn't even consistent through the one episode I've watched of his show.
The directing was pretty weak too. I have heard a lot of good things about the show, so I'm hoping that it picks up.
I have to say though, whoever decided to cast a well known actress (Alfre Woodard) in two different roles within the MCU, in the same year (!) should be fired. Are they even pretending to be connected anymore?
I haven't started it yet and probably won't for a while. I've liked the Netflix series so far, but they need to cut back from 13 episodes. Daredevil (both seasons) and Jessica Jones have struggled with pacing for that many episodes. I've read Luke Cage suffers from the same issues.
I don't think that Daredevil dragged nearly as badly as Jessica Jones did, but I agree that they could probably all do with less. Maybe not set a strict number of episodes. Let the writers map it out and see how many scripts they end up with before they set a number for the season.
I don't think that there is a reason that they *couldn't* do 13 episodes. That's still not a huge number for a TV show. Maybe it's got less to do with the number than the way they're going about plotting the series. Maybe Jessica Jones could have helped a client along the line, or something. If Veronica Mars can do a full network season, Jessica Jones should be able to do 13.
Absolutely. I don't know why Jessica Jones wasn't more procedural. I think it was Alan Sepinwall who said that Killgrave should've developed more slowly. She handles a handful of cases throughout the first half of the season that all point toward Killgrave. Then the second half of the season revolves around trying to find and capture/kill him. Then there would've been less ridiculous moments of them catching him and him constantly getting away.
Halfway through Luke Cage. Holy crap, this is boring. It's like watching cold molasses ooze down the side of a statue, while 1970's slow jazz plays in the background.
The episode count could have easily been cut... By maybe 12 episodes.
We don't talk about it much, but I think Agents of Shield has really found its footing. I actually look forward to watching it each week, and I think it's a lot of fun. It's annoying that the movies don't care about it, and it's crazy that AoS takes place in the same universe as Daredevil. But for what it is, I think it's a lot of fun. Ghost Rider was a fun story, LMD was zany but allowed for some great character work, and I think Agents of Hydra will be pretty cool too.
Bringing back (spoiler) is upsetting, but hopefully they do it right.
I haven't watched the show in months. I started this season watching, but eventually forgot to watch and didn't care. Then I went and watched an episode and it just seemed stupid, so I never went back. I never got past the Ghost Rider story.
I mean, I don't see it as any worse or better than any of the DC/CW shows. The characters that are still on the show are good, and I like them. And the show is fun - the action is usually pretty good for TV, and the narrative is usually compelling.
What I've noticed is that they're sorta moving into their own territory. They don't name-drop the Avengers as much, and when they do, it's usually just in relation to Coulson (like when he talks about getting stabbed by Loki). They aren't just a clean-up crew for whatever the other movies are doing. While they're doing a lot of magic this year, I'm pretty sure they haven't had a single mention of Dr. Strange or anything related to him. At the same time, it feels like the Marvel universe, and it wouldn't be bizarre to have more cross-pollination if that's what the movie side wanted.
But since they don't, I like that the show isn't just filling the gaps of the Marvel movies. It's its own thing. And it's a fun show.
I finally got through Luke Cage. 60% of it was well done, engaging, but 40% of it was downright awful. The copy Misty I think was the best character on it. Better than Jessica Jones, which was unwatchable, but not by much. Hopefully Iron Fist and then Defenders return to Daredevil levels. However, I would agree with Info, the lack of storytelling is really amazing. Stranger Things got it right, in and out in 8 episodes. Same with The OA, another great show. 10-13 is just too much.
Saw the first couple episodes of Legion, it's all over the place, but I'm getting it and will keep watching.
Well, the Defenders is only going to be 8 episodes, but I'm pretty sure the contract with Netflix was for 60 episodes total (13 of each of the primary shows and 8 Defenders) so they might not have had a choice in the matter....even if they realized they didn't have enough material for 13.
Although I blame that on writing. There's tons of stories these guys can tell in 13 episodes. There are a lot of great network shows that did/do 20+ episodes, and there are a *ton* of great shows that do 13. There's no magic number of episodes, and all these characters have decades of material to work with.
They're way over 60. 2 Daredevil, Jessica, Cage, Fist, and Punisher would be 78, and then Defenders would be 86.
