Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm about 8 episodes into Iron Fist.  The fighting has become much better as the show's gone on, and I think it's pretty good.  It drags a little at times, and I have no idea how Ward ever became a high-ranking figure anywhere with how screwed up he seems to be.  The fight with the drunken master (?) was one of the best of the entire Marvel Netflix universe IMO, a really cool choreographed fight.

I still keep thinking about how this universe doesn't feel like the MCU.  I know they keep making *very small* references to the overall MCU, but I wish they'd just consider this a parallel universe.  Because I keep seeing scenes at the top of Rand Tower and cannot imagine it's a world where Tony Stark could be flying around the other skyscrapers.  It'd feel silly.  It really doesn't jive with the rest of the MCU.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I agree. Everyone assumed that Marvel's attempt to tie all of its movies and shows together would create a really strong world, but it's become a weakness. I don't buy that Agents of SHIELD exists in the same world as Daredevil, or Guardians of the Galaxy exists in the same world as Iron Fist.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think I could maybe believe that Iron Man (2008) exists in the Netflix world.  It's grounded....SHIELD is done in secret.  Everyone seems shocked by the idea of two metal men fighting.  I actually think it fits in quite nicely.

But I'm having trouble imagining Jessica Jones and anyone from the recent MCU films.  I don't see anyone in the Netflix world living in a world where the Hulk is. 

I don't necessarily hate the idea that they shared a world.  I don't think it hurts the Netflix world like it hurts the Agents of SHIELD world because they can do their own thing without really stepping on anyone's toes.  The problems that, say, Iron Fist faces are too small time for the Avengers or even SHIELD.  Just like Batman can exist in a world with Darkseid.  Superman doesn't have to save the day when the Riddler kidnaps the mayor of Gotham.

And if they'd introduced someone like Green Lantern into the Dark Knight trilogy, it'd feel weird too.  That's just how this feels.  Yeah there are powers and yeah there are a couple of costumes.  But it doesn't have the same feel as the MCU (which has a feel that even Guardians can capture).

I don't think it's a detriment to either franchise, but I think it's why there aren't (and shouldn't be) any crossovers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Can someone explain to me why people hate the Amazing Spider-Man movies so much? I mean, they weren't the best comic book movies ever made, but they were at least as good as any of the MCU movies out there, and probably better than most of them. Every comment I see about the new movie has some comment about the Amazing Spider-Man movies, as though they were the low point for any comic book movie in recent history.

I'm starting to think this is like what the serious Apple fanboys do, where they comment on how horrible every other feature on every other phone is, and then marvel at the brilliance of those features once Apple "invents" them a few years later.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Can someone explain to me why people hate the Amazing Spider-Man movies so much?

The first Amazing Spider-man is probably my favorite film with the character.  They hit all the right notes for me (it even somehow felt like the 80's comics I grew up with); and it provided the best explanation I've seen of why decent people in the world would fear and hate Spider-man (because of his initial focus on the almost ruthless hunt for Uncle Ben's killer).

Amazing Spider-man 2 was a huge drop of the ball and the worst of the franchise in my opinion.  The Spider-man costume was perfect, but everything else was like something Joel Schumacher made.  And as if my disappointment in the movie wasn't enough, the mid credits scene was some left field promo for X-men.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:
Informant wrote:

Can someone explain to me why people hate the Amazing Spider-Man movies so much?

The first Amazing Spider-man is probably my favorite film with the character.  They hit all the right notes for me (it even somehow felt like the 80's comics I grew up with); and it provided the best explanation I've seen of why decent people in the world would fear and hate Spider-man (because of his initial focus on the almost ruthless hunt for Uncle Ben's killer).

Amazing Spider-man 2 was a huge drop of the ball and the worst of the franchise in my opinion.  The Spider-man costume was perfect, but everything else was like something Joel Schumacher made.  And as if my disappointment in the movie wasn't enough, the mid credits scene was some left field promo for X-men.

This is exactly how I feel.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My problem with Amazing Spider-Man has to do with how edited it feels.  Almost schizophrenic in how it treats the plot.  It sets up all kinds of stories (the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer, the ruthless scientist at Oscorp, the search for what happens to Peter's parents, ect) only to abandon all that for a Lizard ending that almost felt like a left turn.  I thought Garfield was a good actor, but I think part of the charm of the Spider-Man character is how nerdy/unpopular/outsider Peter is.  And in this one, Peter already seems like the cool kid (or at least a cooler member of his outsider friends group).  I like the idea that the popular girls in school wouldn't even know who Peter is (so Spider-Man inspires him to have more confidence), but I feel like Gwen would've dated Peter regardless of the spider bite.

