Whatcha Watchin'?

Multiverse, or time travel (sometimes the same thing in a given genre), are used too often lately as a way to fix things. I honestly hated the use of it in Endgame. There’s several amazing scenes in the movie, but it’s literally the only Marvel movie I’ve never rewatched. I’ve even rewatched Eternals, so yeah…multiverse is sloppy writing too often.

Tony discovering time travel super casually and then it’s just there - there’s literally no problem it can’t solve now. They mention that the Stones have to go back or multiverse happens/worlds end, but only because they are powerful. Everything else? Totally cool. Annoys me as much as the super blood and infinite transporters in New Trek.

4 Likes

I think that can work for what Endgame purported to be though – the end. It becomes more of a problem when things keep going afterward.

That said, I will point out that even the original Star Trek ended up with time travel that they could bust out whenever, and just usually didn’t bother. And sometimes alternate universes like the one where Spock had a goatee.

4 Likes

It was a narrative end for certain characters and storylines but looking at the big picture Disney was using Endgame as a continuation and start for other story threads. Which is reasonable, but just knowing that by the time Endgame rolled out they already had like 10 other movies and TV shows ready to roll is just too much for me.

3 Likes

That’s fair! So of course this is the biggest problem with the MCU movies now – they took dozens of films and built them all up to a final battle involving everyone, had an epilogue for some main characters, but then just kept going. Sure there might still be some fun to have in that setting, but I’m not surprised people have lost enthusiasm for the equivalent of Legolas: the Post-War Adventures.

3 Likes

Yup!

I think phase 4(?) or whatever they planned to try to move on with a new cast of characters, but Disney forgot/chose not to acknowledge that that means they will struggle and some will be less popular. They wanted a new cast and all of them to be instant best sellers.

Infinity War took 10 years of film threads and wove it into a narrative. They tried to replicate that in a year with a dozen TV shows. It was an overload, even for a comic fan. And when it failed, they brought back old people in hopes it worked.

I honestly really hope the Downey Jr as Doom thing is at most a cameo or at best a fake out. Otherwise I don’t feel it works because it can only be another multiverse thing. And if you use the comics as an example, it took Marvel years to make ‘the Maker’ actually work as an Evil Reed. There were multiple failed plot lines.

2 Likes

Honestly Disney should’ve seen the problem coming. The issue with a never ending, interconnected story is less of a problem with comics since there was less risk. Making comics isn’t nearly as expensive and complicated as making movies. But even then people have always had a problem with Marvel and DC because how unwieldy certain story arcs became, requiring people to read many titles simultaneously, and in particular orders. And later they had to do huge storyline/setting resets as the only way to reign in how ridiculous and complicated things had become. There’s been times these resets have worked but overall comic readers end up being pretty frustrated by it all.

We’re seeing this play out with the Marvel movies as well and at this point i just don’t care. And while DC has had its fair share of problems, at least they’re not expecting me to buy into watching a boatload of interconnected movies for the next 5-10 years.

4 Likes

Yeah, but DC had the same problem - they tried to speedrun to Avengers, forgetting that Marvel slowly got there. And also forgetting the many, many failures before.

As a comic fan, I really chuckled at the story arc comment. I’m old, so I remember the massive drama around Zero Hour, when DC changed the villain at the last minute (after all the other comics were out) because the fanbase had correctly guessed/it was leaked who it was. Humorously, the real planned villain went on to be himself in a later comic. And Marvel had the completely planned One More Day/Brand New Day, which they try to never talk about anymore.

Comics can, and do, have completely garbage storylines, although these days they tend to be much more general and forgettable because they are trying to sell the book more than tell a story. Risk is generally not a DC/Marvel thing and you need to go to indie stuff or occasionally Image/Dark Horse for that stuff. But they can fail and it’s not that expensive - whereas if you fail a movie it’s tens of millions gone.

But is that bad? I mean, the Captain America TV movie is a hilarious watch. So is the failed pilots of FF4 and Justice League from the 80’s (JL is so, so bad). Plus even the movie movies are fun failures. Superman IV? Electra? Or, dare I say it, Batnipples anyone?

4 Likes

Yeah, they made their multiverse pretty enjoyable!

They had my favorite spideys… this guy…

And this guy…

7 Likes

Best use of time travel shenanigans in Star Trek…

There were no real shenanigans, though, just (at the time) history and grimness in the early 21st century…

Or sexy, bisexual mirror universe Kira, who thought about making out with herself?

7 Likes

3 Likes

11 Likes

I was just talking about this at lunch today…

Can’t say I agree with his ultimate conclusion entirely about the militarism aspect, though. :thinking: An interesting response in the comments:

This article goes through, uhm, A LOT in its second part. And honestly…going from a number of burned and massacred byelorussian villages on the screen immediately to “This is part of state-mandated Soviet propaganda efforts” is a giant leap and honestly smells of a typical smug and disinterested American perspective on World War 2 which continues to rave about THE GREATEST GENERATION while frequently ignoring or downplaying the monumental contribution of dead and loss of life that occurred on the Eastern Front.
The sheer unfathomable scale and brutality of the fighting, killing and genociding on the Eastern Front and in the Nazi-occupied areas is still on a scale that is so far beyond anything else in recorded history that going over this with “yes but” in like two sentences is frankly offensive. The Nazis did not just commit the Holocaust, they committed multiple genocides, with the genocide against the Slavic population of Eastern Europe actually being the more deadly one. The Nazi’s conduct was uniquely evil and uniquely destructive in a way that can’t be measured up to the dead caused by Mao and Stalin or any other atrocity in history. It’s also why, despite having a visceral hatred for the IDF and the Israeli government, I find the Nazi/Gaza comparison dumb and lazy. It’s equally dumb and lazy to immediately connect this movie with “the global far right” and “the need for militarism in it’s home country”. Are we supposed to chide Ukrainians next for producing content celebrating patriotism and its military?
This text also somehow goes head-scratchingly light on “Apocalypse Now”, which was never ever an anti-war movie in the first place, and also certainly not really an anti-colonial movie.
(Also, are you aware that what we refer to as “Balkanization” resulted from the breakup of Yugoslavia, not the Soviet Union? It’s also simply a misuse of the term, unlike the ethnic tensions and the following atrocities committed by multiple parties in the Balkan Wars, most of the “crisis” in Eastern Ukraine prior to 2014/2022 was completely manufactured and engineered by Putin and his gang of history-obsessed imperialists. As Putin’s former chief goon Igor Girkin himself said, everything was mostly fine in Eastern Ukraine until the Russian saboteurs showed up )

6 Likes

Don’t remember what thread I’ve been sharing these in but I guess this one’s appropriate

David and David
Eat burgers at Bob’s Big Boy
Backwards-talking flesh

7 Likes

One of my favorite things about Discovery is David Cronenberg in the future…

7 Likes

I never realized that’s who that was. Not like I checked though.

Well I’ll be.

6 Likes

IMG_2877

5 Likes

I watched Thunderbolts a couple of nights ago. I saw some of the discussion above about the MCU. The problem I’m having with the MCU right now is that everything is just ok. Thunderbolts was ok. Ironheart was ok. Brave New World was ok. They’re all ok. I personally think talk about superhero burnout or MCU burnout or whatever is missing the issue. When the MCU was new, they were really taking some chances. It’s easy to forget this now, but in 2008, Iron Man was NOT a household name among people who didn’t grow up reading Marvel Comics. He was not a character who had transcended his media and just become a part of the culture like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, the Hulk, or the X-Men. Making an Iron Man movie the starting point for a shared comic film universe was risky. Casting a then still kind of problematic actor trying to rehab his reputation in the lead role in that movie was risky. Making another Hulk movie just a few years after the Ang Lee directed one as the second film was also risky. And the Avengers to tie it all together? At the time, the average movie goer, if they had ever heard of the Avengers thought it was just an old British spy series. Again, it wasn’t a well known superhero team outside of Marvel Comics fans. And even among them, it was behind the X-Men and the Fantastic 4 in popularity and prestige. These were risky films. Guardians of the Galaxy? A sentient tree and a talking raccoon? What the hell was that? It was risky. Those risks mostly paid off, because the scripts were good and the casting was great.

Marvel has stopped taking risks. They also seem like they don’t have a plan. They just keep throwing shit out there hoping something sticks. The next big bad was supposed to be Kang, and then Jonathan Majors fucked that plan up. That certainly didn’t help, but even with him, I don’t know what the plan there was. And they’ve been splitting their efforts between streaming series and films, and it’s all been pretty random and very hit and miss.

I really think they missed an opportunity with Ironheart. I don’t know a lot about the character from the comics, to be honest, but that’s ok. As I pointed out, Iron Man wasn’t exactly a well known character in 2008. They had the freedom with Ironheart to take chances, do something risky, and swing for the fences. And . . . they just didn’t. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t good, either. The Red Hood was interesting, I guess, but I don’t know if having him as the antagonist to Riri Williams really worked. I mean . . . honestly, he just wasn’t that much of a threat to her really. It felt like, I dunno, not a good matchup. And the ending straight up sucked, in my opinion. Thunderbolts had some ok moments. I kinda liked the whole depression metaphor, but I almost wish they had made this more of a cerebral film about that, and ditched all the action stuff, which was mostly boring and stuff we’ve all seen a ton of by this point. I dunno. It was ok. Florence Pugh and David Harbour were great, because of course they were. Everyone else was meh. I have no interest in seeing a New Avengers movie with this manifestation of the New Avengers. None at all.

I don’t know where Marvel goes from here. I hope the F4 movie is good. Maybe they can be the cornerstone of a new generation of films, but I’m not hopeful considering there have been 3 failed F4 movies before. 4 if you include the Roger Corman attempt. Which I kind of think you should. It was only made to keep the rights to the film alive, but that’s the same reason Fox later made the 2015 F4 reboot. Anyway, it seems to be a tough story to adapt to film. I hope this version works.

10 Likes

Is it clear how much of it is Gaiman’s work vs. others? I know he’s the name most associated with it, and a lot of the concepts are ripped off from Tanith Lee, but I’m assuming he didn’t script, plot out and illustrate every panel personally, but as part of an entire team. Isn’t their hard work worth some consideration, or are they assholes too? I may be a little biased as I also saved up for a long while to buy three huge Sandman volumes before any of this became public (and I haven’t even read the third one yet).

It’s the old question of whether you can separate an artist from their work, which I’ve struggled with as a Lovecraft fan. Of course, Lovecraft has the advantage of not having stolen his ideas, not having actually assaulted anyone, and being long dead. I’m all for throwing the Harry Potter books in the trash because Rowling’s a monster, but that’s easy since I never liked them to begin with. Gaiman is probably objectively worse than her in terms of actual harm caused, and I’ve gotten rid of the one novel by him I had, but the comics still give me pause.

3 Likes
5 Likes

I’d keep it. On the other hand, his prose works, specially American Gods are terrible.

3 Likes