When it comes to the Marvel shows on Netflix, I don't think that it's necessarily the number of episodes that is the problem. Daredevil hasn't bored me at all. I think Jessica Jones could have been a better series with four or five episodes that were just her doing her job and showing us that she is a detective. Veronica Mars had this format right. They had major, heavy arcs, but each episode usually had its own smaller mystery as well.
Jessica Jones would probably be better off having mostly arc episodes, but with a few detective stories mixed in so that they didn't just repeat themselves (over and over and over), and so they could establish the abilities of the character (as a detective).
Luke Cage, nothing could help. It was like watching paint dry on cold molasses that had grass growing through it. Horrible storytelling. The slow jazz feel did nothing to help their lack of plot. Their arc was all over the place (three primary villains who could have been stopped by Luke in about five minutes). It was just a mess.
Agents of SHIELD, I have never been able to connect with. The characters have always struck me as characters, or actors playing characters. They've never had any chemistry or personality, or anything natural about them. The way they talk is unnatural, the way they are directed through the episodes is unnatural. It's just always been a totally hollow series for me. Even when they had a chance to do something interesting, having Fitz's brain damaged, they didn't even find a clever way to fix it or present the struggle. It was totally disingenuous (much like Felicity being shot on Arrow, during that season that we shall never talk about again).
I just don't get the sense that anyone making the show has ever actually cared about it, or taken it seriously. It's always been paint-by-numbers, visually speaking. And most of the time, you could probably switch around character names in the script and you'd never know it from the dialogue. So few of the characters have unique voices, outside of their basic character descriptions.
On The Flash, which is an absurd show, the actors seem to take their work seriously and there is real chemistry between cast members. The effort that is put into creating the visual style of the show is evident. The show isn't always brilliantly written, but there is always something genuine about each episode.
Likewise with Arrow, when it's done well, there is legitimate chemistry between the actors. There is legitimate effort put into the look and feel of the show.
But I will give you Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl. They are similar to Agents of SHIELD in a lot of ways.
I don't know if Punisher or the second season of Daredevil could toward the original contract for the Netflix shows.
I don't know if Punisher or the second season of Daredevil could toward the original contract for the Netflix shows.
Yeah, I'm guessing that's a new contract.
Regarding the characters on Agents of Shield, I think they've grown into their roles. They weren't entirely sure what to do with Daisy/Skye, but I think her progression has been mostly organic. Coulson has been Coulson. And they've humanized May to the point where she's a character you can sorta understand, especially this season. Putting Fitz and Simmons together has humanized them to where they aren't just the science team. I think Mac is a pretty cool character, and putting him with Yo-Yo has shown off his depth.
When you listen to Chloe Bennet talk about how they're virtually ignored by the MCU, you see how proud she is of the show and how disappointed she is that it doesn't get treated the same way. And I know you don't like LoT or Supergirl, but I think there's a place on TV for those kind of shows - something just engaging enough but also fun. I think, at it's best, AoS can be as good as Flash or Arrow. I think Amell and Gustin are just more charismatic and can carry a show. As much as I like the character of Coulson, he's not strong enough to be the lead, and the ensemble isn't strong enough for it to be completely engaging.
But when it's good, it's pretty good. And there've been fewer and fewer bad moments the last season or two. It might not matter because it's on the bubble, and Marvel might want to focus on the Inhumans TV show and their Netflix shows. But we'll see.
I know I have a reputation for not liking fun shows or just silly entertainment, but I actually do. I like comedies, like Man in the High Castle, The Walking Dead, and Dexter, as well as the more serious shows...
But seriously, I do like some goofy shows. I just think that I have to feel some amount of care when I'm watching it. To me, when I watched Agents of SHIELD for the 3.4 (or whatever) seasons, I just saw people getting a paycheck. I saw billboards for whatever movie was coming out, or whichever phase of the MCU plan was about to kick in. They never created a world that I could believe in. And that might just be me, but it is what it is. The same is true with Supergirl, which I honestly don't even think they try with. And it's the same with LoT, except Legends has some chemistry between some of the actors which can make it fun at times, despite the horrible, lazy writing.
I do have a place in my life for shows that I just watch because they're silly fun. I actually really like Fuller House, which a lot of people probably wouldn't expect, but there you go.