This isn't really the movie's fault, but I was disappointed that I was sorta promised an "untold story" of Peter Parker and then got a fairly standard Spider-Man film.  If they were going to remake Spider-Man so quickly after the Tobey movies, I wanted something completely different, and it was too much of what we'd seen before.  And I think I held that against the movie, fair or not.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay. I guess that's a fair assessment. Honestly, I haven't seen the movies in so long, it's hard for me to form any super deep opinions about them. I just never walked away with the feeling that they were the worst movies ever made, as some people seem to think they were. On the other hand, some of the movies out there have left a rather big negative impact on me, so they're more memorably bad.

I'll have to go through and rewatch the Amazing Spider-Man movies sometime, while I'm waiting for Homecoming to hit Netflix. Honestly, I'm in no rush to see that one. It kinda looks like one of those straight-to-DVD sequels that they're always making to somewhat popular movies. But we all know that I've pretty much given up on Marvel. I appreciate when they surprise me with a fun, entertaining movie, but that's very rare these days.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Okay. I guess that's a fair assessment. Honestly, I haven't seen the movies in so long, it's hard for me to form any super deep opinions about them. I just never walked away with the feeling that they were the worst movies ever made, as some people seem to think they were. On the other hand, some of the movies out there have left a rather big negative impact on me, so they're more memorably bad.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it.  It's actually pretty rare for me to hate a movie.  I can count the movies that I've started and not finished on one hand, and I can usually find something about a movie to compliment (there were parts of the latest Fantastic Four movie that I thought were interesting or well thought out mixed in the rest of the mess).

Amazing Spider-Man, to me, just felt like two different movies that were awkwardly edited together.  For example, I think the movie could've been really interesting if they hadn't included any of the Lizard stuff.  What if 80% of the movie was about Uncle Ben's killer somehow tying back into the death of Peter's parents?  After three movies where Peter fights powerful monsters, wouldn't a movie where he simply fights a bunch of evil men in suits be refreshing?  Where Peter is *easily* the most powerful person in the movie but fails because a) he hasn't figured out his powers and b) his problems can't be solved by brute strength but with the mind that he had from the very beginning.

And I still think it's off-putting that Uncle Ben's killer gets away with it.  Peter never finds him in the movie, he's still at large at the end, and he's never mentioned in the sequel.  I think it actually could've been an interesting moment if the killer is captured by the police, and Peter's relieved that his anger didn't lead him to revenge.  He's "forgiven" the man who did it, but the man who did it still faces justice.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Watching the Incredible Hulk.  This movie isn't terrible, and I actually really like Norton as Banner.  It would've been interesting if Norton had stayed on....would he have been willing to do multiple Avengers movies or something like Thor:Ragnorok?

I also would really like to see Abomination or the Leader show up.  I think there was a plan to put Abomination in Avengers: Age of Ultron, but they decided against it.  He's also been mentioned in Agents of SHIELD and one of the Marvel One Shots.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

#TeamBana

I think Mark Ruffalo is always a bad casting choice. In everything. And Norton seems like a dick. So yeah, I'm going with Eric Bana.

312 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-07-07 22:03:39)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I actually really liked him as the Hulk/Banner.  I agree with that.

The other weird thing about this (and more proof that the MCU had its own growing pains) is that the post-credits scene, while cool, makes zero sense in context.  It's basically another "Avengers Initiative" tease, but it doesn't work.  Stark was never "putting together a team" - in the rest of the movies, he's adamantly against it.  The One Shots show that the plan was originally to try and put Abomination on the Avengers, but it was shot down by Coulson and company.

And maybe Stark was interested, did a little recruiting, but then decided it was a terrible idea and walked away.  It's possible.

It was cool that Civil War brought back Ross, but there's still cool stuff from this movie that they could use.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

One more Incredible Hulk thought and some thoughts on Spider-Man.  There will be Spider-Man spoilers so here's your warning (Incredible Hulk thoughts first)

INCREDIBLE HULK

One more thing about this movie - as I was watching it, I was sorta fascinated by the way this is sorta the opposite of a traditional movie.  In a lot of movies, the villain is shown to be powerful (Darth Vader and the Empire), and the hero (Luke) is drastically outgunned.  He has the will to fight but no belief he can really succeed.  It's only when another hero emerges with the key to defeating the villain (Obi-Wan) that the story kicks into gear, and against all odds, the hero is able to defeat the villain.

That's basically the story of the Incredible Hulk.  Except Banner is a sympathetic villain, Blonsky is a crazy version of the hero, and Ross is an obsessed version of the mentor.  The whole movie is Banner being an unstoppable force and Blonsky taking a warped hero's journey to take down the monster.  From a certain angle, Blonsky is even a typical hero - Hulk is a monster, and he's incredibly dangerous.  Blonsky is a soldier, dedicated to protecting people.  He gets training, gets his magic sword in the form of the super-soldier formula, fails and fails again like any good hero, and he eventually finds the strength to fight the monster.