I TRIED watching Agends of SHIELD back when Agent Carter was paired with it. I just couldn't. Nothing against it, but it reminded me of how TV was produced 15, 20, 25 years ago. That's actually a good thing, but 20-something episodes series are REALLY a pain to keep up with, and the story/characters didn't catch me enough.
But seriously, I do like some goofy shows. I just think that I have to feel some amount of care when I'm watching it. To me, when I watched Agents of SHIELD for the 3.4 (or whatever) seasons, I just saw people getting a paycheck. I saw billboards for whatever movie was coming out, or whichever phase of the MCU plan was about to kick in.
I agree with this sentiment as far as the first couple seasons went. Every episode there was a name-drop or a wink or a reference. Nick Fury would show up. Or lesser characters from the movies (Sif from Thor, for example). And whenever a movie would come out, they'd scramble to change for it or have an "event" episode in the aftermath. There was a big, complicated story arc on AoS where they explained how they obtained a Helicarrier for Nick Fury to use. It's a big part of Age of Ultron, but the show isn't mentioned at all (or even a wink to the show - he just has it).
Since they did the Inhumans arc, the show's sorta done its own thing. And, this season, magic has been at the forefront, but they aren't tying it to Dr. Strange. In season 2, the whole season would be about helping Strange and there'd be a cameo from Wang or something. Instead, they're focusing on other aspects of magic, and (as far as I know), Strange hasn't been mentioned. No references at all.
And, yeah, there's not Emmy-level performances or really deep characters, but I feel like they've grown a lot more. It used to be a show that I just watched, but now I look forward to it. It's fun.
Thor should be A-level, but he really isn't. I don't expect much from his movie. http://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?pid=5312#p5312
I've never cared much for the Thor movies; and I think the main value of Ragnarok is going to be the reveal of the last infinity stone - the soul stone. Speculation is that Heimdall has it. It would explain why his eyes glow orange (the color the last stone will be); it would explain why his eyes were different in Thor's vision during Avengers: Age of Ultron (if Thanos had stolen it); and it would explain his comment in the first movie about how he sees people as souls.
THOR is a perfect movie, a cinematic achievement unmatched and unparalleled by any. Why? Because it had Einstein Rosen Bridges and a restaurant called Arturo's. I also loved AMAZING SPIDER-MAN because Andrew Garfield was playing the perfect Quinn Mallory. That's right. I evaluate films entirely in terms of how much they remind me of SLIDERS. :-D
I don't care much for Thor or Thor: the Dark World. It isn't really that the character isn't well played or well written...I just don't really care about the character.
That being said, I'm actually pretty excited about Ragnarok. Take away his hammer and make him fight the Hulk? A Planet Hulk - ish movie? That could be fun.
I just imagine that this Thor movie will be painful. Thor's movies have been among the most boring of the franchise, and they're now adding the Hulk, who has been another of the weaker parts. Ruffalo just brings nothing to the screen. This has all the makings of a snooze-fest.
And now the Spider-Man movie is looking to be in trouble!!!!!
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-m … ay-a149622
Reshoots! The entire franchise is pretty much over! Reshoots!
I'm joking, of course. But it is funny how the article goes out of its way to explain how normal reshoots are.
Spider-Man still looks horrible in the MCU. Just my opinion. Definitely the weakest movie costume yet for the character.
To be fair, everything in the MCU looks terrible to Informant and he hated CIVIL WAR which the rest of us liked, so that just indicates that Marvel's maintaining their baseline of quality.
Nah, I still like Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man was fun, and I like Daredevil. I'll be giving Iron Fist a fair shot too. I'm willing to admit when they get something right.
Civil War had potential. All they needed was a plot and a good editor.
Alan Sepinwall absolutely hated Iron Fist. He's enjoyed (for the most part) the other Netflix series, so that's a bad sign.
I've never thought Iron Fist worked well on his own. When he was teamed with Luke Cage, it just kind of clicked in an old 70's / 80's buddy cop show way. I think it's probably because Cage pulled Danny into all kinds of situations he wouldn't have gotten into if he was just out there living the Iron Fist life.
FWIW I too find most of the MCU films fun to watch ONCE, and never again. GOTG, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange are exceptions, because they have stories. Daredevil was good, the rest of what Netflix has done has been dreadful. Will see about Iron Fist but not hopeful. FWIW I did Legion on FX, but it's probably too cerebral for most viewers.