A pretty standard Hollywood movie could be done starring Blonsky, and it wouldn't even need a ton of changes until the third act.  I just thought that was interesting.

SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING

I really liked this movie.  I thought it had a lot of heart, and I thought it was so much about Spider-Man that Amazing Spider-Man wasn't (to me, at least).  Peter feels like a kid with these crazy ambitions, and I think it fits.  He also finds life as a "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man" boring.  Because, if he's living in the same city as the Avengers....it sorta would be.  I also wonder how much crime Peter would actually run into, especially living in a post-Avengers NYC.  The Defenders all found plenty of trouble in New York, but they typically sought it out.  Peter can really only be Spider-Man during a very specific (afternoon) portion of the day, and he's not kicking down the doors of drug dealers or ninja clans.

He has power and ambition and wants to help, but I think it really made him feel like a real kid.  He's Spider-Man, for heaven's sake, but he's still a kid....so it's not enough.

I also felt like the movie used Iron Man a sufficient amount.  He's not overwhelming, and he doesn't steal the show.  This isn't Civil War...he's just a side character in what's definitely Peter's movie.  And it's crazy how much Peter fits into this universe, and how they're able to hit on some areas (alien tech being sold, and the consequences of the path set off by Tony admitting he's Iron Man) that, honestly, Agents of SHIELD should be handling better.

It was just a fun adventure, and I loved the little reveal at the end with Pepper Potts (I said spoilers).  A really fun movie, and one of my favorites in the MCU (top 5 maybe?)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I will let you know what I think of Homecoming... But probably not until December or whenever I get around to seeing it. There have been so many bad MCU movies with such little concern for quality that I've lost all sense of urgency, even with Spider-Man, a character that I normally like.

I'm not even avoiding spoilers, which is also weird for me. I feel like having something good spoiled will at least let me know that there is something good at all. smile

Looking forward to The Defenders though. That one I will see ASAP.

315 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-07-10 12:33:19)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well what's funny is that I thought the movie was going to be ruined because the trailer showed, beat for beat, the entire story.  And, yes, while it showed a lot of the skeleton of the movie, a lot of the heart of the movie wasn't spoiled.  So you kinda understand what Peter's journey is, you don't really get a full understanding of the steps in his journey.

I'm hoping there's enough heart that you'll like it.  I think it's about on the same level as Spider-Man 2, which was easily my favorite Spider-Man film up until this one.  It's a different kind of silly and a pretty different kind of Spider-Man, but they're both good with the right level of heart/action/humor.

And I'm excited for Defenders.  I didn't love Iron Fist or Luke Cage, but I thought they were both pretty good.  And I like both of their individual characters (although Danny is way too naive), which should make for a great Defenders.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I had a really hard time with Spider-Man appearing in Civil War, but that whole movie was a mess. I'm just not sure where I stand with the MCU right now. I liked GotG, but even MCU fans suggest that the sequel was trying so hard that it failed, which killed my excitement for it. Then I saw positive reviews of Homecoming in which the reviewers addressed continuity errors (both in terms of the whole universe and just within the movie) but shrugged them off and said that it didn't matter since the movie was so fun.

I get that continuity errors happen and can't be helped, but some of the stuff they described we're basic filmmaking mistakes (like forgetting which day it was at any given point in the movie) that really can't be excused if they did happen in the movie. One of my big issues with the MCU is that they don't really seem concerned with making movies, and those comments that I saw in the Homecoming reviews just irritated me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

If there were continuity errors internal to the movie, I didn't notice them.  The one thing that stuck out at me was an issue with the years.  For the most part, I think the Marvel movies are supposed to take place around the time when they come out (although from what I can tell, Marvel has stopped trying to make a timeline of any of these movies).  Avengers was in 2012, and the beginning of Homecoming is the immediate aftermath of that movie.

Then it says "8 years later" and the movie begins.  So either Avengers doesn't take place in 2012 or Homecoming takes place in 2020.  It could honestly be either since the movies don't seem to have any sense of time.  I don't think any of them mention the year, do they?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm not sure if there are any direct references to the year. I'm sure there is at least a visible date at some point, but I don't know for sure. I think they want to keep Peter in high school for the sequels, so maybe that justifies a jump to 2020? But does that jive with seeing him in Civil War?

That sort of stuff, I guess we have to expect and just live with. Comic books always fudge the date. But if the review I saw was correct and they were saying that it was one day of the week in one scene, and another day of the week in another (while remaining the same day within the story), that is something different. That would be pretty bad.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

If that happened, I didn't notice.  There are only a couple of relevant events in the movie (an academic decathlon and a homecoming dance), and there might've been "only X days until..." for either of them.  But if they did and it was inconsistent, it didn't jump out at me like the "8 years later" did.

Marvel released a timeline that explained when everything happened (and most of phase one happened around the same week, somehow), but I think they've shied away from that in phases two and three.  Which is probably the best.  I think that's why the 8 years comment was so weird to me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, it's probably best if they don't highlight the things that are getting away from them.

I guess this is where my comments on Homecoming will end until I've actually seen it. So... see ya in 2019! smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Yeah, it's probably best if they don't highlight the things that are getting away from them.

Yeah, as soon as the Avengers assembled, it's best to keep the timeline fuzzy.  So you can always just assume the movies take place at the same time as each other so you don't wonder why the Avengers weren't assembled when the freakin President was kidnapped or when SHIELD is getting destroyed.

322 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-07-12 09:37:22)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

In the interest of being fair, these are valid criticisms of the themes of Spider-Man: Homecoming.  (Trigger warning, there's a shot at Man of Steel, but it is Max Landis)

https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/ … 2870208512

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's okay. The Man of Steel comment was completely wrong, so it does more damage to Landis than the movie smile

Still haven't seen Homecoming. I considered going, because there was a Fandango coupon, but my back has been killing me and I don't think a theater is a good idea right now. That said, the issues that Max Landis had with the movie sound pretty standard for the MCU. They don't put work into character or plot, they put it I to cool scene ideas. It makes them a lot of money and people seem to like the movies well enough, but they don't really produce good, high quality movies.


So, it's summer. With nothing else to watch, I've been giving Agents of SHIELD a chance. It is still bad, but it reached a new line point for me, as two characters tried to be geeky by referencing movies where robots go evil. One makes a comment about making someone watch all of the Terminator movies, and the other says "Really? Even Salvation?"

The comment is a huge fail. In no universe was Salvation the low point of the franchise. It actually wasn't bad for a Terminator movie that didn't follow the normal structure, and had some good character stuff. It was certainly a better movie than T3 or Genisys. Purely talking about writing and character quality, I may put it above the first Terminator... And T2, but they're more fun, so it wasn't really "better" all around.

None were as good as TSSC.


And THAT is how the geeky Terminator conversation really goes (followed by disagreement and arguing)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Finished Iron Fist on Netflix. Hands down the best series they've done in MCU so far. Great story, action, stunts, as well as acting. Episode flow was terrific, something MCU/Netflix is abysmal at.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Grizzlor wrote:

Finished Iron Fist on Netflix. Hands down the best series they've done in MCU so far. Great story, action, stunts, as well as acting. Episode flow was terrific, something MCU/Netflix is abysmal at.

This is a....unique opinion.

I didn't think it was nearly as bad as everyone else said, but I thought it was second level as far as Netflix quality goes (on the level with Luke Cage and maybe Daredevel season 2).  I thought it picked up steam, but I thought it was very slow and awkward at the beginning.  It took a while for Finn Jones to get into the action sequence (the first fight of the series looks like it's in slow motion), and Danny is *so* stupid and naive at the beginning just to advance the plot.

I'm glad you really liked it, though.  I almost felt bad after I'd seen all the negative opinions, and most of the positive ones were like mine "it's really not that bad" - which is still kinda negative.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, remember, my taste when it comes to Marvel is unorthodox.  I prefer the individual stories, rather than the conglomerated mess called Avengers.  I also need buy in.  Give me a reason to watch your stupid series from start to finish.  Iron Fist did that.  Cage and Jones did the opposite.  Heck, Legion did it even moreso.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Is Agents of SHIELD written by nine year olds? I'm trying to get through this season, but they keep bending over backwards to cram political catchphrases where they don't belong. They're putting more effort into these petty jabs than they are their writing. They don't care about plot holes, poor characterization or world building, but they *need* those damn catchphrases.

I hate summer. I need to find better shows to watch.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I watched Legion (which is Marvel so it sorta counts to be in here) recently.  That one is pretty good.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, Legion was awesome

330 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-09-16 09:24:03)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I enjoyed the Defenders.  I thought the main four had pretty great chemistry, although I felt bad for Matt every single time they got together because he looked so ridiculous in his costume when they're all in street clothes.  They should've had him go back to his season one outfit (maybe mention that he added padding or something) so he didn't stand out so much (and I love the costume).

I thought the plot was kinda meh/blah, but I think it was more about the character interaction.  I also apparently need to rewatch Jessica Jones because I could not, at any point, figure out what her powers were supposed to be (besides just being strong).  Is she bulletproof?  Can she fly?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Jessica is strong, which means she can jump really high.

I think.

Spoilers below
.
.
.
.

The Defenders was better than The Avengers, but still had some of the same problem. The plot wasn't as important as the scenes that they wanted to throw in. A lot of the character interaction/banter felt forced. The overall arc was just... Why did several seasons of various shows build up to a deflated balloon of a story?

I think it'd be cool to see these characters cross over from time to time, but the big Defenders crossover series was pointless. And why didn't Claire just tell Foggy and Karen that Matt was gone?! She stood two feet away while they stared at the door!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I also apparently need to rewatch Jessica Jones because I could not, at any point, figure out what her powers were supposed to be (besides just being strong).  Is she bulletproof?  Can she fly?

Going by the comics, her skin is tough but probably not bullet proof; she's suffered injuries from something as simple as a knife, but to her it was a bleeding scratch where a normal person would have been cut open.

She also can fly, but she's pretty bad at it.  She doesn't like to fly as a result (and can even get air sick when she tries).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

The Defenders was better than The Avengers, but still had some of the same problem. The plot wasn't as important as the scenes that they wanted to throw in. A lot of the character interaction/banter felt forced.

I agree that the plot was secondary to anything else, but I also don't think that all four series (and all five seasons) were really building up to anything.  It was really just Daredevil and Iron Fist's stories colliding, and Luke and Jessica were sorta pulled along for the ride.  If it'd turned out that Purple Man and Diamondback/Cottonmouth were all working directly for the Hand, it'd make sense.

This was just sorta worlds colliding as Matt and Danny continued their journeys.

I completely disagree about the banter feeling forced.  I thought it was all actually pretty natural, and they all were pretty consistent with who they were in the comics.  Jessica didn't instantly turn into someone who wanted to be heroic.  Luke didn't betray his principles.  They were there for reasons that made sense to them, and they stayed for similar reasons.  I thought the character stuff was what made it work, since the plot wasn't all that important.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can't really say how faithful to the comics the show was, but in terms of the TV shows, there were moments that just didn't feel right to me. It just seemed like they wanted to fill pages with this back and forth, but it didn't always work. And the weird thing is, I thought Claire was being planted in all of these shows so that she could be the force that brings all of these people together... but she wasn't. She knew all of them, but they wound up together without her. And even when she should have been bridging characters and groups of characters, she really didn't.

I guess the buildup feels like it's been going on for a while, since it started with season 1 of Daredevil, and then Claire seemed to be laying some groundwork (except, she wasn't). My brain is trying to connect Luke's wife to the Hand, but I don't think she actually was connected, right?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Claire brought together Luke and Danny.  Since they're the two that belong together (they're best friends and have a comic together), I thought that made sense (they were also the two people she'd most recently dealt with, and she was closer with Colleen than she was with Jessica or Matt).

That's why I kinda liked it....it felt like they came together organically.  This wasn't a situation where anyone was building a team...they met each other in ways that were true to the character.  Danny and Luke met when they were each following up on leads that they'd follow up on.  Jessica met Matt when Jessica was investigating something and Matt was trying to protect someone legally.

It would've been nice for them to be fighting someone that took all four of them to defeat, but I think Elektra was a pretty decent villain.  And the disposable Hand villains were fine for action sequences.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I just thought it was weird, with Claire. I was expecting something big to happen, and for her to be like "I know some people who could help", and then the group would come together. Then it didn't happen that way. Then there were some scenes where it was almost like she didn't know people that she did know.

Basically, I think that Claire was forced into some of the shows when she didn't really need to be there. I thought the reason for that was going to be her knowing everyone and acting as the bridge. Now her role in everyone's lives is just weird. smile

And she really should have grabbed Misty's arm. I know her whole comic book story, but that sh_t can be reattached these days! Claire had to know that!


I didn't hate the show. Luke trying to "white privilege" a guy who literally spent decades not only being a minority, but being physically and psychologically abused, was a funny (was that supposed to be a joke? It was, right?). The show was fun. It was certainly better than most of what Marvel puts out. I just didn't feel like it was as strong as some of the individual shows.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

DEFENDERS was really disappointing, but I also wasn't surprised because it continues IRON FIST's bizarre obsession with the Hand, a vaguely defined collection of mysterious personalities speaking in vagaries about a mythology that is more nonsensically incoherent than the X-FILES myth-arc. It's completely unclear what their goals are, why those goals are reached through criminality, why Elektra is so critical to those goals and the answers we do get are even more confusing than the questions.

IRON FIST established that there were multiple factions to the Hand with Bakuto being an enemy of Madame Gao; DEFENDERS has them teaming up. IRON FIST declared that there were warring segments of the organization; DEFENDERS has all the players sitting together. DAREDEVIL's second season had the organization supposedly dealt a blow yet they continue to have infinite numbers of disposable ninjas to throw at our heroes. The Hand is an amorphous collection of contradictory incoherence and DEFENDERS has endless scenes of the Hand villains engaging in tedious discussions of nothing.

Elektra is a pathetic villain with the writers consistently having the villains highlight how she hasn't been at all successful against the Defenders to the point of bringing in anonymous henchmen for her to kill to try to establish her sense of threat. Then there's the big reveal -- that the island of Manhattan (which weighs approximately 3 billion tonnes) is built on exactly one dragon skeleton and extracting some vaguely defined substance will cause the island to collapse.

I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, the idea that an entire city is built on such a comparatively tiny structure and no one ever noticed --  or the idea that Elektra is supposed to be dangerous.

There's also the fact that DEFENDERS can't even figure out if the Hand destroyed K'un Lun or not, at times saying they did so, at others saying it was someone else, and later saying they hope to return to the city that was destroyed by either them or others. What!?

The DEFENDERS writers also seem deeply aggravated with the Iron Fist character: Stick calls him the stupidest Iron Fist in history and the series repeatedly ties Danny Rand to a chair or a stretcher and swaps him out with Colleen Young.

For a superhero show, DEFENDERS seemed to consist largely of people sitting around having slow, boring conversations about nothing whatsoever with the action rarely ever capitalizing on Daredevil, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage somehow combining their abilities or working together at all. The series, despite the writers' obvious disdain for IRON FIST, focuses its attention on the Hand and the Hand is terrible. I wasn't the biggest fan of AVENGERS, but I did think it was a good call to give minimal attention to the villains and focus largely on the heroes interacting. DEFENDERS has one big episode of interaction and the other seven don't go to much effort to put them together.

DEFENDERS is generic, dull, slow, deeply uninteresting and for me, a real disappointment.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I actually didn't hate the Elektra character. If the Hand had been taken care of somewhere around episode 2, in some epic battle naturally, and then we see Elektra wake up from the dead as this being who is torn between who she was before and this purpose that she was brought back for, it could have been more interesting. She wouldn't have been a straight-up villain.

But then the question becomes, what do we need Danny, Luke and Jessica for? I don't know. I guess we need random ninjas for them to fight. Or maybe Claire could get tired of stumbling around from one lone hero to the next, and decides that their problems could all be handled more effectively if they joined forces for the big stuff. We could see them fighting less apocalyptic bad guys, as they learn how to work together.

There were good elements. It just seemed more like a vague idea for a series, more than an actual series.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Re: the Infinity War Trailer

If I can play the part of Informant for a little bit, I wonder if Infinity War is a good example of Marvel getting benefit of the doubt that DC doesn't.

Infinity War just released its first trailer, months after debuting a "trailer" at Comic-Con.  Since then, there's been complete radio silence on footage - Marvel didn't release any of it officially, and they kept saying that the trailer "wasn't ready yet."

And we finally get the trailer, and it's....fine?  I was expecting quite the marvel (pun intended) out of this trailer because of the wait the general public got.  But as someone who watched the bootleg copy of the footage, I know there's a lot more that was at least somewhat finished.  And this is a 2-minute trailer that is about 20% logos and 25% a monologue from the first Avengers movie.  Most of the trailer is just recapping who all the heroes are with a lot of Dr. Strange shields and Iron Man looking concerned.

All of this could simply have been the plan all along.  There's no sense of the story, the Guardians being in it was kept as a final shot of the trailer, and almost none of the action pieces were spoiled.  After what happened with Spider-Man: Homecoming's trailers, it's actually a bit of a relief to get as little info as we got.

But for Marvel to have shown as much as they did at Comic-Con as as little as they did here, it does feel a bit like they're withholding the footage.  And if this were a DC movie, I think we'd be asking why that is.  There's been no release date delays, no director chaos, no back-alley rumors that the executives are worried about it.  People loved the Comic-Con footage, the Russo Brothers have made two great movies, and there seems to be a lot of optimism about what's going to happen in the movie.

But I couldn't help but think that, if things were flipped, there'd be a lot more concern.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So... I'm not watching INHUMANS. This isn't a review because I've not seen a single episode and I don't intend to. The reasons why:

INHUMANS was a spite-driven project. Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter was upset over FOX having the rights to X-MEN & FANTASTIC FOUR and FOX rejecting Marvel's wish to get involved in the X-MEN films and share in the profits. Perlmutter wanted an arrangement akin to what Marvel has with Sony to share the SPIDER-MAN rights that the company short-sightedly sold off in the 90s.

FOX rejected this. In response, Perlmutter demanded that (a) Marvel stop promoting the X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR comics and stop producing merchandise and (b) that Marvel shift to using INHUMANS and the Inhumans concept where it would have once used mutants. X-MEN comics sold too well to cease publication, but FANTASTIC FOUR, rarely if ever a strong seller, was cancelled. INHUMANS was pushed forward with Marvel mandated to have people develop superpowers through Terrigenesis making them Inhumans rather than evolution having people born as mutants to develop superpowers.

Marvel Editorial was understandably dismayed and grudgingly went about Perlmutter's mandates. But, naturally, the Inhumans concept has never caught on because a distant royal family of Inhumans who live on the moon in seclusion has never been as relatable as people being born different into a world that hates and fears them. To be a mutant is to be black, gay, awkward, nerdy, lonely, troubled and marginalized. To be an Inhuman is to be part of a royal lineage or, in Marvel TV's continuity, to be exposed to alien technology that taps into your genetic potential. There's no meaningful metaphor there. INHUMANS was promoted and pushed into Marvel Films' docket simply because Perlmutter was upset with FOX and thought the Marvel brand could compete against X-MEN with INHUMANS.

Kevin Feige, the chief creative lead in Marvel Films and Perlmutter's subordinate, thought this ridiculous. No sensible person could expect a general audience to switch their interest from X-MEN to this D-list property with no meaningful themes, no standout characters known to the general public and no cultural impact beyond a small number of comic book readers.

Eventually, Feige engineered Perlmutter's removal from the film division and cancelled the INHUMANS feature film. Perlmutter petulantly ordered that an INHUMANS TV show be produced and its premiere shown in IMAX cineplexes.

At no point was INHUMANS developed, produced or designed because it was an interesting idea with worthwhile characters and a strong creative vision. It was simply a petty grudge. INHUMANS' opening episodes were slapped together by director Roel Reiné who freely admitted he was asked to make it as cheaply and quickly as possible. INHUMANS's showrunner is Scott Buck who led the disastrous IRON FIST mini-series on Netflix. I have no more time for this man's writing.

I have no interest in watching a series made in order to facilitate one man's temper tantrum, especially when its own director has confessed the lack of concern for artistry and craft and when it's led by the worst writer and showrunner to ever script a Marvel live action property. I don't know what the content of the series is, but given that it's a ratings and critical disaster and likelihood of being cancelled, I doubt any future Marvel property will tie into this train wreck or want anything to do with it.

I wasn't too keen on IRON FIST, but I sat through it because it was part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and I didn't want to miss anything. I got through DEFENDERS which wasn't great but not absolutely terrible. I tolerated IRON MAN II and the first CAPTAIN AMERICA movie and I found AVENGERS incredibly dull. It's a shared universe; I'm a fan, I keep up even if I don't always like the content. I am skipping INHUMANS. For all I know, it could be like JUSTICE LEAGUE (most people hated it, I adored it). But even if INHUMANS has somehow become a show I would enjoy, projects fuelled entirely by spite are not worth my time.

If I wanted to watch TV shows driven wholly by pettiness and childish grudges, I'd rewatch Seasons 3 - 5 of SLIDERS.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ah, THE PUNISHER. I liked the Netflix series? Yes, a question mark. Because, to be honest -- I don't think this version of Frank Castle, the Punisher, is actually an adaptation of the comic book character. I think that the producers have very deliberately abandoned the comic book incarnation. In the comics, Castle is an addict with an uncontrollable compulsion to kill; he chooses socially acceptable targets and the comic is a black comedy of the Punisher brutalizing the absolute worst of criminals. In order to avoid alienating the audience, the Punisher's villains must always be sadistic, cruel, horrific monstrosities whose gruesome deaths are applauded by the reader because they're so much worse than Frank Castle. The Punisher is a serial killer.

Writer Garth Ennis pushed this version of the character forward in the 90s, noting that the Punisher's war on crime never seems to stop the criminal underworld and Castle had killed anyone involved in his family's murders years ago, yet he continued his massacre. Where Ennis hinted at the Punisher's psychopathy, Jason Aaron made the Punisher's addiction overt. The Punisher is not a hero.

The TV series is clearly uncomfortable with this. So, to adjust this, DAREDEVIL revealed that Castle has brain damage that causes him to experience his family's murders as though it's in the present tense. THE PUNISHER proceeds to inflate the murder of the Castle family to insanely bloated proportions -- all so that the Punisher's murder spree doesn't come off as a murder spree. Instead, he's pursuing justice for an atrocity. The result is that the Netflix Punisher is a troubled, reasonable, thoughtful military man and all of the comic Castle's disturbing edges have been filed down, making him an uncomplicated hero rather than the crazy, bloodthirsty kill junkie he actually is.

If you can accept that, THE PUNISHER is as good as most of the Netflix shows. There's a lot of random plot elements that don't connect to the main plotline in order to pad out the episode count. There's a lot of characters standing around and talking for an episode. There's a strange lack of action for a 'superhero' show, although when the action does come, it's compelling and exciting. It's a moody, atmospheric series that at times seems over-extended and at times seems needlessly drawn out with unnecessary conversations and characters but is sufficiently entertaining and enjoyable. It's a Netflix Marvel show. But this isn't THE PUNISHER.

I can accept that the true PUNISHER could be a bit too much for a mainstream audience. I can enjoy this version of the character on its own merits, but I do note that for all of the Marvel Netflix's claims of edgy, provocative, challenging content, this PUNISHER series deliberately steers clear of anything controversial.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Dear God, it was such a relief when Daisy showed up on AGENTS OF SHIELD to rescue everyone from the aliens and assure us that we will get through this.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agents of SHIELD is so bizarre this season.  Not bad....just really bizarre.  The space angle and the "end of the world" angle is just a really weird place to go with this show, especially since this could easily be the last season.  Very Fringe, honestly.

And I've finally decided that bringing the MCU to the small screen was a bad idea.  They've done a good job making the universe their own, but I just don't buy that the universes are connected.  The AoS world seems just as different from the world of the Avengers as the Netflix world does.

And I wonder about the "time travel" angle they're going with - I almost would've preferred to send them out to deep space and have them be a part of the Cosmic MCU.  Especially since that's allegedly where things are going in Phase Four.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I see the Fringe comparison, but I think Fringe did it better. AoS has a problem with tone. I'm not sure if the show is supposed to be taken seriously, or if it's supposed to be a campy comedy. Buffy kinda did both, but not many shows pull that off, and with AoS, I'm really not sure how much I'm actually supposed to care about any of this. The characters are poorly developed and the stories aren't well crafted, so I assume that it's supposed to be like a 1980's action series, where we're not supposed to ask too many questions. But that format really doesn't work today, especially on a show where plotlines are drawn out for the entire season.


I watched Punisher!


First of all, I thought that there were 8 episodes when I started watching, so as those 8 episodes were playing out, I was admiring the pace of the show, and their ability to avoid some of the problems that the other shows had because of their episode count. Then I saw that there were 13 episodes... so... yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the show. I just think that these Netflix/Marvel shows would benefit from fewer episodes, or more standalone episodes where the characters are fighting one-off bad guys.

The show's attempt at a secondary bad guy is Lewis Wilson (played by Daniel Webber, whom I've met and worked with. Great guy, so none of the following comments are meant against him personally), a character who does nothing to help the falsehoods and misrepresentations that TV and movies often depict when dealing with soldiers who are suffering from PTSD. I thought this character's story did little to serve the overall series. If you were to remove most of his scenes, I doubt that there would be any significant damage to the show. In fact, his arc's climax leads to one of the weaker parts of the show.

Lewis holds Curtis hostage, which brings Frank out of hiding and this is how he is revealed to the world. Now they know that he is alive, and for some reason, they think that he was responsible for what happened to Curtis. This makes no sense, since Curtis lived and was therefore the only witness to what happened. As such, he would have obviously told the police that Frank *saved* him. And he probably would have spoken with Karen, just for good measure (in case the police chose to cover up Frank's heroics).

Instead, Curtis isn't seen or heard from again until the series has played out.

Lewis is used to show us how much Frank cares about Karen, but I don't think this required as much time in developing the Lewis character as we got.

Billy Russo was another problematic character. The reveal of him being a bad guy wasn't shocking, but it also wasn't well done. There was no attempt made to smooth the lines of who he was and who he now is. There was no attempt to rationalize how Frank's old brother-like friend was now okay with the slaughter Frank's entire family. There was a chance to do some really interesting things with the character and how he could rationalize all of those bad things, or maybe even convince himself that they're not bad at all. Instead, he transformed into a mustache twirling bad guy who occasionally pretends to care about Frank.

For a show a bout guns and skill, the show failed on a lot of technical levels, just to get the story to where the writers wanted it. The use of "silencers" in crowded buildings is a Hollywood trope that is just comedic at this point, and this show is aimed at people who know how suppressors work, so a good part of the audience was probably cringing when the Hollywood silencer showed up. Also, the way the federal agents handled themselves in certain scenes was baffling, but it led to things like Stein's death, which would have been harder to accomplish if they... thought about it. I mean, how did he beat Madani to the confrontation outside when she was directly behind Russo and left Stein behind?

For all of the complaints that I have, I actually didn't hate the show. Frank was a compelling character. I would have loved to have seen more of him hitting the streets and taking out lower-level criminals, but maybe that's what future seasons are for. I think that his relationships on the show were really interesting (aside from the Billy Russo mess). The action was exciting.

Even with too many episodes, I didn't think that the show had as many pacing issues as Jessica Jones or Luke Cage did. And its plot was much more coherent than The Defenders.

My current ranking of the Netflix/Marvel shows, from best to worst:

Daredevil
Punisher
Luke Cage
Jessica Jones
The Defenders





















Luke Cage (I didn't want to be absurd and waste too much space on this board by putting in the full amount of distance between the other shows and Luke Cage)